The Role of Internal Politics in American Diplomacy

Home , Aristotele Fioravanti, Baccio Pontelli, Bottini of Siena, Cesano (river), Contrada, Diomede Carafa

Francesco di Giorgio and the Formation of the Renaissance Architect

Elizabeth Mays Merrill Evanston, Illinois

B.A., Columbia College, Columbia University, New York, 2007 M.A., History of Art and Architecture, University of Virginia, 2010

A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of Art and Architectural History at the University of Virginia for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

McIntire Department of Art

University of Virginia May, 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...... i Abstract ...... ii Introduction ...... 1 Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1439 – 1501): A chronology ...... 14 Chapter I: Critical Biography of Francesco di Giorgio, Architect of Siena...... 19 Beginnings in Siena: 1439 – 1464...... 22 Early success, Siena: 1464 – 1475 ...... 28 Transfer to Urbino: 1475 – 1482 ...... 35 Political service: Siena, Urbino and Naples (1475 – 1482) ...... 39 “Purveyor” to the Court of Urbino: 1483 – 1487 ...... 44 Communal Architect to Siena: 1488 – 1496 ...... 51 Architect as diplomat: 1488 – 1496 ...... 55 Final years in Siena: 1497 – 1501 ...... 61 Chapter II: Technical Training & the Architect’s Education ...... 70 The Spedale di Santa Maria & the Opera del Duomo ...... 74 Sienese engineering and the bottini ...... 80 Jacopo Mariano Taccola...... 88 Siena’s “school” of architecture and the Codicetto Vaticano ...... 96 Technical training in the Trattato: Francesco di Giorgio’s theory of Disegno ...... 105 Chapter III: The Architect’s Travel ...... 117 Travel for antiquarian study: the Taccuino dei Viaggi ...... 122 Francesco di Giorgio as architect-consultant to Naples (1479 – 1491) ...... 129 Francesco’s “indispensable” service to Naples and the wear of travel (1491 – 1497) 139 Architecture by “remote control” ...... 149 Travel in the Trattato ...... 157 Chapter IV: The Architect as Politician & Entrepreneur ...... 165 Business in the bottega: Francesco di Giorgio’s production of cassoni ...... 168 Contracting for the bottini ...... 174 The Opusculum de’Architectura, self-promotion and indirect politicking ...... 181 The Fonte di Follonica and the Camera del Commune ...... 189 Francesco di Giorgio as bombardier ...... 199 Social and political valences of architecture in the Trattato ...... 210

Chapter V: Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato as “Textbook” & Its Legacy the Development of the Architectural Profession...... 220 The Genesis of the Trattato di Architettura ...... 223 Alberti and the revision of the Trattato di Architettura ...... 231 Copy and dissemination ...... 239 The Trattato di Architettura as textbook...... 248 The legacy of the Trattato di Architettura ...... 257 Conclusion ...... 271 Bibliography ...... 278 Appendix I: Figures ...... 308 List of Figures ...... 308 The Figures ...... 317 Appendix II: Maps ...... 423 Map I: Territory of Siena in the fifteenth-century...... 423 Map II: Locations recorded in Francesco di Giorgio’s Taccuino dei Viaggi ...... 424 Map III: Locations in the Taccuino dei Viaggi in relation to the Roman roads ...... 425 Map IV: Neapolitan fortifications designed or modified by Francesco di Giorgio .... 426

Appendix III: Archival Documents ...... 427

Acknowledgements

In the course of researching and preparing this dissertation, I have accumulated debts to a considerable number of individuals and institutions. First let me thank my advisor Cammy Brothers, who has supported me in every aspect of my graduate studies and has pushed me to pursue ideas and experiences which otherwise I would not have. Paul Barolsky and David Summers have supported this project since its inception, and the critiques, comments and intellectual models they have provided have substantially shaped it in its final form. I wish also to thank Duane Oshiem, who generously helped to improve my translations and offered insightful feedback in the penultimate version of the dissertation. This dissertation also bears the imprint of fruitful discussions I have had with mentors, instructors and colleagues over the past four years, among others, Francesco Benelli, Richard Betts, Bruce Boucher, Horst Bredekamp, Arthur Iorio, Philippa Jackson, Wolfgang Lefèvre, Mauro Mussolin, Arnold Nesselrath, Per Rumberg, Anatole Tchikine, Jennifer Tonkovich, Marvin Trachtenberg, and Matteo Valleriani. Leslie Evans also deserves thanks for the much needed assistance she provided in developing the maps for the dissertation. Numerous archives, museum collections and libraries in the United States, Italy and Germany gave me access to materials which were essential to my project. I am particularly grateful to the librarians and staff at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence; the Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe degli Uffizi, Florence; the Biblioteca Comunale, Siena; the Biblioteca Marciana, Venice; the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Rome; the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich; and the Kunstbibliothek - Staatliche Museen, Berlin. The research I have undertaken in these collections, and elsewhere, would not have been possible without the support of The Max-Planck Institute for the History of Science (Berlin), The Morgan Library & Drawing Institute (New York), the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (University of Virginia), Humboldt Universität (Berlin), Univeristy of Virginia Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the Carl H. and Martha S. Lindner Center for Art History (Univeristy of Virginia), and the Renaissance Society of America. Finally, I am immensely grateful to my family, who have enthusiastically embraced my discovery of Francesco di Giorgio. Without them – their company on tours throughout Italy, their moral and financial support, and their insightful commentary on chapter drafts – this dissertation would be half of what it is.

Abstract

This dissertation examines the prodigious career of the Sienese architect

Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1439 – 1501), and considers the modes of his practice within the broader framework of the emerging early-modern architectural profession. The role of the early-modern architect is a subject of longstanding historical interest, as during this period the character of the building designer remained substantially undefined. Yet, whereas scholars customarily highlight the heterogeneity displayed by Renaissance architects – who followed diverse courses of training and executed a wide range of building commissions – my study draws attention to the skills, design procedures and social networks these practitioners shared in common. Francesco di Giorgio, I argue, is exemplary of the early-modern architect due not only to the breadth of his practice – which extends beyond the modern definition of architecture and challenges our historical understanding of this polysemic concept – but also the degree to which his activities may be examined through primary source documentation. Perhaps even more importantly,

Francesco di Giorgio is a model of the early-modern architect due to his well- documented desire to delineate the nascent profession, an ambition which found a receptive audience in his popular Trattato di Architettura.

Previous scholarship on Francesco di Giorgio has tended to atomize his career – focusing on either his Trattato di Architettura, his work as fortification designer, or his tenure at the court of Urbino. These highly focused studies have created a fragmented vision of the important architect, glossing over crucial aspects of his life because they exhibit no immediate link to his cardinal architectural achievements. This thesis, by contrast, examines Francesco’s career in its entirety, drawing attention to the underlying

iii

conditions which structured his practice, and which in turn linked the many, seemingly disparate components of his professional life. Three conditions which structured

Francesco di Giorgio’s career, and which I argue came to epitomize the profession more broadly, are technical training, travel, and social-political engagement. These three lenses provide not only a formable, objective framework for understanding the complex architect, but also allow us more easily to draw comparisons between his work and that of his contemporaries. Beyond Francesco di Giorgio, this is a study of Renaissance building and design practices, and the development of artistic professionalism. The attention given to the technical nature of early-modern architecture – which often required knowledge of hydraulic engineering, machine design, and defense construction – is particularly noteworthy, as these themes have been substantially neglected in art historical scholarship, despite their central role in early modern practice.

Introduction

In the field of Italian Renaissance Architecture, the ambiguous contours of the early-modern architect continue to elude historians. Assiduous research by preeminent scholars has shown that the early-modern architect lacked a standard course of training and apprenticeship, and that absent an established guild system, the duties and skills demanded of him varied on a case-by-case basis. James Ackerman has characterized the

Renaissance architect as someone apprenticed in painting or sculpture, who distinguished himself in his social and artistic authority, and assumed the title “architetto” as consequence of having been assigned a project in building design, rather than in his exceptional training.1 Leopold Ettlinger, Mary Hollingsworth, Martin Kemp and Marvin

Trachtenberg echo Ackerman on these points, asserting that in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries, architecture was “something almost anyone could turn his hand to.”2

Further, they emphasize that because the title of architect was contingent on active practice – “there was no such thing as an unemployed architect” – the term was loosely applied “to almost everyone involved in the architecture, ranging from patrons to building administrators to foremen […] most grades of stone cutters and even to the suppliers of stone, iron-work and other materials.”3 It has, moreover, been well established that the disadvantages caused by the architect’s unstable position were well-

1 J. Ackerman, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance,” Distance Points. Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991): 362. 2 Here, I am quoting from M. Hollingsworth, “The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence,” Art History 7 (1984): 385. 3See M. Trachtenberg, Building-in-Time: From Giotto to Alberti and Modern Oblivion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010): 106. On the character of the Renaissance architect, see also, L. Ettlinger, “The Emergence of the Italian Architect During the Fifteenth Century,” The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, ed. S. Kostof (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977): 96 – 123; M. Kemp, “From ‘Mimesis’ to ‘Fantasia’: The Quattrocento Vocabulary of Creation, Inspiration and Genius in the Visual Arts,” Viator 8 (1977): 359-360.

recognized among contemporary practitioners. Within the extensive scholarship on

Renaissance architectural commentaries and treatises, one finds repeated references to comments made by Filippo Brunelleschi, Leon Battista Alberti, Antonio Averlino

Filarete, Sebastiano Serlio and Cesare Cesariano, among others, regarding the architect’s lowly status, the gaps in his education and technical training, his lack of significant remuneration, and his inability to execute projects in a timely and efficient manner.4

Yet, there is no doubt that in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries, the men who claimed for themselves the title “architetto” were among the most talented, inventive and ferociously industrious artists of the Renaissance. They were the first to investigate the antiquities of ancient Rome, to develop fortifications that could withstand modern artillery, and to devise the grandiose churches and palaces which, to this day, still induce awe. Thus, despite all of what has been written and said about the Renaissance architect, the essential questions remain unanswered. How did the Renaissance architect learn his trade, and how did this training differ or expand upon that of the painter or cabinet- maker, for example? Beyond this, how did the architect realize his constructions? What

4 Principal scholarship on Italian Renaissance architectural treatises includes: V. Hart and P. Hicks, eds. Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998); and A. Payne, The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance. Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999). On the complaints of Brunelleschi, see F. Prager and G. Scaglia, Brunelleschi: Studies of His Technology and Inventions (Cambridge, MA was: MIT Press, 1970): 125–130; on Alberti’s conception of the architect, see F. Toker, “Alberti’s Ideal Architect: Renaissance – or Gothic?” Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth, ed. A. Morrogh et. al. (Florence: Giunta Barbèra: 1985): 666 – 674, and Trachtenberg 85 – 93. Cesariano’s complaints about “pseudo architects” are cited by W. Lefèvre in his forthcoming article “Architectural Knowledge,” in the forthcoming volume, The Structures of Practical Knowledge, ed. M. Valleriani (Heidelberg: Springer Press, 2015). Serlio’s assertions – that the architect should be “sufficiently knowledgeable” in geometry, and “not be like the many squanderers of stone, plaster and even marble who today bear the title ‘architect’ but do not know how to give a definition of a point, line, a plane or a body, or say what correspondence and harmony are” – are cited by A. Gerbino, “Introduction,” Geometrical Objects: Architecture and the Mathematical Sciences, 1400 – 1800 (Heidelberg: Springer, 2014): 13.

tools – analytical, logistic, mechanical, and epistemic – did he develop and rely on in his everyday practice?

This thesis explores these questions through the career of the Sienese native

Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1439 – 1501). At once painter, sculptor, military strategist, civil engineer, theorist, antiquarian and diplomat, Francesco, like many of his contemporaries, exceeded our contemporary definition of the architect. Yet it is the very breadth of his practice, as well as in the extent to which his activities may be examined through primary source documentation – archival records, numerous built works, and autograph drawings – that makes him so well suited for this study. Perhaps even more important, Francesco is exemplary of the early-modern architect due to his well- documented desire to delineate the nascent profession, an ambition which found a receptive audience in his extraordinarily popular Trattato di Architettura, hundreds of manuscript copies of which survive still today. The architect portrayed in the Trattato closely corresponded to the role Francesco epitomized in his practice. According to this model, it was quite common, and even expected, that the architect would be able to survey a building site, build bridges, compose a harmonically proportioned church, and devise horrifying war machines. Yet, this is not to say that everyone who could do these things was an architect. The true architect brought to this polysemic artistic work managerial ability, an eye for form and measure, diplomatic talent, entrepreneurial savvy and enormous social authority. As Francesco di Giorgio aptly demonstrated, architecture was certainly not “something almost anyone could turn his hand to.”

Examining Francesco di Giorgio, therefore, and by extension the character of the

Renaissance architect, we must forego our contemporary conception of the architect, and

instead, define the early-modern architect according to his demonstrated practice. This begins with understanding the extensive scope of artistic and technical skills demanded of the early-modern architect, knowledge and abilities which categorically distinguished him from his more singularly focused peers. The architect we know today, whose specialized training differentiates him from the antiquarian, building-surveyor, defense engineer, interior decorator, city planner, and hydrologist, was non-existent in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries. The early-modern architect was all of these things, and although individuals tended to specialize, all architects possessed the same essential artistic and mechanical skills. Beyond this, almost all architects of the Renaissance followed the same essential design processes, made use of the same materials, and oriented their practice within the same underlying social, economic and political systems.

It was the common recognition and commitment to this shared framework, coupled with the pervasive humanist desire to establish intellectual and artistic occupations as distinct professions, which spurred the professionalization of architecture in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries. There is no question that architects of the early-modern period, like practitioners in various other disciplines, consciously cultivated a professional mentality, increasingly emphasizing in writing and published works their signature identity and skill set.5

Within the history of Italian Renaissance architecture, however, this culture of professionalism, and the shared aspects of building design to which it relates, are rarely studied. Since Giorgio Vasari, scholars have primarily thought about early-modern

5 D. Biow, Doctors, Ambassadors, Secretaries: Humanism and Professions in Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002): 1 – 6. Also, G. McClure, The Culture of Profession in Late- Renaissance Italy (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004).

architecture in terms of the individual practitioners, projects, patrons and constructions which left the most enduring marks. As noted by scholars such as Nicholas Adams and

Marvin Trachtenberg, the history of architecture tends to gloss over the fact that architecture itself is inherently a collaborative undertaking.6 However, when we consider the architect’s individual accomplishments within the context of a greater body of applied knowledge and a shared system of design principles, we find that the practice of early- modern architecture was not as arbitrary or unstructured as previously thought. Although within this study Francesco di Giorgio takes center stage – thus admittedly adhering to the predominant monographic trend of architectural history – as demonstrated here, every aspect of his work was built upon collaboration. Francesco di Giorgio was remarkable in his extraordinary energy, intelligence and productivity, but the principles by which he practiced were in themselves unexceptional.

Previous scholarship on Francesco di Giorgio has tended to atomize his career according to an anachronistic conception of early-modern architecture. Reluctant to digest Francesco’s career in its entirety, historians of architecture have focused on the individual components of his practice which most clearly correspond to modern conceptions of building and building-design, most notably, his tenure as “court architect” in Urbino, and his theories on building proportions and columnar orders.7 By contrast, other crucial aspects of Francesco’s career – for example, the political role he filled in

Siena, his production of wedding chests, or his involvement in armament production –

6 N. Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco, a Renaissance Estimator from Siena,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 48 (1985): 384. Trachtenberg’s theory of “building-in-time” posits that early-modern buildings were harmoniously designed over generations, through the collaboration of many architects and builders. See Trachtenberg op cit. 7 The last comprehensive study on Francesco di Giorgio was that of A.S. Weller, Francesco di Giorgio 1439 – 1501 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943).

have been glossed over because they exhibit no immediate link to his cardinal

“architectural” achievements. This doctoral thesis aims to redirect this history by adopting a broader scope to the architect’s activities. Considering Francesco di Giorgio’s career in it’s entirely, the following study calls attention to the underlying conditions which structured his practice, and which in turn linked the many, seemingly disparate components of his professional life. Three conditions that structured Francesco di

Giorgio’s career, and which I argue came to epitomize the profession more broadly, are technical training, travel, and social-political engagement. These three lenses provide an objective framework for understanding the complex architect, and allow us more easily to draw comparisons between his work and that of his contemporaries.

The core of this thesis details the conditions of technical training, travel, and social-political engagement, with one chapter devoted to each, “Chapter II: Technical

Training and the Architect’s Education,” “Chapter III: The Architect’s Travel,” and

“Chapter IV: The Architect as Politician and Entrepreneur.” The material of these three chapters is bookended by two additional sections (Chapters I and V), which are intended to provide a greater historical framework for understanding Francesco di Giorgio’s career, the period in which he lived, and his legacy. The first is a biography, built largely upon archival documentation, which offers essential background information on the architect’s life, and the events and figures which shaped it. The final chapter examines

Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura as a type of architectural textbook, and its enormous legacy in fifteenth- and sixteenth-century architecture. My approach, guided by primary source materials, synthesizes information provided in archival documents,

autograph drawings and surviving built works, together with literary analysis of the

Trattato di Architettura and contextual analysis based on cultural and scientific history.

Chapter I, a biographic narrative of the life and career of Francesco di Giorgio

Martini, is the first of its kind. Within the historiography of Italian Renaissance

Architecture – which begins with Giorgio Vasari’s Le Vite de’ Più Eccellenti Pittori,

Scultori e Architettori – the accomplishments of Francesco di Giorgio have been largely overlooked. Vasari’s biography on Francesco is regrettably short, and despite its laudatory prose, is imprecise and inaccurate, and fails to convey the prolific career of the

Sienese native.8 In the nineteenth-century, Carlo Promis and Antonio Pantanelli brought much needed attention to Francesco – Promis in his 1841 edition of the Trattato di

Architettura, the first ever printed, and Pantanelli in his pocket-sized Francesco di

Giorgio Martini. Pittore, Scultore e Architetto Senese del secolo XV (1870). But colored by nationalist agenda and omitting important projects, neither work may be considered definitive.9 Subsequent publications by Allen Stuart Weller (1943) and Roberto Papini

(1946) significantly enriched our understanding of the Sienese polymath, in particular

Weller’s Francesco di Giorgio 1439 – 1501, which includes an extensive catalog of archival records relating to Francesco’s career.10 But in terms of really understanding the architect, and the shape his career took in relation to the social, economic, artistic, and

8 See G. Vasari, “Francesco di Giorgio and Lorenzo Vecchietto,” Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects, vol. 1, trans. G.C. de Vere (New York: Everyman’s Library, 1996): 464 – 466. 9 C. Promis, Trattato di architettura civile e militare di Francesco di Giorgio Martini: architetto senese del secolo XV, ora per la prima volta pubblicato per curia del cavaliere Cesare Saluzzo, con dissertazioni e note per servire alla storia militare italiana (Turin: Tip. Chirio e Mina, 1841); and A. Pantanelli, Francesco di Giorigo Martini. Pittore, Scultore e Architetto Senese del secolo XV e dell’arte de’suoi tempi in Siena (Siena: Ignazio Gati, editore, 1870). Although never printed, Ettore Romagnoli’s biographic sketch of Francesco di Giorgio in his Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800 (1835) is also of great significance. 10 See Weller op. cit., and R. Papini, Francesco di Giorgio Architetto (Florence: Electa Editrice, 1946).

political forces of his day, these studies, as with those published in the major exhibition catalogs Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena, 1450 – 1500 (1993), Francesco di Giorgio Architetto (1994) and Francesco di Giorgio alle Corte di Federico da

Montefeltro (2004), again fall short.11 The overview of his life provided here does not claim to be definitive, but paired with the preceding chronology, aims to elucidate the life and character of the architect whose enormous energy, talent and industry, has previously eluded a concise, yet comprehensive, historical review.

Chapter II, “Technical Training and the Architect’s Education,” focuses on

Francesco di Giorgio’s early career in Siena, the foundational period between roughly

1460 and 1475 during which he evolved from workshop apprentice to expert architect, and which, remarkably, has been substantially overlooked by scholars. Principal studies on Francesco di Giorgio begin in the mid-1470s, with the architect’s arrival in Urbino.

Yet as shown in the drawings of Francesco’s pocket-sized volume of mechanical designs

– the Codicetto Vaticano (c. 1460 – 1475) – and in the complementary practical knowledge to which they relate, Francesco already had undertaken an extensive course of technical training by the time he transferred to the ducal court. It was during the 1460s that, following his apprenticeship under Lorenzo di Pietro “il Vecchietta,” he collaborated on building projects within Siena’s principal artistic workshop, the Opera del Duomo, learned hydraulic engineering working in the city’s aqueducts, studied machine design in the treatises of Jacopo Mariano Taccola, and initiated his career as armaments specialist and fortification designer.

11 L. Bellosi, F.P. Fiore and M. Tafuri, eds. Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500 (Milan: Electa, 1993); F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri, eds. Francesco di Giorgio Architetto (Milan: Electa, 1994); F.P. Fiore, Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001 (Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004).

The technical training which provided the foundation for Francesco’s career, although of greater intensity in his years of apprenticeship, was by no means limited to his youth. Rather, it was a definitive component of his life work, a commitment required of any practicing architect. The abilities Francesco honed in draftsmanship in

Vecchietta’s workshop, for example, were sequentially developed in different applications throughout his career – from cartographic surveys, to the design of fortifications, to the illustration of theoretical concepts. As stipulated by Francesco in his

Trattato di Architettura, drawing (disegno) was of absolute importance for the architect – the intellectual, creative and technical process by which he developed, communicated and realized his ideas. The final section of Chapter II discusses Francesco’s theory of disegno in relation to his conception of architecture as a mathematically-based, intellectual discipline. Francesco di Giorgio wrote his Trattato di Architettura with the practitioner in mind, and the theory it elaborates was dependent upon and reinforced by his practice. Thus, rather than treating the theory in isolation, here, as in the other chapters, material from the Trattato is examined for what it reveals about the architect’s work and experiences.

Francesco di Giorgio’s reliance on disegno provides the basis for the investigations of Chapter III on “The Architect’s Travel” as well. The discussion here opens with an analysis of Francesco’s travel drawings of Roman antiquities, the so-called

Taccuino dei Viaggi (c. 1485 – 1490) in which disegno functioned as a mnemonic device and investigatory tool. The cursory Taccuino sketches allow us to trace the architect’s process of antiquarian study, both physically – in terms of the routes he took – and intellectually – in the manner in which he examined the ruins, and the elements he chose

to record. As emphasized here, the travel recorded in the Taccuino was not the architect’s casual pastime, but was an intrinsic component of his training and creative development. Beyond this, it was something that he undertook under the pressure of multiple compulsions. In order to gain new patronage and job opportunities, to survey building sites, examine materials, consult on developing projects, or serve as a diplomat or in battle, the early-modern architect traveled. As Francesco underscored in his Trattato di Architettura, and as discussed here, the architect’s empirical knowledge, gained through on-site practice and implicitly requiring travel, was of utmost importance. In order to know, the architect had to discover for himself through on-site exploration, testing, and first-hand engagement with the natural world.

The greater part of Chapter III explores Francesco di Giorgio’s itinerant position as defense-consultant in the Kingdom of Naples. In the last two decades of the fifteenth- century, the Sienese architect was involved in the development of dozens of Aragonese defenses throughout the expansive southern kingdom, work which was accomplished through a system of “remote-control” design administration. This mode of practice, although seldom discussed by scholars, was central to early-modern architecture, and demanded that the architect work quickly, develop adoptable building designs based on functional and structurally sound construction principles, and effectively communicate these designs through drawings and models.

The itinerant and diplomatic role Francesco di Giorgio filled as Neapolitan defense consultant may also be related to the political and entrepreneurial component of the architect’s practice, the subject of Chapter IV. Due to the diffusely defined contours of early-modern architecture, unstable employment opportunities and inherently public

nature of his work, the practicing architect was fundamentally a political animal.

Francesco’s career in Siena was from the start forged by his favorable social- and political-position in the State. His precocious ascent in the Opera del Duomo and appointment as operaio dei bottini was likely related to his father’s ties in the government, and every stage of his later career – from his transition to the court of

Urbino in the mid-1470s, to his collaboration with the city’s oligarchic leaders in mining developments and armaments production in the final decade of the Quattrocento – may be regarded as the product of his astute political maneuvering. Beyond this, in his role as military adviser and defense expert – to Urbino, Naples, and Siena – Francesco was a political player of the highest rank. In regards to the role of the early-modern architect, this work is significant not only in regards to the development of modern warfare and defensive architecture, but it also has implications regarding the architect’s training and the manner in which he conceived building projects, as well as generative economic and social forces that spurred early-modern design innovations.

The final chapter of this study, “Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato as ‘Textbook’ & its Legacy in the Development of the Architectural Profession,” builds on the previous discussions of Francesco’s theory, as related to technical training, travel and social- political engagement. Yet, whereas attention before was given to the relationship between the architect’s theory and his demonstrated practice, the discussion here explores

Francesco’s intentions for the tract, and the function it ultimately came to fill. Francesco di Giorgio, I argue, conceived the Trattato di Architettura as a manual for the aspiring architect, and his credence in the project is reflected not only in the enormous time he dedicated to writing and re-writing the tract between roughly 1475 and 1495, but also in

his conscientious efforts to circulate the treatise and to inculcate student-architects with his conception of architect. Careful examination of the dozens of manuscript copies of the

Trattato offers clues as to how the book was reproduced, by whom and for whom. These manuscripts also allow us to trace the dissemination of Francesco’s theory, and the appropriation of his ideas by subsequent generations of architects. Although Francesco’s conception of architecture was in no way definitive, his vision for the architect had great resonance with practitioners. In the late fifteenth-century, the Trattato was a standard reference manual for building designers, and as debates on the architectural profession continued into the sixteenth-century, it served as a model for a handful of new, practically-oriented treatises. This is exemplified in the tracts of Sienese natives

Baldassare Peruzzi and Pietro Cataneo, both of whom, like Francesco, invested in architectural education and set out to compose architectural texts, as well as those of

Galeazzo Alessi, Bernardo Puccini, and Buonauito Lorini.

In addition to the five chapters which constitute the body of this study, there are three appendices. The first and second contain illustrations and maps referenced in the dissertation. The third appendix contains an extensive register of over two-hundred primary documents relating to Francesco di Giorgio’s life and career. Although the majority of these have been previously published, the register provided here is the only comprehensive, up-to-date record of the documents. Moreover, as previously cited or reproduced, many of the documents were only partially transcribed, and in some instances, were recorded with notable errors with respect to their file number or date. For all documents conserved within the Archivio di Stato, Siena, transcriptions, dates and file numbers have been confirmed, and when necessary, amended. In addition, English

synopses are given for all documents, and in some instances, full translations. The municipal records of Siena – tax records, job contracts, payment receipts, diplomatic correspondence, final testaments and communal decrees – are the most telling records of

Francesco di Giorgio’s career, and the social environment in which he operated. But perhaps even more important, the documents offer insights into the ways early-modern architects conceived, developed and communicated their projects; the role they took vis-

à-vis patrons and political leaders; the degree to which they were reliant on collaborators; and the extent to which, as working professionals, they maintained in contact with one another, regardless of geographical and political boundaries.

Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1439 – 1501): A chronology

Date Event

1439, September 23 Francesco Maurizio di Giorgio di Martino, son of Giorgio Martino del Viva, a public official of reasonable means, is baptized in Siena 1450s Francesco di Giorgio receives primary education and serves as apprentice to Lorenzo di Pietro “il Vecchietta” 1460 – 1475 Period in which Francesco composes his Codicetto of mechanical designs 1464, November 26 Payment receipt for a relief of St. John the Baptist confirms that Francesco had established his own workshop by this date 1467, November 13 Record of marriage contract between Francesco di Giorgio and Cristofana of Cristofano di Compagnatico

1469, January 26 Marriage contract between Francesco di Giorgio and Agnese de’ Landi dal Poggio, daughter of Antonio di Benedetto Neroccio of Siena 1469, April 28 Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea are appointed for the three-year term of operai dei bottini late-1460s Francesco di Giorgio forms a partnership with Neroccio di Bartolomeo de’ Landi in the art of painting 1470 – 1472 Francesco di Giorgio is active at the Santa Maria della Scala, where he completes painted works and reconstructs the soffit of the Spedale church 1472, July 3 Francesco di Giorgio purchases a house in the district of San Martino in Siena

1472, October 17 Leonardo di Pietro di Antonio of Montemassi is said to owe Francesco di Giorgio 200 lire, most likely in regards to a real- estate transaction in Massa Marittima 1472, October 27 Francesco di Giorgio purchases a house in the district of San Giovanni in Siena 1474, April 21 Contract regarding Francesco di Giorgio’s purchase of house in Siena in the district of San Giovanni

1475 – 1476 Francesco di Giorgio composes his Opusculum de’Architectura and presents it to Duke Federico da Montefeltro 1476, June 20 Francesco di Giorgio sells a plot of cultivated land in Massa Marittima for 758 lire

1476 – 1478 Francesco di Giorgio oversees development of the Rocca of San Leo 1477, May 17 Francesco di Giorgio is appointed by Federico da Montefeltro, Duke of Urbino, as director of work at the castle of Costacciaro near Gubbio 1477, August – 1482 Francesco di Giorgio serves Duke Federico da Montefeltro as aide-de-campe; during the Tuscan War (1478 – 1480) he assists in the battle of Castellina (July 26 – August 18, 1478) and the siege of Poggio Imperiale (spring 1479) 1478 – 1479 Payment receipts confirm Francesco di Giorgio service to the Duke of Calabria, Alfonso II 1478 – 1479 Approximate period Francesco started work on version one of his Trattato di Architettura 1478 – 1480 Francesco oversees the development of the northern side of the Palazzo Ducale, Urbino, and formulates building-plans for the Urbino Duomo, the convent of Santa Chiara, and church of San Bernardino 1478 – 1486 Francesco di Giorgio oversees the design and development of the fortifications of Cagli, Sassofeltrio, Tavoleto, Serra Sant’Abbondio, and Fossombrone 1483 – 1484 On behalf of Pope Sixtus IV (della Rovere), Francesco consults on the design of the castle of Civitavecchia, and commences work on fortifications at Mondavio and Mondolfo for Sixtus’ nephew, Giovanni della Rovere 1483, September Francesco di Giorgio is accused of having conspired with Sienese rebels against the resurgent Monte del Popolo government and is exiled from the commune. 1484 Approximate date of completition of Trattato I

1484, June Neapolitan chronicler names Francesco di Giorgio as chief designer of the new wall circuit around Naples 1484 – 1485 Francesco develops the plan of the church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio in Cortona

1485 – 1487 Francesco di Giorgio is involved in construction of bridges within the contado of Siena, including those at Maciareto and Mersa 1485, December The Balìa of Siena asks Francesco to repatriate to Siena to serve as communal architect 1486, February Francesco travels to Jesi to develops a design for the city’s new communal Palace 1486, November Francesco purchases a farm house in the vicinity of Urbino at Villa Rancitelle

1487, July – February Francesco advises the Sienese on the territorial dispute 1488 between Chianciano and Montepulciano, and the commune’s fortifications in the region 1487, November Paolo Salvetti and Francesco survey the coastal fortifications of the Sienese territory 1488 – 1494 Approximate period in which Francesco revised his Trattato di Architettura, completing version two 1489, January Francesco di Giorgio repatriates to Siena

1489, January and Francesco joins in partnership with Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo February Vannoccio Biringuccio and Paolo Salvetti to develop foundry works in Siena 1489, May Francesco is recorded on site at the castle of Manfredonia (Puglia) 1489, June and July Work on Francesco’s bronze angels for the Siena Duomo is underway 1490, June and July Francesco di Giorgio advises on the tribunal of the Duomo of Milan, and with Leonardo da Vinci, surveys the Duomo of Pavia 1490, August and Upon the request of Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, Francesco September return to Urbino “to give perfection to some buildings” 1490, November Francesco advises Gentile Virginio Orsini on fortifications within this domain 1491, January Francesco participates in the competition for the façade design of the Duomo of Florence 1491, February – May Francesco di Giorgio in service of Duke of Calabria Alfonso II in the Abruzzi

1491, August Francesco advises on the fortifications of Lucca

1491, November Francesco di Giorgio purchases an estate in San Giorgio a Papaiano 1491 – 1498 Throughout this period, Francesco di Giorgio, in collaboration with Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, Angelo Benassai, Pandolfo Petrucci, and Giorgio Vieri oversees the reconstruction of the Sienese fortresses at Sesta Berardenga and Cerreto 1492, March Guidobaldo da Montefeltro requests Francesco di Giorgio’s services in Urbino ten or fifteen days 1492, April – Francesco di Giorgio is in Naples, assisting in the development December of fortifications in Puglia (Otranto, Brindisi, Taranto, Gallipoli, Carovigno, Monte Sant’Angelo, Massafra and Manfredonia), Calabria (Crotone, Reggio Calabria, Castrovillari) and in the Abruzzi (Bracciano, Ortona, Scurcola, Taglicozzo and Vasto) 1493, March The Duke of Calabria requests that Francesco return to Naples, but the architect refuses to travel; he remains in Siena for the remainder of the year 1493, September and Francesco di Giorgio is listed among the twenty-two residents October of the commune’s Supreme Magistrate 1493, December In Montepulciano, Francesco advises on plans regarding the boundary dispute between Siena and Florence 1494, March Francesco returns to Naples to advise on the kingdom’s defenses 1495, January In Naples, Francesco di Giorgio is crucial in preparing the city for the French invasion of Charles VIII of France 1495, November Francesco orchestrates the detonation of a subterranean mine under the Castel Nuovo, Naples, which by expelling the French, allowed the Aragonese to reclaim control of their kingdom 1497, January - Francesco di Giorgio returns to Siena and is appointed February overseer of the fortification and military camp at Montepulciano

1497, March King Federico of Naples requests that Francesco return to the kingdom to resume his work on the city’s defenses; within the same month, Francesco is informed that his role has been assumed by Antonio Marchese 1499, April Francesco di Giorgio is in Urbino, where he advises on a fortification related to the incursions of Cesare Borgia

1499, January Francesco di Giorgio is named operaio del Duomo in Siena

1501, June Payment receipt confirms that Francesco di Giorgio was among the Sienese who served Cesare Borgia during his siege of Piombino 1500 Francesco di Giorgio is in Loreto, where he consults on the city’s cupola, defenses and aqueducts 1501, November 29 Death of Francesco di Giorgio

Chapter I: Critical Biography of Francesco di Giorgio, Architect of Siena

The long, diverse career of Francesco di Giorgio Martini (1439 – 1501) – painter, sculptor, military strategist, treatise writer, antiquarian, machine designer and architect – presents a challenge for a writing a condensed biography. The following account, therefore, makes no claim to be comprehensive. Rather, it intends to provide a framework for understanding Francesco di Giorgio and the many forces – political, social, artistic and economic – which shaped his career. Although he filled many roles, it is argued that he was first and foremost an architect, and that even among fifteenth-century’s most exceptional architects, he was distinguished by his multifaceted talents and rich professional life. The narrative which follows, therefore, concerns not just “architecture” per se, but also the principal events and developments in the life of an architect- practitioner. As it is to serve as a reference to the dissertation more broadly, the historical episodes expounded upon are those which provide the context for the subsequent chapters.

But before turning to the biography, it is essential to speak briefly on the historical sources, methods and assumptions which structure its narrative. The surviving documentary record on Francesco di Giorgio is extensive, especially when compared to that of his fifteenth-century contemporaries. In addition to the architect’s surviving built works, there are nearly three-hundred archival records concerning his life and career, as well as numerous autograph drawings, and over one-hundred fifteenth- and sixteenth- century manuscript copies of his Trattato de Architettura. But all the same, there are major gaps. To begin with, almost all of the extant structures attributed to Francesco di

Giorgio – in Abruzzi, Calabria, the Marches, Puglia, Tuscany, and Umbria – have

suffered substantial damage or have been largely reconstructed. In addition, the fact that most of these works were collaborative in nature, and lack solid, documentary attribution, poses significant methodological challenges to the historian who uses them. In terms of archival documentation, the vast majority of records which survive are conserved in the

Archivio di Stato di Siena and pertain to Francesco di Giorgio’s activities in the Sienese commune between 1460 and 1500. There is very little concerning his work in Urbino and Naples, due to the destruction of these archives, and although the contemporary chronicles of Giovanni Santi and Susech da Casteldurante, in regards to Urbino, and of

Giovanni Antonio Acello, Joanpiero Leostello and Ferraiolo, pertaining to Naples, provide clues as to Francesco’s involvement in these two courts, the overall lack of documentation presents substantial lacunae in the historical record. 1 The work he executed in Urbino and Naples – which includes the construction of approximately one- hundred-fifty structures in total – thus remains in large part historical conjecture.2

Finally, in regards to Francesco di Giorgio’s written works, the sizeable inventory of manuscript copies of his Trattato di Architettura has both enriched and complicated our

1The Urbino archive was destroyed in the early-nineteenth-century, under the direction of Napoleon Bonaparte. The Neapolitan chancellery registers suffered substantial damages during the insurrections of 1647 and 1701, and almost all remaining registers were destroyed during the bombings of World War II. Archival research completed prior to the War has preserved transcriptions of some records from the fifteenth and sixteenth-centuries. On the destruction of the Neapolitan and Urbino archives, see J. Bentley, Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987): 49; and C.H. Clough, “Sources for the economic history of the duchy of Urbino, 1474 – 1508,” Manuscript (1966): 11- 13. On the chronicle of Santi see G. Santi, La Vita a le gesta di Federico di Montefeltro, Duca d’Urbino: poema in terza rima (Codice Vat. Ottob. lat. 1305), 2 vols., ed L. M. Tocci (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1985). For Susech, see C.H. Clough, “La Familia del Duca Guidobaldo da Montefeltro ed Il Cortegiano,” ‘Familia’ del principe e famiglia aristocratica, Papers of a conference, vol 2. (Rome: Biblioteca del Cinquecento, 1988): 335 – 347. The chronicle of Ferraiolo is held in a manuscript copy at the Morgan Library and Museum, New York (ms. M.801). For a transcription, see Ferraiolo, Cronaca, ed. R. Coluccia (Florence: Presso L’Accademia della Crusca, 1987). 2 In his Trattato di Architettura, Francesco di Giorgio claims to have produced one-hundred-thirty buildings in Urbino. To these we might add the twenty-two plus fortifications traditionally attributed to him within the Kingdom of Naples. See N. Adams, “L’architettura militare di Francesco di Giorgio,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, eds. F.P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994): 144.

understanding of the important tract. Without question, the Trattato has received more attention from scholars than any other aspect of Francesco’s oeuvre, yet without a definitive, autograph “original” it has proved impossible to date the treatise or to outline a definitive chronology of its development.

It is with these inherent limitations that the modern scholar approaches the extraordinary life of Francesco di Giorgio, which is saturated with facts and events, yet at the same time lacks a single, dominant narrative. In keeping with the extant archival record, the following biography is largely Sienese in its focus. This bias, however, is consistent with the documented history. Even when Francesco worked outside Siena, he always remained in contact with his native city, and there is no reason to believe that he ever intended to permanently relocate outside his patria. Francesco’s loyalty to Siena corresponds with the political nature of his work and the largely public role he filled – themes which resonate throughout this biography. For some, this political focus might seem alarming, and yet to excise the early-modern architect from the politically charged environment in which he worked – an environment characterized by near-continuous warfare, plots of assassination, and all-too frequent governmental coups – is to neglect the crucial forces which shaped his career. Francesco di Giorgio was political animal by sheer necessity: as a Sienese citizen, he was an active participant in the commune’s government; as fortification designer and military consultant, he was privy to Siena’s defensive secrets, as well as those of Italy’s most powerful domains; as businessman he served as ambassador, relying information and negotiating settlements with foreign authorities; and as artist he acted as state-representative, winning prestigious commissions and acclaim for his homeland. Any biographical sketch of Francesco di

Giorgio, must take into account the greater social and political context of fifteenth- century Italy.

Beginnings in Siena: 1439 – 1464

Francesco Maurizio di Giorgio di Martino was baptized in Siena on September

23, 1439. His father, Giorgio Martino del Viva, was a public official of good repute and had the means to purchase several properties in Siena and the surrounding countryside

(contado).3 Giorgio Martini’s service within the Biccherna (1468 – 1469 and 1471), the commune’s financial office, gave him access to the leading figures within the Sienese community and placed him in a position to promote his son’s career.4 It was likely not by chance, therefore, that it was during Giorgio Martini’s tenure in the Biccherna that

Francesco di Giorgio received his first major civic commissions. Most notable among these was his appointment as operaio dei bottini, overseeing of Siena’s extensive system of aqueducts, a position which not only confirmed his credentials as an engineer, but also established him as a significant figure within the Sienese political networks.

The details of Francesco di Giorgio’s training and education are uncertain, however, careful examination of the surviving documentary material, autograph drawings and circumstantial evidence, allows us to reconstruct his early years. As the son of a well- regarded civil servant, Francesco was likely encouraged at a young age to pursue a primary education directed toward professional goals. He would have learned reading, writing, grammar and rudimentary Latin before age ten, and in his early teens, would

3 See document #2 (1453) recording Giorgio Martino’s assets. 4 Paolo Galluzzi suggests that Francesco di Giorgio’s beginning in the Sienese artistic workshops was favored by his father, who due to his social position, was able to help Francesco gain contact with authoritative figures and obtain public commissions. See P. Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi. Ricerca antiquaria, spirito di innovazione e cultura del territorio,” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena del Rinascimento, ed. P. Galluzzi (Milan: Electa, 1991): 31.

have likely received three or four additional years of education within a scuola d’abaco – an elementary commercial school which taught practical arithmetic and geometry.5

According to custom, Francesco would have begun his artistic training around the same time he was enrolled in the scuola d’abaco. Although lacking full documentation, scholars unanimously agree that Francesco apprenticed under Lorenzo di Pietro “il

Vecchietta” (1410 – 1489), whose workshop was the most prominent and progressive in mid-fifteenth century Siena. Archival records confirm that Francesco and Vecchietta maintained a strong relationship into the 1470s, and the careers of the two show many pronounced parallels. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the history of Francesco di

Giorgio as architect begins with that of his primary teacher and mentor.

Among his peers, Vecchietta was distinguished – not only because he ran one of

Siena’s most successful workshops, but also because in the breadth and scope of his practice, he was unrivaled. Although native to Siena, Vecchietta spent his youth elsewhere, first training under Masolino in Florence and then taking commissions in

Rome, Milan and Venice. When he returned home at age twenty-nine, he was recognized for his advanced cultural outlook – his use of linear perspective, classical motifs, and idealized architectural backdrops – and almost immediately, garnered respect not only within Siena’s artistic community, but also from the city’s elite.6 His major early

5 For a general discussion on Renaissance abaco education see P. F. Grendler, Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning, 1300 – 1600 (Baltimore, 1989): 3 – 36; 74 - 78. On the tradition of abaco education in Siena see R. Franci and L. Toti Rigatelli, Introduzione all’Aritmetica Mercantile del Medioevo e del Rinascimento (Urbino: Quatto Venti, 1982): 29 – 33; and P. Denley, Teachers and schools in Siena, 1357 – 1500 (Siena: Betti, 2007): 40 – 43. 6 F. Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007): 111; H. van Os, Studies in Early Tuscan Painting (London: The Pindar Press, 1992): 40. The discussion of Vecchietta’s painted architecture is discussed by C. Bertelli, “A Tale of Two Cities: Siena and Venice,” The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo, ed. H. Millon and M. Lampugnani (London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1994): 380 – 392.

commissions included monumental fresco cycles in the Spedale di Santa Maria della

Scala, Siena’s hospital and welfare institution (1440s); decoration of the vaults of the

Siena Baptistery (1450 – 1453); and marble sculptures of Saints Paul and Peter for the

Loggia Mercanzia (1458 – 1462). Vecchietta was also among Pope Pius II’s favored artists. Distinguished in his artistic excellence, as well as in his erudition and sense of individuality, he epitomized the classical ideal of the learned, polymath artist which the humanist pope so revered.7

Vecchietta structured his bottega like a business, taking in dozens of apprentices to assist in his production of panel paintings, miniatures, frescoes, wood, marble and bronze sculpture. Francesco di Giorgio was undoubtedly among the most notable of his assistants. He probably entered the workshop around 1450, when he was between ten and twelve years old, and as was standard, would have remained for at least a decade. In fact, the first record of Francesco as an independent artist dates to 1464, around the time he would have completed his apprenticeship.8 Within Vecchietta’s polyvalent workshop,

Francesco trained in disegno – categorically regarded as the basis and fundamental skill for all arts in the Renaissance – copying and assimilating his master’s style to assist in the execution of pictorial, sculptural and architectural projects.9 Operations within the bottega were never routine. Not only did Vecchietta move between workshops and

7 G. Vigni, Lorenzo di Pietro detto il Vecchietta (Florence: Sansoni, 1937): 64; and C.B. Strehlke, “Vecchietta” Painting in Renaissance Siena, 1420 – 1550, ed. K. Christiansen, L. Kanter and C. B. Strelhke (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988): 81 – 82, 258 – 259. Os 41 – 42.Certainly, Vecchietta recognized the commercial value of his artistic versatility. An ardent self-promoter, he advertised himself as “Vecchietta sculptor,” on painting while labeling himself “pictoris” on sculpted works. 8 See document #5 (November 26, 1464). On the artistic apprenticeships in the Italian Renaissance see F. Ames-Lewis, The Intellectual Life of the Early Renaissance Artist (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000): 35. 9 Galluzzi 30. On Vecchietta’s workshop, and the degree to which his assistances adopted his artistic style, see Os 435 – 436.

assignments, taking a range of jobs as opportunity and necessity required, but as was customary in the fifteenth-century, he frequently invited foreign artists to collaborate or assist on specific projects.10 The plasticity of this environment, and the significant degree to which Vecchietta’s activities blended with that of the city’s principal workshop, the

Opera del Duomo or literally “Cathedral Works,” meant that the young Francesco di

Giorgio was exposed to a wide range of specialists.11 As an apprentice, he would have had the opportunity to work alongside Sano di Pietro, Antonio Federighi and Donatello, whose work is echoed in Francesco’s early paintings, sculptures and bronzes.12

During this formative period, Francesco di Giorgio also may have had contact with the elderly Mariano di Jacopo Taccola (1382 –1453/1458). Taccola, who called himself the “Archimedes of Siena,” was active as a sculptor in the Opera del Duomo, filled positions as academic administrator, communal estimator, and superintendent of

Siena roads, and composed two remarkable tracts of machinery and engines. Although

Francesco’s relation with Taccola is not formally documented, his reverence for the elder artist is evidenced in his pocket-sized Codicetto (c. 1460 – 1475), in which he meticulously copied text and illustrations from the master’s treatises. From Taccola

Francesco took not only machine designs, but also absorbed the inventor’s approach to design and education. Beyond this, following Taccola’s model, he dedicated himself to

10 A. Chastel, The Studios and Styles of the Renaissance Italy 1460 – 1500, trans. J. Griffin. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1966): xi, xiii. 11 The city of Siena and the Opera del Duomo were closely connected. The city funded the operations of the cathedral, while the cathedral often functioned as a de facto public works department, providing builders and engineers for urban projects. 12 See M. Mussini, ed. Francesco di Giorgio e Vitruvio. Le traduzioni del “De architectura” nei codici Zichy, Spencer 129 e Magliabechiano II.I.141, 2 vols. (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2003): 32 – 36; A. Bagnoli, “Donatello e Siena,” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500, ed. L. Bellosi (Milan: Electa, 1993): 162 – 169. The practice of artists moving between workshops to work on different projects and a broad base of experience is also discussed by A. Thomas, The Painter’s practice in Renaissance Tuscany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995): 67.

the study of antiquity, and devoted years of his life to the composition of a treatise on architecture.

Francesco di Giorgio’s development as an artists and architect was also shaped by the social and political events of mid-fifteenth-century Siena. Although too young to be politically involved in communal affairs, Francesco was undoubtedly aware of the developments taking place in the 15,000-person city: visits of foreign dignitaries, including Pope Eugenius IV (1443) and Emperor Frederick II (1452); legislative measures which encouraged emigration and economic growth, and mandated the improvement of the city’s streets and facades; and a political uprising which resulted in the exile and execution of hundreds of citizens (1456).13 The election of Sienese native

Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini as Pope Pius II in 1458 was also of enormous import. In the six years of Pius II’s papacy, the city of Siena hosted his extensive retinue for two extended visits, and organized as least twenty-six special events in his honor.14 The pope’s presence in this period would have been particularly momentous for those individuals involved in the decorative arts or building. In preparation for the papal visits, the city renovated palaces, decorated streets, and cleaned and repaired the urban fountains. Moreover, Pius II left a permanent mark on the city with the construction of

13 Population estimate for Siena c. 1460 taken from L. Martines, Power and Imagination. City-States in Renaissance Italy (Lonodn: Pimlico, 2002), as cited by P. Balchin, Urban Development in Renaissance Italy (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2008): 188. On the economic and politic character of the city in period c. 1440 – 1460 see C. Shaw, Popular Government and Oligarchy in Renaissance Italy (Leiden: Brill, 2006): 8, 16 - 17; Nevola, Siena. Constructing the Renaissance City 93 – 101. 14 The first papal visit extended February – April 1459, and the second visit was from January – June 1460. The papal retinue included Pius II and his immediate staff of advisors, as well as numerous cardinals and their aides. On the great impact the papal visits had on the city, see F. Nevola, “Ritual Geography: Housing the Papal Court of Pius II Piccolomini in Siena (1459 – 60),” Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena, ed. P. Jackson and Nevola (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006): 64 – 88.

two monumental edifices: the Loggia Piccolomini (c. 1460 – 1462) and the Palazzo

Papesse (from 1459).

The Loggia Piccolomini and the Palazzo Papesse, originally part of an even greater building scheme, dramatically altered the urban fabric of Siena. Not only were they substantial in scale, overwhelming the adjacent streets and palazzi, but their distinct, classical style – quite different from the traditional mode of building practiced in Siena – initiated a new era of local architecture. In the years immediately following Pius II’s construction of the Loggia and Palazzo Piccolomini, other members of the Sienese elite – including Ambrogio Spannocchi, Andrea Piccolomini Todeschini, Antonio Bichi and

Jacopo Petrucci – followed suit, building their palaces with the same fashionable, classicizing forms.15 But for local builders and architects, the impact of the projects was even more immediate. In the relatively condensed, four-year period (1460 – 1464), Pius

II poured huge sums of money into the two Siena constructions, as well as the family palace, church and administrative buildings of his native Corisgnano, which was re- christened Pienza.16 These projects monopolized the commune’s work forces and placed great strain on the existing social systems.17 There were so many jobs – for architects, artists, carpenters, masons and government officials – that the city began to aggressively recruit outside workers. Tax records from 1462 show that a total of 1,898 non-Sienese were then working in various capacities connected to the building trade.18 Although there

15 Nevola, Siena. Constructing the Renaissance City 178 – 183. 16 Ibid 70 – 71, 74 – 75. 17 N. Adams, “The construction of Pienza (1459 - 1464) and the consequences of renovatio,” Urban life in the Renaissance, ed. S. Zimmerman and R. F. E. Weissman (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1989): 59. 18 This influx of immigrant workers, as well as the accompanying demands for food and housing, and the strains of the obtrusive worksites and ever-present labor crews, was undoubtedly felt throughout the small city. See Nevola, Siena. Constructing the Renaissance City 95 – 96, and D. Balestracci, “La Corporazione

is no documentation of Francesco di Giorgio’s involvement in the Piccolomini projects,

Giorgio Vasari specious attribution to him of the entire Pienza design might at the very least suggest his involvement. At the very least, the ambitious young artist would have been highly attuned to their development, and as a rising star in Vecchietta’s bottega, undoubtedly benefitted from the pope’s patronage.19 Along with his master, Francesco was quite possibly involved on-site in Pienza, and may have been one of the artists to benefit from the Pope’s nepotism in Rome.20

Early success, Siena: 1464 – 1475

Francesco di Giorgio’s earliest documented commission as an independent artist dates to November 14, 1464, on which day he received twelve lire from the Compagnia di San Giovanni della Morte for a relief sculpture of Saint John the Baptist.21 The document indicates that the payment was collected by an assistant, a certain “Mariano detto Bigonzo,” on Francesco’s behalf. This small detail indicates that by 1464

Francesco di Giorgio had at least a small workshop, and that he was busy enough to send a garzone to collect his payments, rather than take time out of his day to do this himself.

Additional works attributed to Francesco from the early 1460s evidence the polyvalent character of his workshop. Along with sculptural works, he produced painted marriage

dei Muratori dal XIII al XVI Secolo,” Il Coloro della Città: Siena, ed. M. Boldrini (Siena: Protagon Editori Toscani, 1993): 30. 19 Vasari 465. The favorable exposure Francesco received as assistant to Vecchietta is discussed by M. Quast, “Il linguaggio di Francesco di Giorgio nell’ambito dell’architettura dei palazzi senesi,” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegnointernazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001, ed. F.P. Fiore (Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004): 407 20 On Pius’ II nepotism and artistic patronage in Siena, R. Hilary, “The Nepotism of Pope Pius II. 1458 – 1464,” The Catholic Historical Review 64 (1978): 33 – 35; T. Patetta, “Pio II: Committenze e Scelte nelle arti figurative tra Siena e Roma,” Pio II Umanista Europeo. Atti del XVII Convegno Internazionale (Chianciano-Pienza 18 – 21 luglio 2005), ed. L. S. Tarugi (Florence: Franco Cesati Editore, 2007): 795 – 814. 21 See document #5 (November 26, 1464).

chests (cassoni), small devotional images, bespoke altarpieces, frescos, stucco panels and bronze works. 22 Following Vecchietta’s model, Francesco structured his bottega as a business, relying heavily on collaborators and apprentices to assist in the shop’s extensive production. Also like Vecchietta, Francesco understood that careful social and political positioning was essential for success. That the principal commissions he received within his first decade as an independent artist were awarded by the commune’s preeminent institutions – the Opera dell’Duomo and Spedale Santa Maria della Scala – speaks directly to his favorable political and social position within the city.

In an effort to further organize and structure his growing workshop, Francesco entered into a partnership “in the art of painting” with Neroccio de’ Bartolomeo Landi around 1469.23 Neroccio de’ Bartolomeo (1447 – 1500), best known for his prolific production of Madonna and Child panels, was also apprenticed under Vecchietta, and like

Francesco was skilled as a sculptor and technician.24 Considering Francesco’s previous success and seniority – Neroccio was just twenty-two in 1469 – we should assume that the elder artist initiated the partnership as a means to delegate a substantial portion of his standard commissions. This allowed him to devote to more time to architecture, a field in which, not incidentally, he made his first substantial inroad in April 1469, when he was appointed to the joint position of operaio dei bottini. The prestigious and lucrative post

22 For complete catalogue of works attributed to Francesco from the period 1464 – 1470 see, Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena (1993). 23 In document #49 (July 6, 1475), regarding the legal dissolution of the partnership, Francesco and Neroccio were said to have shared a “societatis quam simul habuerunt in arte pictoria.” 24 L.B. Kanter, “Francesco di Giorgio” Painting in Renaissance Siena (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988): 316. The two artists likely divided a working space and maintained two independent workshops, but collaborated on a handful of projects and shared the costs and profits of production. On the characterization of the partnership as one “in the art of painting, see document #49 (July 6, 1475). For biography of Neroccio, see G. Fattorini, “Neroccio de’ Bartolomeo Landi (Siena 1447 – 1500),” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City, ed. L. Syson (London: National Gallery, 2007): 355.

required a significant time commitment, and although this was Francesco’s first documented appointment in building design, we must assume he had prior training in building mechanics and hydraulic engineering. The bottini were Siena’s principal source of water, and the position of operaio was of commensurate importance. Along with his partner, Paolo d’Andrea, Francesco was responsible for managing the maintenance of the city’s fountains and extensive network of underground aqueducts. The team was also contracted to build new channels and to increase the flow of water into the city’s hallmark Fonte Gaia by one-third.25

The highly political position of operaio dei bottini, coupled with the success of his thriving workshop, opened the door to additional projects. Along with Lotto di

Domenico, Francesco executed a new coffered ceiling for the Spedale church of S.S.

Annunziata (June 1470 – October 1471).26 He also completed a fresco of the Coronation of the Virgin for the same church, and composed a map of Monte Vasone, likely in regards to a dispute over the boundary between Sienese and Florentine domains.27 Within this period, it seems he began his collaboration with Giacomo Cozzarelli (1435 – 1515), with whom he would remain affiliated throughout his life. Cozzarelli likely assisted

Francesco in developing the design for the church of San Bernardino all’Osservanza in

Siena (1474), and in 1477, if not earlier, followed the architect to the court of Urbino. In final decade of the fifteenth-century, Francesco and Cozzarelli collaborated on several

25 See document #11 (April 28, 1469). Little is known about Paolo d’Andrea outside his collaboration with Francesco. Between December 1462 and March 1463, he and Antonio di Giusi were named “painters in the piazza Piccolomini” and paid for the painting and gilding of a three-part curtain. See M. Butzek, Die Kirchen von Siena: Der Dom S. Maria Assunta, vol. 3, part 1 (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1985): 158. 26 On Francesco’s collaboration with Lotto di Domenico see documents #17 – 31 (June 9, 1470 – October 30, 1471). 27 See document #21 (October 25, 1470) on the execution of the map of Monte Vasone, and undated documents #31 and 32 (1471) on the Coronation fresco.

bronze works for the Duomo of Siena, and even after the former’s death, Cozzarelli was responsible for executing the unfinished components of this work.28

Francesco di Giorgio’s partnerships in this period – with Neroccio de’

Bartolomeo Landi, Paolo d’Andrea, Lotto di Domenico and Giacomo Cozzarelli – should be understood within the context of his rapidly expanding artistic empire. In each of these professional affiliations Francesco was the principal. Although there is no record of

Francesco designing civic or religious constructions at this date, by 1470, he had already gained many of the essential skills of a mature architect. He had proven himself as an artist, building designer and technician, and was also recognized as a cultural authority who had the managerial skill to oversee numerous ongoing projects. Moreover, by the early 1470s, he appears to have been well along in developing a theoretical and humanistic knowledge of architecture. This involved a translation of Vitruvius’ De

Architectura and the examination of Roman antiquities. It is even possible that by this time he was already developing the scheme for his Trattato de’ Architettura.29 Thus, contrary to scholars’ oft-repeated assertion that Francesco di Giorgio rapidly

“transformed” into an architect upon his transfer to Urbino (c. 1475), in fact, he was in many respects already the model architect before he even left Siena.30

28 Carlo Sisi, “Giacomo Cozzarelli (Siena, 1435 – 1515),” Domenico Beccafumi e il suo tempo (Milan: Electa, 1990): 540. Giorgio Vasari also notes Cozzarelli’s association with Francesco di Giorgio. See Vasari 465. 29 Mussini viii – ix. 30 Here, I am reacting to statements made in the following articles: F. Benelli, “Diversification of knowledge. Military architecture as a political tool in the Renaissance. The case of Francesco di Giorgio Martini,” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 57/58 (2010): 140-155; S. Bettini, “Intorno a Francesco di Giorgio: un codice di machine civili e military della collezione Santini,” Some degree of happiness. Studi di storia dell’architettura in onore di Howard Burns (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2010) 69 – 87; and H. Burns, “‘Restaurator delle ruyne antiche’: Tradizione e studio dell’antico nell’attività di Francesco di Giorgio,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, ed. F P. Fiore (Milan: Electa, 1994): 151 – 181.

The success Francesco enjoyed during his early Sienese career was marked not only by his many, prominent commissions, but also in his elevated social and economic status. Although it is difficult to know his exact income, documentation related to the dowry payments of his sequential wives, the salary he earned as operaio dei bottini, and his real-estate purchases, indicates that his monetary resources were not insignificant. In

December 1468 Francesco married Agnese de’ Landi dal Poggio member of an established, office-holding Sienese family, and cousin of Francesco’s partner Neroccio de’ Bartolomeo Landi.31 Francesco’s first wife Cristofana had died in 1467, less than two-years after their marriage, and it is possible that his marriage to Agnese was in some way connected to his partnership with Neroccio. Agnese’s dowry – approximately 300 florins – was that of an affluent Sienese woman, and was a third larger than the dowry brought by Cristofana.32 Within the first year of marriage, the couple had their first child.

By 1481, Francesco was able to dolefully report that he had “five daughters, [the eldest] one is twelve years old, and a six-month old son, and a pregnant wife.”33 In total, the couple would have at least nine children, although it is not clear how many lived to adulthood.34

Although Francesco was undoubtedly apprehensive about having to provide dowries for his five daughters, his net income must have amounted to a considerable sum.

31 Nevola, “Lost of Napkins and a Few Surprises: Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s House, Goods, and Social Standing in Late-Fifteenth-Century Siena,” Annali di architettura 18 –19 (2006 – 2007): 76. 32 Multiple documents survive concerning Agnese’s dowry, making it difficult to discern the exact amount. On January 26, 1469 (document #10), Francesco di Giorgio declared to have received 300 florins of the dowry of Agnese. In 1473, following the death of Agnese’s father and sister, the couple inherited an additional 400 lire of credit in the public debt (Monte), which was considered to be a supplement to the original dowry (see document #41). D. Hicks gives the average dowry of an affluent woman as 400 florins (or 1600 lire, using the Sienese Lira scale of 1 florin = 4 lire). See D. Hicks, “Sources of Wealth in Renaissance Siena: Businessmen and landowners,” Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria 93 (1986): 38 – 40. 33 See documents #84 and 85. Also Nevola, “Lots of Napkins and a Few Surprises” 80, note 22. 34 Nevola, “Lots of Napkins and a Few Surprises” 73.

Certainly, it was more than the 500 lire he declared in his 1481 tax report (denunzie di beni) – an amount which may have included tax deductions he received on account of his daughters.35 In addition to the profits he received from his workshop, and the independent commissions he earned from Santa Maria della Scala, by 1469 he was also receiving salary payments as operaio dei bottini. His annual salary as operaio was about 27 florins

– an amount equivalent to slightly more than a soldier’s yearly wages – was certainly not a prodigious sum, but would have provided a nice boost to his total income.36 The extent of this income becomes increasingly clear when one considers the architect’s real estate transactions in the years 1472 – 1476. According to notarial accounts, Francesco purchased a house in Siena’s district of San Martino for 125 florins in July 1472, and three months later, acquired a residence in the affluent neighborhood of San Giovanni for

250 florins. The close succession of the purchases is remarkable, and may have represented a step up in the architect’s social ambitions.37 His resolve to settle in the comparably wealthy Sienese district was further attested to in April 1474, when he acquired a property adjacent to the San Giovanni residence for fifty florins.38 As given by

David Hicks, a “plain but dignified casa” in fifteenth-century Siena was worth 600 lire,

35 See document #85. The Lira was Siena’s direct tax on real and personal property. This did not include an income tax. 36 According to the official documents, the operaio was to receive a yearly salary of 100 lire (or 25 florins). See F. Bargagli-Petrucci, Le Fonti di Siena e i Loro Aquedotti. Note storici dalla origini fino al MDLV, vol. 1 (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1906): 97 – 98. The itemized report of Francesco and Paolo d’Andrea’s tenure as operai dei bottini (document #42, June 23, 1473), indicates that they received a joint salary of 432 lire (item 29). In addition, items 8 and 9 indicate that they received an additional 199 lire, 20 soldi for cleaning the fountains, making their total salary 632 lire. At the exchange rate of 1 florin to 4 lire, they each received approximately 79 florins. This meant that per year, Francesco received a salary of 26 florins, 24 soldi. Writing in 1480, a Florentine estimated that a man could live a “civilized” life at about 14 florins per year. On average Renaissance salaries, see M. Hollingsworth, Patronage in Renaissance Italy (London: John Murrary, 1994): xi. Also, Hicks 40 – 41. 37 Nevola, “Lots of Napkins and a Few Surprises” 72. 38 See documents #36, 38, and 44 (July 3, 1472, October 27, 1472, April 21, 1474), and undated Lira declaration of 1481 (document #84). At least part of the 1474 property purchase was intended to be rented out as a magazzino.

while a grand palazzo could cost as much as 6,000 lire. Francesco’s residence on the piazza San Giovanni cost approximately 1,200 lire (300 florins), considerably more than a merely “dignified” house. Moreover, according to a survey of Lira tax records from this period, Francesco’s real estate holdings alone, valued at 425 florins (or 1,700 lire), would have placed him in a substantially higher economic bracket than his artisan peers, whose households were frequently worth around 50 florins.39

Previously overlooked notarial records also indicate that Francesco di Giorgio owned properties outside of the city center, and that by the mid-1470s he was possibly involved in mining activities around Massa Marittima (Map I). Located approximately one-hundred-forty kilometers from Siena, Massa Marittima, or Montemassi, was a center of Sienese mining and industry in the fifteenth-century. Francesco’s involvement in the region is first documented in a record of 1472, which states that a certain Leonardo di

Pietro from Montemassi owed him 200 lire. Although the account is not itemized, it does note that Leonardo di Pietro’s guarantor was the governor of Montemassi. The architect’s presence in Montemassi is again documented in an account of June 20, 1476, which records that he sold “one of his pieces of land, partially vined and partially cultivated with olive groves” (“unam ipsius Francisci petiam terre partim vineate et partim laborative et olivate”) in the region to Galgnano di Meo Moni for 758 lire.40 From these documents, therefore, it is almost certain that Francesco, like many of his more prosperous Sienese contemporaries, owned property in the contado, which he maintained and cultivated as a secondary source of steady income.41 Moreover, considering the

39 See Hicks 12 – 16, 25. 40 See documents #37 and 52 (October 17, 1472 and June 20, 1476). 41 On Sienese land-holding in the countryside (contado), see Hicks 33.

intense mining activity in the region, and Francesco’s work in metallurgy, it is possible that his investment in Montemassi extended to industrial mining. As will be seen,

Francesco di Giorgio’s interest in mining constituted an important component of his work in the 1490s.

Transfer to Urbino: 1475 – 1482

On July 6, 1475, with Vecchietta and Sano di Pietro serving as witnesses,

Francesco di Giorgio and Neroccio de’Landi formally dissolved their partnership. Shortly thereafter, Francesco relocated to Urbino, where he assumed the position of court architect under Duke Federico da Montefeltro. The transition marked a pivotal point in

Francesco di Giorgio’s career. Moving beyond the confines of the small Tuscan city – where by age thirty he had already succeeded in winning the most prestigious commissions – he became the chief architect and aide to Europe’s most powerful and wealthy condottiere. The appointment was a reflection of his enormous talents, and gave him entrée to countless new opportunities. In his Cronaca rimata, Giovanni Santi dedicated a long passage to the architect, which is worth quoting in its entirety, as it is among the few primary-source documents concerning Francesco’s position in Urbino.

Indeed, the count [Federico] pursued a lofty vision [plan] with every advancing hour, and when he heard of gifted minds he drew them near. So, because his [Francesco’s] resounding fame already coursed about like a cloud soaring through the skies, and because he excelled among others, being endowed with exceptional talents [virtù], from Siena he [Federico] called master Francesco, to whom the heavens were not unkind. So many were his talents that the truth, as I recite here may seem to flatter. For he was not only an admirable architect, but the best of [project] planners, and a master of ornamental design. Skilled, speedy, and lofty as a painter, he was also a renovator of ancient architecture, able to imagine [or invent] the appearance of lost monuments from their ruins. And he was graced with a clear gift for the conception of arcane machines, a pursuit in which human efforts alone are of no avail. Of his great inventiveness for war engines I shall not speak; but know that he won more praise in this than any other. The creative power of his stories [istorie] cast in bronze shows he could do anything with ease;

these are well composed and of superior design. In short, what seemed impossible for others to achieve came so naturally to him that I was truly filled with wonder. These abilities [virtù] impressed themselves upon the Count’s heart with the immediacy of an imprint taken on warm wax; so that having drawn him near [to Urbino], with clear and devoted admiration [amore], he [Federico] made him lord of all the other master craftsmen.42

Indeed, as given by Santi, Francesco was one of Italy’s most “admirable” and

“exceptional” architects, and had already achieved “resounding fame” when he arrived in Urbino. Yet, a closer reading of the encomium reveals some anachronisms, which somewhat alter our understanding of the architect’s position in Urbino, and how it evolved during his time there. It is imperative to know that Santi composed his Cronaca around 1490, nearly a decade following Federico da Montefeltro’s death, with the primary objective of glorifying the late-duke. To this end, he freely adjusted the duke’s biography, emphasizing his many accomplishments, and often diminishing those of his collaborators or aides.43 Recruiting Francesco di Giorgio to Urbino – who by the time

Santi wrote the Cronaca was widely regarded as one of Italy’s most distinguished architects – would have been counted among the duke’s noteworthy achievements. Yet, when Francesco arrived in Urbino in the mid-1470s at just over age thirty-five, it is not clear he already displayed the many “exceptional talents” described by Santi. While the

Sienese architect was by then well-regarded within Tuscany, known for his work as an artist and technician, and proven in his administrative abilities, he had yet to achieve monumental fame. His reputation as one of Italy’s most innovative and learned architects

42 Santi, vol. 2, 418 – 419. 43 G. Carducci discusses Santi’s tendency to modify history in favor of Duke Montefeltro in his “Ciro Ciri da Casteldurante ed il suo preteso intervento nella costruzione dei castelli aragonesi di Terra d’Otranto,” Scritti di storia pugliese in onore di mons. Carmine Maci, ed. M. Paone (Galatina: Editrice Salentina, 1994): 75 – 80.

would coalesce during his tenure in Urbino, when he not only managed all building works within the Montefeltro domain, but also intensified his study of antiquity, and composed, edited and re-wrote his Trattato di Architettura (c. 1475 – 1495).

Contrary to Santi’s account, Francesco di Giorgio earned a position in Urbino because he petitioned for it.44 The autograph Opusculum de’Architectura, an eighty-leaf vellum codex of mechanical designs, served as the architect’s professional portfolio.45 In its Latin dedication, composed around 1475, Francesco likened “the renowned Prince

Federico, Duke of Urbino” to Alexander of Macedonia, and asked that he accept the

“little book of architecture,” and find pleasure and utility in the many inventions it contained. The duke accepted the Opusculum, and its author, and in the following years, the two formed a close bond. Speaking of Federico da Montefeltro in his Trattato de’

Architettura, Francesco wrote that the duke loved him “tenderly as a son,” and was unsurpassed in his intelligence, kindness and humanity.46 The duke and his architect also shared an interest in antiquity, and together endeavored to translate Vitruvius’ De

Architectura.47 The first version of Francesco’s Trattato (c. 1478 – 1481), which draws heavily upon De Architectura, as well as Taccola’s De Ingeneis, was born out of this initial study. The duke’s great admiration for Francesco is most tellingly revealed in the letters he sent to Siena’s lords (signoria), in which he referred to Francesco as “the

44 In the early sixteenth-century chronicle of Susech, which records the members of Federico da Montefeltro’s court, Francesco is included with four other individuals under the heading “Ingegnieri et Architetti.” The list includes: “Magistro Luciano Schiavone,” “Magistro Francesco da Siena,” “Magistro Pippo Fiorentino,” “Frà Carnevale,” “Scirro da Casteldurante.” “Magistro Luciano” is Luciano Laurana. It is uncertain to whom “Magister Pippo” refers. See L. Fontebuoni, “La famiglia del Conte e poi Duca Federico da Montefeltro,” Il Palazzo di Federico da Montefeltro, vol. 1, ed M. L. Polichetti (Urbino: Quattroventi, 1985): 376. 45 British Museum Library, Ms. 197.b.21 46 Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Trattati di architettura ingegneria e arte militare, vol. 2, ed. C. Maltese (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1967): 427. Hereafter cited as Martini, Trattato. 47 Ibid 295.

distinguished master” and “my most beloved architect.” In a letter of July 26, 1480, he praises Francesco’s “ingenuity, goodness, prudence and virtue” and asks that he be officially appointed as the Sienese ambassador to Urbino. The duke then reassures the

Sienese of Francesco’s loyalty – both to Urbino and his native city.48

Federico da Montefeltro’s great faith in Francesco di Giorgio, as displayed in these letters, was built upon their collaboration in the preceding years.49 The documents indicate that by 1477 Francesco was well established within the duke’s familiarus. In

May of that year, he was named director of works at the castle of Costacciaro, responsible for the castle’s design and construction, charged with overseeing the decoration of a great hall in the Palazzo Ducale of Gubbio, and on behalf of the duke’s

“brother,” Ottaviano Ubaldini, he brokered an agreement regarding a property in the

Commune of Gubbio.50 Francesco’s relationship with Ottaviano Ubaldini, the so-called

“second prince” of Umbria, was crucial in his gaining these commissions, as in fact it was Ottaviano, not Federico, who oversaw the majority of building in the Montefeltro domains.51 Thus, it is possible that it was Ottaviano who first “discovered” Francesco, employing him around 1475 to design his new fortified palace at Sassocorvaro, the plan of which was included in the architect’s Codicetto of mechanical designs (Figs. I.1 &

I.2).52 In the years that followed, Francesco developed plans for additional fortifications

48 See documents #63, 64, 78 and 81 (July 25 and 28, 1478; July 26, 1480; and June 21, 1481). 49 Francesco Paolo Fiore emphasizes that Francesco must have already been in service to Federico da Montefeltro for several years prior to 1477. See F. P. Fiore, “L’architettura civile di Francesco di Giorgio,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, ed. F. P. Fiore and M. (Milan: Electa, 1994): 75. 50 See documents #54 – 56 (May 1477). For a history of Ottaviano Ubaldini, see L. Tocci, “Federico di Montefeltro e Ottaviano Ubaldini della Carda,” vol. 1, Federico di Montefeltro. Lo Stato. Le Arti. La Cultura, 3 vols. (Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1986): 297 – 344. 51 Tocci 320- 321. 52 F. Mariano, Francesco di Giorgio. La Practica Militare. Un’Ipotesi Attributiva per la ‘Cittadella Simbolica’ di S. Costanzo (Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti, 1989): 14 – 15.

within the Montefeltro domain – at San Leo (1476 – 1478), Cagli (1478 – 1482),

Sassofeltrio (1478 – 1482), Tavoleto (1478 – 1486), Serra Sant’Abbondio (1478 – 1486), and Fossombrone (c.1480) – while also managing the large team of workers involved in the construction and decoration of the Palazzo Ducale in Urbino (Figs. I.3 & I.4).53 He oversaw the development of the northern side of the palace, including the extensive hydraulic system under the hanging garden, all’antica bath complex, one-hundred horse stables, subterranean ice-house, and helical stair ramp linking the Piazza Mercatale to the

Ducal apartments. He also formulated the design for the convent of Santa Chiara in

Urbino – where construction might have commenced as early as 1476 – as well as that for the Urbino Duomo and the church of San Bernardino (Fig. I.5).54

Political service: Siena, Urbino and Naples (1475 – 1482)

Just as Federico da Montefeltro had pledged, Francesco di Giorgio remained loyal to Siena following his transfer to Urbino. In the summer of 1476 he was asked to consult on the development of the Bruna River Dam, Siena’s unprecedented scheme to impound a lake near Montemassi for the harvesting of fish.55 The next year, on November 8,

Francesco submitted a petition requesting permission to construct a bridge between his two homes on piazza San Giovanni in Siena. In his letter, the architect notes that, although he was in the service of the Duke of Urbino, he still considered himself a citizen

53 See Adams, “L’architettura militare di Francesco di Giorgio” 128. 54 F. P. Fiore, “Il Palazzo Ducale di Urbino. Seconda metà del XV secolo e sgg.,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, ed. F.P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994): 169 – 172; and F. P. Fiore, “Francesco di Giorgio e il monastero di Santa Chiara in Urbino,” Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’architettura, 44 – 50 (2004 – 2007): 119 – 128. 55 Document #53 (July 25, 1476). For analysis of this document see P. Galluzzi, Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento da Brunelleschi a Leonardo da Vinci (Florence: Giunti, 1996): 37. On the Bruna Dam see N. Adams, “Architecture for Fish: the Sienese dam on the Bruna River. Structures and Design, 1468 – 1530,” Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 769 – 773.

of Siena and hoped to return with his family in the future.56 The signoria, happy to keep

Francesco di Giorgio tied to Siena, quickly approved the petition, and within two weeks the project was underway.57

Yet, Francesco di Giorgio’s involvement in Siena in this period extended beyond personal or civic loyalties. As earlier in his career, he was driven by social and political ambitions. The bronze portrait medals he cast for the Sienese elite Ambrogio Spannocchi de’ Piccolomini, Francesca Borghesi and Borghese Borghesi (c. 1478 – 1479) testify to the high esteem in which he was held by the city’s leading families. Beyond this, the small, portable and highly durable objects give testimony to his advanced learning. Using text and image, the discs commemorated the individual in a manner which directly related him to the philosophical and spiritual foundations of classical antiquity. In turn,

Francesco was also distinguished, for having received commissions from such illustrious figures and for having the ability to memorialize them in such an erudite manner.58

Not surprisingly, Francesco’s ascendance among Siena’s elite also corresponded to his burgeoning political career. In 1480 he was named to the Consiglio del Popolo,

Siena’s main legislative assembly. Membership to the Consiglio was considered a great honor, and Francesco’s appointment brought him that much closer to the ruling class.59

The records show around the same time he joined the Consiglio, the Sienese architect began to forge alliances with members of the Monte dei Nove. The Monte dei Nove was

56 See document #59 (November 8, 1477). 57 See documents #60 and 61 (November 22 and 25, 1477). 58 S. K. Scher, The Currency of Fame: Portrait Medals of the Renaissance (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1994): 13 –15. Also, R. Bartalini, “Francesco di Giorgio. 18: Medaglia di Ambrogio Spannocchi de’ Piccolomini, prima del 1478,” and “Francesco di Giorgio. 71: Medaglia di Borghese Boghesi, 1479,” in Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500, ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1993): 160 – 161; 358. 59 See documents #78 and 79 (July 26 and July 30, 1480).

not only the wealthiest of Siena’s five political factions (monti) – which included the

Gentiluomini, Dodici, Riformatori, and Monte del Popolo – but also the most belligerent.60 Since the mid-fifteenth-century, the Nove had sought to take control of

Siena, and with the military support of the Kingdom of Naples, staged coups in 1456 and

1480, and succeeded in overthrowing the Sienese government in July 1487. The plot of

1480 was one in which Francesco di Giorgio was undoubtedly closely involved. Before addressing this internecine conflict, however, it is essential to review the greater political events that occupied Siena, and much of Italy, in this period.61

In autumn 1478, in the aftermath of the failed Pazzi Conspiracy of the previous

April, Federico da Montefeltro, chief military general of the Papal troops, joined Duke of

Calabria Alfonso II and the Neapolitan troops in Siena to organize war against the

Florentines.62 Throughout the ensuing Tuscan War, Siena served as the base of the Papal-

Neapolitan operations. Francesco di Giorgio, who was not only experienced in defense design but also familiar with the Tuscan landscape, was indispensable to the Papal-

Neapolitan strategic planning. During the war, he served Duke Montefeltro as aide-de- camp, and had his first real experiences on the battlefield at Castellina (July 26 – August

18, 1478).63 The following spring, Francesco was heavily involved in planning the siege of Poggio Imperiale, the decisive battle in which Alfonso II led the Papal-Neapolitan

60 On the original of Siena’s political factions, and the term “monte,” see W. Bowsky, The Finance of the Commune of Siena, 1287 – 1355 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970): 86 – 87. Also see Shaw 3-4. 61 See C. Shaw, “Memory and Tradition in Sienese Political Life in the Fifteenth Century,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9 (1999): 221 – 231. 62 On Federico da Montefeltro’s involvement in the Pazzi Conspiracy, see M. Simonetta, “Federico da Montefeltro Architetto della Congiura dei Pazzi e del Palazzo di Urbino,” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001, ed. F.P. Fiore (Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004): 81 – 102. 63 Martin Warnke speaks of Francesco’s close relationship with Federico da Montefeltro, and his role as “purveyor” to the Urbino court, see M. Warnke, The Court Artist. On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993): 70, 229.

troops to defeat the Florentines, in effect ending the Tuscan War. Neapolitan payment receipts indicate that following the campaign, Francesco was asked to execute a painting or map, of the region. He also cast commemorative medals of the victorious Duke

Alfonso II and the Sienese general, Borghese Borghesi.64

The seventh-month Tuscan War, therefore, was a critical period for Francesco di

Giorgio in his maturation as an architect and military strategist. It is also marked the true beginning of his career as a diplomat. Not only did he prove his loyalties to Federico da

Montefeltro and the Signoria of Siena – transmitting messages to the Sienese on the duke’s behalf – but he also developed a relationship with Alfonso II, Duke of Calabria.

Payment receipts dated between April 1479 and June 1480 indicate that Francesco served

Alfonso II for this entire period. It was during these same months that key members of the Monte dei Nove, aided by Alfonso, began to revive their scheme to seize the Sienese government.65 Following the close of the war, the Aragonese duke had remained in Siena, aggressively advocating for the restoration and rehabilitation of a group of Nove exiles.

In June 1480, his troops supported the Noveschi’s attack against the Monte dei

Riformatori, and subsequent take-over of the Sienese government. By the end of the month, with his allies restored to power, Alfonso II was well-positioned to take control over Siena. However, the duke’s fortunes suddenly shifted. In late July, 1480, a Turkish fleet invaded the Pugliese port city of Otranto, and by mid-August, the Ottoman troops

64 See documents #66 and 67 (October 17 and December 4, 1479). On the medal of Alfonso II, see G. L. Hersey, Alfonso II and the Artistic Renewal of Naples 1485 – 1495 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969): 2. On the Borghesi medal, see Bartalini, “Medaglia di Borghese Boghesi” 358. 65 C. Shaw, “Politics and Institutional Innovation in Siena 1480 – 1498 (I),” Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria 103 (1996): 12 – 13. For payments, see documents #65 – 77 (April 4, 1479 – June 2, 1480).

had commenced sieges on the neighboring cities of Brindisi and Gallipoli.66 Alfonso was forced to return to Naples, where he prepared an army to reclaim the Pugliese region.

Francesco di Giorgio’s service to Duke Alfonso II in the spring of 1480, prior to the Ottoman attacks, is highly suggestive of his political affiliation with the Monti di

Nove. This allegiance is further supported by the fact that in 1483, following the gradual resurgence of the Monte del Popolo and the exile of over fifty members of the Nove,

Francesco di Giorgio’s name was grouped with those declared rebels. In an autograph letter of September 7, 1483 Francesco vehemently refuted signoria’s charge that he had assisted the Nove exiles in constructing a fortification near Perugia. Still, the architect was charged with treason. Although already living outside of Siena, he was declared an exile and had approximately one-thousand lire of his personal possessions and property confiscated by the communal authorities.67

Unfortunately, few documents survive regarding the evolving relations between the Aragonese, Siena and Urbino in the early 1480s. Following Otranto, Alfonso II’s focus was on augmenting his kingdom’s defenses. Federico da Montefeltro, who remained affiliated with several of the exiled Noveschi including Antonio Bellanti and members of the Petrucci family, spoke in support of the Aragonese against the Ottomans, but was not directly involved in the Puglia campaign.68 Instead, he signed a three-year

66 Bentley 29. 67 See document #89 (September 7, 1483). Also, G. Chironi, “Politici e ingegneri. I provveditori della Camera del comune di Siena negli anni '90 del Quattrocento,” Ricerche storiche 23 (1993): 377; and P. Jackson, “Chronology,” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City (London: National Gallery, 2007): 75. Prominent Noveschi exiled in June 1482 included the Petrucci, Salvetti, Bichi and Bellanti families. On Francesco’s alliance with the Nove in the early 1480s and the Sienese confiscation of Noveschi property, see Nevola, Siena. Constructing the Renaissance City 175 – 176. On the political situation in Siena following the Tuscan War see, C. Shaw, Popular Government and Oligarchy in Renaissance Italy 57 – 62. 68 On Bellanti’s relation with Federico da Montefeltro, see J. Dennistoun, Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino, vol. 1 (London: Longman, Brown, Green): 249.

contract (condotto) to serve as captain of the Ferrara alliance in the burgeoning conflict between Duke Ercole I d’Este and the Papal-Venetian alliance. Francesco di Giorgio’s role in all this remains speculative. However, as there is no evidence that he followed

Alfonso II to assist on the battlefield in Puglia, we may assume that he accompanied

Duke Federico da Montefeltro to Ferrara.69 Yet, Francesco’s relationship with Alfonso II was far from over. Within just five years, he was again working closely with Aragonese, travelling to Puglia to consult on fortifications and assisting the duke in developing a kingdom-wide defense program.

“Purveyor” to the Court of Urbino: 1483 – 1487

Following Federico da Montefeltro’s sudden death in September 1482, life in

Urbino changed. Without the duke’s prodigious income from his service as condottiere, the cultural programs of the court were gradually pared back. In the 1480s, the major ongoing projects continued under the direction of Ottaviano Ubaldini, who had traditionally overseen much of the court’s building and decorative initiatives, but as time went on, there were fewer commissions.70 As court architect, Francesco di Giorgio was among those who remained with the ducal familiarus after the duke’s death, yet increasingly, he accepted offers from other Italian states. In July 1483, on behalf of Pope

Sixtus IV (della Rovere) he consulted on the design of the castle of Civitavecchia, and within a year, commenced work on two fortifications of Sixtus’ nephew, Giovanni della

Rovere, at Mondavio and Mondolfo (Fig. I.6). Francesco also accepted commissions for

69 On Federico da Montefeltro’s support the Aragonese following the Turkish attack at Otranto, see Carducci 80 – 82. 70 Cecil Clough estimates that between 1468 until his 1482 death, Federico da Montefeltro earned on average approximately 50,000 ducats a year. See C. Clough, “Federico da Montefeltro's Patronage of the Arts, 1468-1482,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36 (1973): 131.

the church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio in Cortona (1484 – 1485) and the Palazzo

Comunale of Jesi (1486) (Figs. I.7 & I.8). Moreover, there is evidence that as early as

June 1484, he was back in the employ of Duke Alfonso II of Calabria. At this time, work was underway on the reconstruction of the Neapolitan city walls, and it was said that

“engineering captain, Master Francesco of Siena,” oversaw their design.71

The lull in work at Urbino also gave the architect time to pursue his treatise and antiquarian projects. A key component of this was the study and measure of ancient remains. Following the rising tide of humanism, Francesco di Giorgio believed that the key to artistic excellence lay in mastering the models of the ancient Greeks and Romans – who, he would later write, were without question “the best sculptors and architects.”72

Francesco’s on-site investigation of antiquity is testified to in his autograph Taccuino dei

Viaggi. Dating from the second-half of the 1480s, the twenty-folio Taccuino – really more a collection of workshop sheets than a cohesive volume – contains an assemblage of cursory sketches of foundations, elevations, mouldings and relief sculpture which the architect recorded in over a dozen locations between Siena and Naples.73 These studies served as a complement to Francesco’s literary investigations. Around 1486, utilizing the unparalleled resources of the Urbino court library, he dedicated himself to the canonical texts of medieval and ancient philosophy, and with the help of a humanist advisor,

71 See document #93 (June 15, 1484). The abbreviated treatise Francesco di Giorgio dedicated to Duke Alfonso, the Opera di Architectura, might well date from this time or even earlier. See R. Betts, “On the Chronology of Francesco di Giorgio’s Treatises: New Evidence from an Unpublished Manuscript,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52 (1977): 3 – 14, and G. Scaglia, “Opera di Architectura. Illustrated Treatise for Alfonso, Duke of Calabria, in Naples,” Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist and History of Manuscripts and Drawings in Autographs and Copies from ca. 1470 to 1687 and Renewed Copies (1764 – 1839) (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Press, 1992): 210 – 212. 72 Martini 295. 73 UA 318 – 337, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi, Florence.

returned to his study of Vitruvius.74 Francesco’s translation of De Architectura (c. 1487)

– one of the first attempts ever to fully translate the difficult Latin text into the vernacular

– was an enormously ambitious. Although not without errors, the project reflected his strong grasp of Latin, as well as his thorough knowledge of technical terminology and the history of ancient architecture and mechanics.75

The intellectual advancements Francesco di Giorgio made in this period were supremely manifest in his re-composition of the Trattato di Architettura, a project he likely commenced around 1487 and continued to modify throughout the remainder of his life. In total, Francesco completed at least four distinct drafts of the Trattato di

Architettura, which are recognized in two principal versions.76 Although the drafts share much in common, each reflects a markedly different period of Francesco’s career and education. The first version (hereafter Trattato I), dated c. 1478 – 1481, bears the mark of a young, not yet fully developed architect. The tract’s eighteen disjointed and, at times, repetitive books, read almost like a list, offering what is intended to be an objective analysis of the individual components of architecture. The great strength of Trattato I,

74 Scholars unanimously agree that Francesco di Giorgio must have received assistance in his study of Vitruvius. See Mussini xv – xviii. 75 F. di G. Martini, La Traduzione del De Architectura di Vitruvio dal ms. II.I.141 della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, ed. M. Biffi, 2 vols. (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 2002): xx – xxi. It is possible that Piero della Francesca assisted Francesco with his translation of Vitruvius. In the 1480s, Piero was also in Urbino, and between 1482 and 1492 he composed his Libellus de quinque corporibus regularibus, the dedication to which demonstrates his familiarity with De Architectura. On the Vitruvian dedication to Libellus see M. D. Davis, Piero della Francesca’s Mathematical Treatises (Ravenna: Longo Editore, 1977): 44 – 45. 76 In sequential order, the four versions of the Trattato include (1) the “proto-Trattato” or antecedent to Trattato I, c. 1476 (conserved in the Zichy-codex, Erwin Szabo Public Library, Budapest); (2) Trattato I, c. 1478 – 1481 (codex Ashburnham 361, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana and codex Saluzziano 148, Biblioteca Reale, Turin); (3) the Opera di architectura, c. 1487 – 1488 (codex Spencer 129, New York Public Library); and (4) Trattato II, c. 1487 – 1500 (codex S.IV.4, Biblioteca Comunale, Siena and the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence). One might also recognize at least two distinct stages of development for both Trattato I and Trattato II, as reflected in the principal surviving copies. On the chronological development of the Trattato, see Mussini.

however, lies not in its text, but in the abundance of drawings. On almost every page, images complement text, figuratively or diagrammatically illustrating each of the tract’s concepts. This emphasis on didactic illustrations also characterizes Trattato II, which

Francesco initiated around 1487, but in prose and organization, this version dramatically improves upon the first. Unmistakably, Trattato II is the work of a mature architect and scholar. Organized into seven books, the text follows an Aristotelian model of “first principles” and includes significantly more citations to the author’s own experiences than version one. Addressing the reader directly, Francesco presents himself as an autonomous authority, with the implicit premise that his principles, although grounded in theory, hold true in practice.

The Trattato di Architettura is remarkable not only for the extensive effort, study and erudition it displays, but also because in both its versions, it was immensely popular among Francesco di Giorgio’s contemporaries. Manuscript copies of the treatise, of which approximately one-hundred-fifty of survive today, were reproduced in various forms and lengths and disseminated throughout Italy. This was a didactic manual for the working architect, studied and copied by individuals along the full spectrum of architectural practice. Among others, Leonardo da Vinci, Fra Giocondo, Baldassare

Peruzzi, Jacopo da Vignola and Vincenzo Scamozzi studied the Trattato, copying its drawings and incorporating Francesco’s ideas into their built and written works.77 Still, it is difficult to know how much the Trattato actually advanced Francesco’s reputation. By the sixteenth-century copies of the tract were so ubiquitous, and its drawings so widely reproduced, that it no longer carried any association with Francesco di Giorgio.

77 E. Wolf, The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Francesco di Giorgio Martini: A Study of Theory and Practice, PhD Diss. Harvard University, 1998. 146 – 185.

Paradoxically, the Trattato di Architettura gave him an immense legacy while also contributing to the rapid diminution of his fame.

We cannot be certain, therefore, whether in 1485 the Sienese began to petition for

Francesco di Giorgio’s return solely because they required his technical expertise, or because they also viewed him as someone who could substantially augment the city’s cultural prestige.78 In June of that year, the signoria wrote to Francesco in Urbino, ordering him to return to Siena to work on several public projects. He appears to have ignored the appeal, and six months later the signoria wrote again. The second notice, dated December 26, 1485, indicates that Francesco was “obligated to go to the contado and jurisdiction of Siena” in order to oversee necessary work on communal buildings and fortifications. He would not be paid for this work, but would be readmitted as a Sienese citizen and would have his previously confiscated property returned.79 Documents from the following months show that Francesco consulted on the communal bridges of

Maciareto and Mersa, but there is no indication of his repatriation.80 On October 29,

1486, the Balìa of Siena – one of the commune’s most powerful magistratures – issued another mandate ordering Francesco’s return. Again, he evaded the commune’s pleas, and just one month later, further demonstrated his intent to remain in Urbino by purchasing a country estate in Villa Rancitelle, just outside the court city.81

Francesco di Giorgio’s stubborn resistance to repatriation was undoubtedly driven by political motives. Following the persecution and political proscription of the Noveschi

78 Among the perceived weakness of the Monte del Popolo administration was its lack of artistic and cultural fortitude. 79 See documents #99 and 102 (June 12 and December 26, 1485). Document #101 (December 21, 1485) also refers to the Balìa’s decision to have Francesco’s repatriate. 80 See documents #106, 107, 110, 114, and 115 (1486 and 1487). 81 See document #109 (November 27, 1486).

in 1482 and 1483, hundreds of Sienese voluntarily went into exile. It was a great embarrassment to the regime that so many of its own citizens preferred to live outside the commune than to submit to the rule of the Monte del Popolo, and in the mid-1480s a series of initiatives were passed to draw the exiles back to Siena. The leaders’ numerous attempts to induce Francesco di Giorgio back to Siena counted among these. In this period of continued instability, winning the support of their very skilled and influential architect was understood as a matter of crucial importance. In the spring of 1487, the signoria tried once again to force Francesco’s return, but instead of menacing threats, the

Balìa awarded him with a prestigious and lucrative appointment: he was to serve as

Podestà, or chief magistrate, of Porto Ercole, the commune’s primary commercial port.

Francesco, however, rebuffed even this offer, asking Guidobaldo da Montefeltro to write to excuse him from the post. The young duke insisted that the Francesco’s presence was indispensable in Urbino, “because much work that I do follows his designs, and also

[because] I avail myself to his services in so many situations, his absence from me would be very harmful.”82

However, just two months later, on the eve of the Nove’s July 22 coup of Sienese government, Francesco suddenly became more cooperative with the city’s officials. In a letter dated July 9, 1487, he addressed the signoria as “my magnificent lords and most distinguished patrons,” and proceeded to advise them on fortification of the Sienese province of Chiusi.83 Several days later, he elected the Sienese residents Paolo Vannoccio

Biringuccio, Bernardino Fungai and Gregorio Pretiano to serve as his legal representatives, granting them full authority to act on his behalf in the event of his

82 See document #111 (May 10, 1487). 83 See document #112 (July 9, 1487).

absence.84 There is thus ample evidence to suggest that Francesco was preparing for a more active role in communal projects. Within the group of his chosen representatives, the presence of Biringuccio is particularly noteworthy. Just thirty-four years old in 1487,

Biringuccio was an expert hydraulic systems, minerals and metallurgy, and although there is only one record of his collaboration with Francesco prior to 1487, in the final thirteen years of the century, the two were routine associates.85 Significantly also, in the late-1480s Biringuccio was an important figure in the ascendant Nove regime and a close affiliate of the Nove-leaders Leonardo and Luzio Bellanti, Pandolfo Petrucci, and Paolo

Salvetti.86 Francesco di Giorgio’s 1487 legal alliance with Biringuccio, then, although not definitive proof of either man’s collusion with the Nove coup, is highly suggestive of this.

Within a week of the July coup, the Consiglio del Popolo had approved the new

Balìa, which in combining legislative and executive magistratures replaced the signoria as Siena’s chief governing body, and was actively building a new network of Italian alliances.87 Among those to be first contacted was Francesco di Giorgio, who on July 30 was requested to go to Casole d’Elsa to construct a Sienese fortification. He accepted the commission, and from this point forward, was consistently involved in projects regarding the city and its contado. In October and November 1487 he consulted on developments in the Maremma, continued to supervise work on the Macierto bridge, and acted on Siena’s

84 See document #114 (July 14, 1487). 85 The first record of Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio’s collaboration was in regards to the bridge at Mersa in 1486. See document #110. 86 On Paolo Vannoccio Biringucci, his role within the Nove and collaboration with Francesco di Giorgio, see G. Chironi, “Politici e ingegneri. I provveditori della Camera del comune di Siena negli anni '90 del Quattrocento” 375 – 382. 87 D. Hicks, “The Education of a Prince: Lodovico il Moro and the Rise of Pandolfo Petrucci,” Studies in the Renaissance 8 (1961): 89.

behalf in the evolving boundary disputes with Florence over Montepulciano.88

Communal Architect to Siena: 1488 – 1496

A document of November 18, 1488, filed among the deliberazioni of the Balìa of

Siena, records that a petition submitted by the “ingegneri” Francesco di Giorgio had been approved. The nature of the petition is not specified, although the document does indicate that the architect was “obliged to complete the said structures of the said petition within a time frame of five years.”89 Without additional information, it is difficult to extrapolate much from the petition, except to note that its approval by the Balìa, Siena’s supreme executive committee, indicates that it was most likely a public commission of some magnitude and importance. This same year, for first time in seven years, Francesco di

Giorgio also filed a tax report in Siena. The document shows that his property had been returned – his assets were akin to what they had been in 1481 – only that now, instead of five daughters, one son, and a pregnant wife, he had just four daughters and two sons.90

However, according to the report of Giacomo Cozzarelli, Francesco was still residing primarily in Urbino.91 But this would soon change. On January 23, 1489 in an attempt to cement Francesco’s loyalties and bring him permanently back to Siena, the Balìa offered him 1,000 florins to serve as Communal Architect. The position, separate from that of the operaio of the cathedral, required he permanently reside in Siena, where he would

88 See documents of 1487, 1488, 1493 and 1497 for Francesco di Giorgio’s involvement in Montepulciano. For the political context of the dispute, see Shaw, Popular Government and Oligarchy 256 – 258. 89 See document #132 (November 18, 1488). 90 See document #133. 91 See document #134.

receive a fixed salary of 200 florins for managing the commune’s hydraulic constructions, civic buildings and fortifications.92

Documents from the ensuing months show Francesco di Giorgio’s emergence as a key political figure and Siena’s leading architect. On January 28, 1489, he procured full rights to then dilapidated Fonte di Follonica – an important water source located outside the city center – and within two weeks, he had entered a partnership with the Nove leaders Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo Salvetti and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio to develop a production center along the waterway.93 The involvement in the Follonica project of

Pandolfo Petrucci – head of Siena’s central office of military organization (the Camera del Comune) and by the mid-1490s the city’s virtual leader – is particularly noteworthy.94

With his support, along with authorization and the financial backing of the Camera del

Comune, the four-member team was permitted to exploit Siena’s mineral resources, with the aim of developing a foundry to produce weapons and firearms for the commune.95

Francesco di Giorgio’s close association with the Nove leaders is further demonstrated in subsequent records and commune-endorsed projects. In May 1490, he once again elected Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio to serve as his legal representative, and the following year, he resumed his partnership with Angelo Benassi and Biringuccio as operaio of the Sienese fortifications.96 Francesco’s ties with the Nove also helped him to secure important civic and ecclesiastical commissions. In June 1492, Cardinal Francesco

92 Documents #154 and 198 (May 21, 1490 and September 24, 1492) refer to Francesco’s payment as Communal Architect. 93 In the Nove coup of July 22, 1487, Paolo Salvetti was the first to scale the Siena city walls. Pandolfo was the second. See Chironi “Fonti e documenti” 377. 94 Hicks, “The Education of a Prince” 89, 91. 95 See documents #139 and 140 (January 28 and February 11, 1489). On the importance of group’s activities, and their support within the Camera del Comune see Chironi, Fonti e Documenti 375 – 380. 96 See documents #154, 179, 181, and 184 (May 1490; July – October, 1491).

Todeschini Piccolomini (nephew of Pius II and future Pope Pius III) submitted a petition before the Balìa for the redesign of the Sapienza, the residential college of the Studio, or university, of Siena. The appeal was approved, and the cardinal received authorization to appoint a team of five representatives to select a building site, and oversee the commission and execution of the new Sapienza. Although no commission records survive

– the new college was never realized – there is record of the site selected by the representatives – in the Terzo di Camollia, adjacent to the guild of the arte della lana

(wool guild) – as well as four project drawings prepared by Francesco di Giorgio and

Giuliano da Sangallo.97 The involvement of these two accomplished architects, as well as cardinal Piccolomini and members of the Balìa, is highly significant. The Studio was one of Siena’s most beloved institutions and the new Sapienza was to further distinguish the university by virtue of its facilities and exemplary architecture.98 Moreover, the site chosen by the representatives may be linked to another project, commenced just several months later, also supported by the Balìa and Pandolfo Petrucci and also involving

Francesco di Giorgio: the guild church of the arte della lana San Sebastiano di

Vallepiatta.99

As with the Sapienza project, the execution of San Sebastiano was overseen by a team of representatives, which included Petrucci’s affiliates Andrea Piccolomini, Nicola

97 In addition to its five-part political structure, the city of Siena was divided into three districts, or terzi: the Terzo Camollia, the Terzo Città, and the Terzo Concistoro. Each governing monti had a prior in each terzo. On this system, see Shaw, Popular Government 5 98 P. Denley, Commune and Studio in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena (Bologna: CLUEB, 2006): 392 – 398. Also, H. Burns “Progetti per la nuova casa della Sapienza, Siena,” Francesco di Giorgio architetto, ed. F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994): 296 – 301. 99 The attribution to Francesco di Giorgio for the design of San Sebastiano di Vallepiatta is based on the stylistic affinities it displays with the architect’s other projects – those illustrated in the Trattato, as well as those realized in Cortona and Urbino.

Borghese and Luca Vieri.100 Francesco di Giorgio was a natural choice as the project architect, as he was not only the city’s leading designer, but was also already engaged with several Petrucci-endorsed projects. Moreover, the site of San Sebastiano shared much in common with that of the church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio in Cortona – both were located on the edge of the city, precariously positioned on a steep slope – and thus the technical challenges involved in the design and construction were less of an impediment for him. In contrast to the Sapienza, progress on San Sebastiano advanced quickly, despite the fact that the architect was often away, and by October of 1494, it was reported that the church was “already in good form, and in such a manner that, hopefully, it will be finished to perfection according to the given design.”101

Management of the construction of San Sebastiano was likely the responsibility of

Giacomo Cozzarelli. As testified in the documentary record, Cozzarelli was Francesco di

Giorgio’s primary artistic collaborator in this period, and acted as chief workshop assistant and administrator. The bottega’s production was focused primarily on more substantial, and expensive, sculptural works, and in keeping with Francesco’s new investments in mining and metallurgy, there was a particular focus on bronze works.102

Most notable were the two bronze, candle-bearing angels he cast for the high altar of the

100 The project for San Sebastiano di Vallepiatta is discussed by Nevola, Siena. Constructing the Renaissance City 192 – 193. 101 M. Tafuri, “La Chiesa di San Sebastiano in Vallepiatta a Siena. 1493 circa e sgg.,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, ed, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994): 302. 102 Several of Francesco di Giorgio best polychrome sculptures date from the first half of the 1490s – including a Lamentation of Christ group, a Madonna and Child altarpiece, and figures of Saint Christopher and Saint Anthony Abbot. See catalogue entries 81, 86 and 87 in Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 392 – 395, 408 – 412, 440 – 442.

Duomo, the portrait medals of Giacoppo Petrucci and Antonio di Ambrogio Spannocchi,

1487 and 1494, respectively, and an all’antica lacquered bronze of a male nude.103

Architect as diplomat: 1488 – 1496

A remarkable number of Francesco di Giorgio’s assignments as Siena Communal

Architect fell outside of the commune’s boundaries. The architect’s diverse skill-set and technical expertise was of enormous value, and correspondingly, many Italian states sought his services. Although the Sienese wanted to retain direct access to Francesco, they also saw his work outside of the commune as a diplomatic tool, and routinely granted concessions allowing him to serve foreign states. In a sense, the Nove leaders exploited his reputation and skill-set, consciously employing him as a means to cultivate connections with powerful states.104 Surviving documentation from the period 1490 –

1495 records Francesco’s travel to assist with projects in Lucignano, Lucca, Florence,

Bologna, Milan, Montepulciano, Pavia, Urbino, Campagnano, and the Kingdom of

Naples. The assignments varied considerably in scale and duration. For example, in

Lucignano and Lucca, both allies of Siena, Francesco remained on-site for only a short period, consulting on the cities’ fortifications.105 His time in Florence was also brief, although the commission was much more prestigious. Standing alongside the leading artists and architects of the day – including Andrea del Verrocchio, Giuliano da Sangallo,

103 See L. Syson, “Portrait medal of Giacoppo Petrucci (1434 – 1497), about 1487,” “Male Nude with Snake (Aesculapius?), about 1490 – 5,” and “Portrait medal of Antonio di Ambrogio Spannocchi (1474 – 1503), about 1494,” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City (London: The National Gallery, 2007): 194 – 198, 226 – 227. On the facture of the bronze “angioletti” see documents #145 and 150 (July 10, 1489 and April 15, 1490). For a summary of the commission see Butzek 170. 104 See document #210 (April 19, 1493). On Siena’s relations with other Italian states in this period see M. G. da Camogli, “Capitolo II: Siena e L’Italia (1487 – 1492),” Pandolfo Petrucci e la politica estera della Repubblica di Siena (1487 – 1512) (Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 1997): 27 – 54. 105 See documents #148, 180 and 182 (March 20, 1490; August 13 and 29, 1491).

Domenico Ghirlandaio, Francione and Sandro Botticelli – Francesco presented his design to Lorenzo de’ Medici and the Works Committee of Santa Maria del Fiore for the cathedral’s façade.106 Francesco’s participation in the competition, likely motivated by

Nove leader Giacoppo Petrucci’s liaison with Lorenzo de’Medici, was a significant accolade, in particular because he one among a handful of non-Florentines asked to submit a design.107

Francesco di Giorgio’s role as both architect and diplomat is highlighted in the correspondence between the Signoria of Siena and the Duke of Milan, Galeazzo Maria

Sforza, regarding the architect’s services in the late-spring and summer of 1490. Writing to the signoria in April, Duke Galeazzo Maria Sforza requested that Francesco di

Giorgio, “most excellent in the art of architecture” come to Milan to consult on the design of the tribunal of the city’s Duomo. The Sienese granted the duke’s request almost one month later, and shortly thereafter, Francesco departed for Milan where he received first class treatment, was generously compensated for his work, and had the opportunity to collaborate with the preeminent architects Luca Fancelli and Leonardo da Vinci.108 At the end of his assignment, Galeazzo Maria Sforza wrote to the signoria again, proclaiming that Francesco’s exemplary service “has greatly augmented our love for you.” The favor bestowed on Siena by the court of Milan is further evidenced in the second missive,

106 See document #174 (January 5, 1491). Giuliano da Sangallo was in fact absent, as we a handful of other individuals. Francesco is listed second, behind Giuliano da Maiano, whom is noted to have been recently deceased. 107 The importance of Giacoppo Petrucci’s relationship with Lorenzo de’ Medici is discussed by C. Shaw, Popular Government and Oligarchy 106 – 107. On the competition for the design of the Santa Maria del Fiore façade see P. Foster, “Lorenzo de' Medici and the Florence Cathedral Façade,” The Art Bulletin 63 (1981): 495 – 500. 108 In Milan, Francesco lodged in the house of a nobleman. According to the initial contract, he was paid two lire per day – about twice the amount of the average skilled worker. Another account, dated July 4, 1490, indicates that he received an additional one-hundred florins, the equivalent to a year’s salary of a skilled worker, as reimbursement for his travel expenditures on his return trip to Siena. See documents #156 – 161 (June – July, 1490).

written by the officers of the Duomo, in which Francesco is extolled for his ingenuity, elegance and modesty. The letter concludes: “It would be a singular grace [for us] to be able to do something for you that would be equally pleasing to your city.”109

One finds in the diplomatic exchanges between Siena and Milan an arrangement of mutual benefit. At no great expense, the Commune of Siena accrued the favor of the

Sforza, with whom just two years before they had they had been involved with territorial disputes.110 The Milanese, in turn, received critical insight into the structural dilemmas hindering progress on their city’s cathedral. However, as exemplified in Francesco’s prolonged service to the Kingdom of Naples, the role of architect-diplomat was often not so simple. As noted previously, Francesco was involved with the development of the

Neapolitan defenses as early as 1484, and although building records are limited, on the basis of formal analysis and significant documentary evidence, it is certain that between

1487 and 1496 he was closely involved in the development of the kingdom’s more extensive fortification network.

The Aragonese defense campaign was set in motion by the 1480 and 1481 attacks on Otranto, Brindisi and Gallipoli. However, due to a massive deficit and continual fighting within the kingdom, very little building was possible prior to the resolution of the so-called “Barons’ War” in late 1486. Correspondence records show that beginning the following spring, King Ferrante was fully occupied in administering a massive campaign of defense construction. The pressure to complete the new defenses was urgent.

109 See documents #163 and 164 (July 7 and 8, 1490). 110 The dispute between Siena Guido Sforza over the territories of Scansano and Monte Orgiali is discussed by G. da Camogli 33 – 34.

Not only did the kingdom face continued threats from the Ottomans, but by 1489, French

King Charles VIII was voicing his desire to reclaim Naples as well.111

The first definite, documentary record of Francesco di Giorgio on site in the southern kingdom also dates to 1489, when in May, he assisted with the construction of the moat of Manfredonia.112 But, the architect’s prior involvement with the kingdom’s defenses is all but confirmed in the subsequent correspondence between the Neapolitan leaders and the Sienese. In 1490, Gentile Virginio Orsini, Captain General of the

Neapolitan forces and Lord of Bracciano, wrote to the signoria requesting Francesco di

Giorgio’s consultation on several defenses in Campagnano. In the letter, Orsini alludes to his existing relationship with the architect – “I hold his opinions and judgments most dear” – and asks that he come as soon as possible.113 A similar sense of intimacy is evident in the Duke of Calabria’s letter of February 1491, in which he addresses the signoria as “my dearest friends,” and states that he has the “greatest need for several days of Master Francesco” to make “some presentation designs.” In both letters, there is no question but that Francesco knew the situation and was the optimal candidate for the jobs.

Over the course of the following five years (1490 – 1495), Alfonso exchanged nearly twenty letters with the signoria regarding Francesco di Giorgio’s services. The architect returned to the Neapolitan Kingdom in April 1492, and in the ensuing months

111 In September 1489, on account of King Ferrante’s refusal to pay feudal dues to the papacy, Pope Innocent VIII threatened to excommunicate Ferrante and went as far as to offer the Neapolitan Kingdom to King Charles VIII of France. As grandson of Marie of Anjou, Charles had vague claim to the Kingdom, and in the following years, prepared a massive army with the intent to invade Italy. Following his siege of Naples, he planned to lead a crusade to the Orient and gain the imperial crown. See D. Abulafia, “Introduction: from Ferrante I to Charles VIII,” The French descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95: Antecedents and Effects (Aldershot: Variorum 1995): 1 – 28. 112 See document #142 (May 26, 1489). 113 See document #169 (November 4, 1490), and related documents #170 and 171 (November 8 and 23, 1490).

assisted in the development of many key Aragonese defenses in Puglia – at Otranto,

Brindisi, Taranto, Gallipoli, Carovigno, Monte Sant’Angelo, Massafra and Manfredonia

(Figs. III.15 – 16, III.18, III.20 – 22). He was also likely involved, either during this stay or previously, in the design of the fortifications in Calabria – at Crotone, Reggio

Calabria, Castrovillari – and Abruzzi – at Bracciano, Ortona, Scurcola, Taglicozzo and

Vasto. Without question, Francesco did not directly supervise the construction of all of these immense works. Rather, his role appears to have been akin to that of strategic expert and design consultant. Continually moving between sites, he completed site inspections, provided basic drawings, and advised local building administrators on the development of the fortifications.114

For the Aragonese, Francesco di Giorgio’s consultation was of upmost importance, as few other architects had the design expertise and technical and military experience to develop such innovative defenses. However, Francesco’s position under

Duke Alfonso II – which ultimately was beneficial to both to Siena and the Aragonese – was not one he enjoyed. Not only was it dangerous and exhausting, but it kept him from home and his many projects and duties within the Sienese commune. The tensions caused by the situation, Francesco’s competing loyalties to the two states as well as his ultimate desire to be in Siena, is glaringly apparent in the correspondence records of 1492 and

1493. Several months after Francesco’s arrival in Naples in March 1492, the Sienese began to ask that the architect be sent home to attend to the city’s deteriorating water systems. But Alfonso forbade his departure, the situation in Siena grew more serious, and

114 Francesco di Giorgio’s role as design consultant is referred to in a letter of March 23, 1493 (document #209), in which the Duke of Calabria admitted that the architect was often on the road, traveling to “counsel and advice,” either “by word of mouth or through drawings.”

in December, with Francesco still absent, the dam broke, flooding the Sienese countryside and killing dozens of citizens and animals.115

When Francesco finally returned to Siena in January 1493, having been away for much of a year, he was determined never to return to Naples. In the following months, he ignored numerous Aragonese appeals for his assistance, claiming that he was sick and would die if he traveled.116 For their part, the Sienese understood the great importance of the architect’s service in Naples – the Aragonese had traditionally been their strongest ally – and went so far as to appoint a commission to persuade him to return to Naples.117

Yet Francesco was extraordinarily stubborn and remained in Siena for the year – serving on the Supreme Magistrate in September and October, and representing the Sienese in their ongoing negotiations with Florence regarding the Montepulciano-Chianciano boundary in December.118

After much urging, on behalf of both the Duke of Calabria and the Nove leaders,

Francesco di Giorgio finally returned to Naples the following spring, where he spent the subsequent fifteen-months directing the development of fortifications in Puglia, Calabria and Abruzzi, and supervising Alfonso II’s frenzied attempts to prepare the capital for an impending French attack.119 As evidenced in several payments, he received a salary and reimbursements as architect-in-residence, but was never an official member of the Royal

115 See documents #196, 197, 199, 200, and 202 (July – December, 1492). 116 See documents #210 and 213 (April 19 and May 14, 1493). 117 See document #211 (April 22, 1493). 118 See documents #214 and 215 (September, October and December, 1493). It is worth noting that in their letters of April 19 and May 14, 1493 (documents #210 and 213), the signoria vowed that they would not employ Francesco di Giorgio in Siena if he did not agree to return to Naples. Therefore, his service to the commune from September of that year might indicate that stipulations had been made regarding his return to Aragonese service. 119 See document #216 (February 18, 1494) for approximate departure date. Document #209 (March 23, 1493) implies that Francesco was to be based in Naples, directing the fortification efforts by remote control.

familiarus.120 Still, as one of the Alfonso II’s principal advisors, he undoubtedly observed first-hand the key events in the kingdom’s fall. He was on-site at St. Elmo on

January 13, 1495, where he supervised the augmentation of the castle’s defenses, and would have witnessed Alfonso II’s abdication of the throne on January 23.121 Francesco was also present in Naples on February 22, when the French finally took control of

Naples, occupying the Castel Nuovo and the Castel dell’Ovo. In the following months, the Sienese architect was closely involved in the Neapolitan counter-siege, which began in July and culminated with the detonation of an underground mine beneath the Castel

Nuovo in late November. The unprecedented underground mine – which uprooted the castle walls, killing many French soldiers and significantly weakening their defenses – was executed under Francesco’s direction and was the decisive event in the Aragonese recapture of Naples. Following the French retreat, Francesco di Giorgio remained with the Aragonese – consulting on the reconstruction of the Castel Nuovo and the kingdom’s defenses – and was not documented again in Siena until December 1496.122

Final years in Siena: 1497 – 1501

Francesco di Giorgio spent the final years of his life serving his homeland. As in earlier years, he was engaged in multiple sectors of Sienese culture and politics, fulfilling major commissions within the Opera del Duomo, pursing independent business ventures,

120 See documents #222, 223 and 227 (August 26, September 17, and December 22, 1495). 121 In the commentary of Ferraiolo, Francesco is named as “tavolario della Maistà del sig. re Alfonso et maestro zufficiente de aedificie.” Ferraiolo also relays that the castle of Sant’Elmo “was mined according to the advice of Master Francesco.” See documents #220 and 221. Also Hersey 90. On Alfonso abdication, see Bentley 35 – 36. 122 See document #228 (December 2, 1496). Also: R. Battista, L. Molari and P. G. Molari, “The First Launching of a mine: Francesco di Giorgio and the Capture of Castel Nuovo,” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio, ed. B. Hub and A. Pollali (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011): 163 – 175; and S. Pepper, “Castles and cannon in the Naples campaign of 1494 – 95,” The French descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95: Antecedents and Effects, ed. D. Abulafia. (Aldershot: Variorum 1995): 285.

and assisting the Balìa on several highly sensitive diplomatic assignments. The documents show that throughout this period, he was closely allied with Pandolfo Petrucci and other key figures within the Balìa, including Antonio Bichi and Paolo Salvetti.123

Although Pandolfo had played a key role in Sienese politics since the Nove take-over in

1487, beginning in 1495, following his appointment to the restructured Balìa, he suddenly had the authority to transform Siena’s oligarchic regime into something approaching a lordship.124 Pandolfo was the sole charge of the Sienese guard – responsible for purchasing supplies and firearms, and for negotiating the contracts of the captains, infantrymen and soldiers – and to a significant extent, also controlled the commune’s purse strings. He sat on almost all the Balìa’s financial committees, and was involved with setting salaries and distributing Communal funds. Beyond Siena, Pandolfo was a key player in the turbulent political environment of Italy, which was exceedingly mercurial following the 1494 French invasion. Francesco’s association with Pandolfo – someone known for his intense loyalty to friends – was therefore a decisive factor in this period of the architect’s career.125

On February 24, 1497, the College of the Balìa filed two decrees regarding

Francesco di Giorgio’s service to Siena. The first stated that he was not to leave the commune without the explicit permission of the Balìa, and second assigned him the task of overseeing the fortress and camp at Montepulciano.126 Francesco was quite familiar

123 The fact that Francesco di Giorgio’s house was also adjacent to those of Petrucci and Bichi on the Piazza San Giovanni suggests that the area served as hub for the city’s political and urban elite. See F. Nevola, “Creating a stage for an urban elite: there-development of the Via del Capitano and the Piazza Postierla in Siena (1487 – 1520),” The World of Savonarola: Italian Elites and Perceptions of Crisis, ed. S. Fletcher and C. Shaw (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000): 182 – 193. 124 Shaw, Popular Government 122. 125 Ibid 125 – 127. 126 See document #230 (February 24, 1497).

with the Val di Chiana, having represented the Sienese since October 1487 in their negotiations with Florence over the Montepulciano-Chianciano border.127 The dispute over the territory stemmed from the Tuscan War when, allied with Urbino and Naples, the Sienese sought to recapture the small Tuscan commune from Florence. Siena had won control of Montepulciano in the February 1480 peace settlement, but when Alfonso II withdrew to Naples latter that year, the territory fell back under Florentine dominion. It was not until the Nove takeover in 1487 that the Sienese officials renewed their attempts to reclaim the territory, but as attested to in the documents, the borders remained a point of contention well into the 1490s. The situation finally changed in March 1495, when, following the Medici exile from Florence and the ensuing Pisan revolt, Montepulciano declared itself independent from Florence and asked for Siena’s protection. Siena had finally won the long-sought eastern territory, but the victory was not without costs.

Absorbing Montepulciano, Siena won not just a new municipality, but also the responsibility of supporting and defending it.128 Francesco di Giorgio, newly returned home in February 1497, was the Balìa’s choice for the latter task.

What exactly Francesco di Giorgio’s position at Montepulciano entailed is not elucidated in the documents, but what is clear is that his duties were closely monitored by

Pandolfo Petrucci. Management of Montepulciano, which largely consisted of fund- raising campaigns within Siena, was the task of the Balìa, and thus also Pandolfo

Petrucci. For Pandolfo, the Tuscan municipality was a key bargaining counter to be used in negotiations with Florence and thus had to be secured and maintained until the time was ripe. According to a Balìa decree of September 1498, as part of a three-person

127 See documents #117 – 122 and #124 (October 1487). 128 Hicks, “The Education of a Prince” 93; and Shaw Popular Government 256 – 258.

commission along with Andrea Piccolomini and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, Pandolfo granted Francesco and his associate Niccolò funds to destroy a bastion and bridge in the territory of Montepulciano – most likely the fortified bridge at Valiano, which marked a key junction between the Florentine and Sienese borders.129 The troops of Urbino provided the Sienese necessary backing in this period, and not long after Francesco was sent to attend to the Montepulciano bridge, a single notarial document accounts for

Pandolfo’s negotiations in Montepulciano and Francesco di Giorgio’s travels between

Siena and Urbino.130

The cursory traces of Francesco di Giorgio’s activity along with Pandolfo in the management of Montepulciano might appear relatively insignificant, if they were not also linked with the latter’s developing relationship with Cesare Borgia. Cesare Borgia, otherwise known as Duke Valentino, saw the instability of Florence in the late-1490s as an opportunity to carve out his own state in northern Italy. With aid of this father (Pope

Alexander VI), French troops as well as those of Pandolfo Petrucci, Borgia staged a

Tuscan campaign, taking Imola and Forlì in December 1499, followed by Pesaro

(October 1500), Faenza (May 1501) and Piombino (July 1501).131 Two documents filed by the Balìa in late-June 1501 record Francesco di Giorgio’s involvement in the preparations for the Piombino siege. Francesco was “in the camp” (“in castris”) where along with eight carpenters, he was likely preparing military devices for the Borgia assault.132 Thus, just as he had with Federico da Montefeltro and Alfonso II, Francesco

129 This was also the site of a skirmish between Florentine and Sienese troops in 1496. See S. Benci, Storia di Montepulciano di nuovo ristampata, ampliata e ricorretta (Verona: L’Arco dei Gavi, 1968): 88 – 89. 130 See document #250 (April 10, 1499). 131 C. Shaw, The Politics of Exile in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007): 19. 132 See documents #258 and 259 (June 28, 1501).

worked in the field with Duke Valentino, aiding in the ascension of the Borgia in

Tuscany.

Francesco di Giorgio’s alliance with Pandolfo Petrucci in these final years of his life is also traced in his artistic endeavors. In August 1497, a committee made up of

Giacomo and Pandolfo Petrucci and Antonio Bicchi was appointed to decide on the final salary owed to Francesco for the two angels he had cast for the Siena Duomo. The total cost for the manufacture of the angels was set at 1364 lire, 10 soldi – a sum which did not include Francesco di Giorgio’s monumental 1600 lire salary.133 Unquestionably, this was a commission born out of political favoritism. Francesco di Giorgio received the illustrious task of ornamenting the high altar of the Siena Duomo, for which he received a sizable honorarium, and one suspects that mining companies owned by Pandolfo Petrucci and Antonio Bichi may have also received a percentage.134

Still, there was one final commission awarded by Pandolfo Petrucci which topped even that of the two bronze angels – the post of chief of works (operaio or capomaestro) of the Opera del Duomo of Siena. On January 7, 1499, upon the decree of Francesco’s frequent collaborators Pandolfo Petrucci, Angelo Palmieri and Jacopo Vannoccio, the architect was elected to join Alberto Arringhieri as operaio of Duomo, with full control all building and works under the Opera’s jurisdiction. In Siena, as elsewhere in

Renaissance Italy, the post of capomaestro of the Duomo was the architect’s ultimate achievement – the mark not only of his artistic excellence in multiple media, but also his

133 Considering that a skilled worker might earn 315 lire a year, Francesco di Giorgio’s 1500 lire salary was prodigious. In September 1499, the Balìa decided to give Francesco an additional 594 lire, 8 soldi, 8 denari for the project. See Hollingsworth xi. 134 Due to Francesco di Giorgio’s absence from Siena between 1494 and 1496, his payments for the angels were not finalized until 1497 following a series of Communal negotiations. See documents #238 – 243.

immense cultural authority. At age sixty, Francesco di Giorgio had reached the pinnacle of his career, but he was far from done. In the final two years of his life, Francesco, in characteristic form, remained superhumanly productive. Documents show that as capomaestro of the Duomo, he provided models for a set of bronze apostles – the execution of which was subsequently entrusted to Giacomo Cozzarelli – as well as for a chapel behind the cathedral’s main altar.135 He also produced paintings, including the

Nativity altarpiece of San Domenico, as well as designs for several pavements for the

Duomo. In addition, there is record of his continued work in technical matters in this period. He remained involved in the commune’s defenses at Montepulciano, Sesta and

Cerreto, and consulted in Loreto on the city’s cupola, defenses and aqueducts (Map I).136

There are also accounts referencing his rental of an oven to the city – possibly for baking bricks or for metalwork production.137 And, in addition to all of this, he continued to work on his Trattato di Architettura. The final exemplary version of the tract – the codex

Magliabechiana II.I.141 – which includes an appendix of machine drawings, presumably prepared for publication, was produced around 1495.138

The extreme productivity and marked social status Francesco di Giorgio exhibited in his final years was reflected in his financial prosperity. Understanding the architect’s wealth, however, just like many aspects of his life and career, requires a nuanced reading

135 See documents #270 – 272 (July and October, 1505; and June, 1506). 136 Francesco di Giorgio’s involvement in Loreto deserves further investigation. For a brief review see, F. P. Fiore, “La città felice di Loreto,” Richerche di storia dell'arte IV (1977): 37 – 40. Also document # 274 (June 18, 1508). 137 See documents #260 and #261 (November 13, 1501). 138 The Magliabechiana manuscript served as a prototype for numerous secondary copies, and because of its polish and clarity, it has been suggested that the codex was assembled with the intention of publishing a comprehensive, three-part exposition on architecture See F. P. Fiore, Citta e Macchine del ‘400 nei Disegni di Francesco di Giorgio Martini (Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1978): 76.

of the documents.139 The surviving Lira documents from the 1490s, although they provide some general clues as to the architect’s assets, are far from comprehensive. As direct tax of Siena, the Lira accounted only for the assets an individual held within the commune. Moreover, Lira records were highly inconsistent, due to absence of standard regulations as to what assets, debts, and financial obligations were to be accounted for.

Within the documents, one finds that tax exemptions and credits were frequently decided on a case-by-case basis, based on listings of dependents and statements regarding personal circumstances. Even the monetary values assigned to an individual’s taxable assets must be judged with prudence, as these were estimated by one of dozens of assessors.140 Thus, the significant discrepancies in the reports filed by Francesco di

Giorgio – which amounted to 500 lire in 1481, 300 lire in 1491, 600 lire in 1492 and, 435 lire in 1500 – might well reflect the inconsistencies of the record keeping rather than the architect’s actual assets.141 The inventory of his household possessions, however, drawn up in 1503 after his death, as well as documentation concerning his properties, and the prolonged distribution of his estate among his wife and four children, offer a general sense of his wealth at the end of his life.142

When Francesco di Giorgio died in 1501, he was owner of multiple properties. In

Siena, he held the residence in San Giovanni, valued at approximately 300 florins, as well as a substantial suburban estate in San Giorgio a Papaiano, which he purchased for 400

139 Hicks, “Sources of Wealth” 13 – 15; Nevola believes that the discrepancies in Francesco di Giorgio’s Lira reports may be explained by the crony accounting practices of the Petrucci regime. See “Lots of Napkins and a few surprises” 73. 140 I am grateful to Philippa Jackson for her explanation of the Lira system and the inherent limitations posed by the Lira records. See also, Hicks “Sources of Wealth” 12-13. 141 See Lira reports of 1481, 1491, 1492 and 1500 (documents #84, 85, 187, 203, and 255). 142 Francesco acquired the San Giorgio a Papainano property in 1491, not long after his installation as Communal Architect, and as evidenced in a petition of 1501, had sought to transfer his permanent residence to the country estate. See documents #186 and 257 (November 25, 1491 and May 27, 1501).

florins in 1491. The fact that Francesco acquired the San Giorgio estate in 1491, not long after his installation as Communal Architect, suggest that he made the purchase with part of the one-time, one-thousand florin bonus he received for repatriation in 1489.143

Francesco’s holdings outside of Siena are more difficult to trace. We know that he had a farm in Villa Rancitelle outside of Urbino, worth 325 florins, and may well have had additional properties within the Sienese contado related to his mining endeavors.144 Even without these investment properties, the total value of Francesco residences in Siena and

Urbino was a substantial 725 florins or 2,900 lire, over six times more than the 435 lire he reported in the Lira of 1500. This amount alone, moreover, placed him comfortably within the top twenty-five percent richest citizens in Siena, whose taxably wealth ranged from 12,000 to 56,000 lire.145

Documents relating to the architect’s heirs help fill out the picture. According to a notarial account of February 1494, Francesco provided a dowry of 600 florins for his daughter Cornelia, 500 of which he paid outright, an amount which assured her union to a member of Siena elite.146 This amount was twice that he had received from his wife

Agnese, and although we do not know if he provided such a dowry for all of his daughters, it provides a firm indication of the architect’s means and stature.147 The architect’s distinguished status in Siena is further attested to in the prolonged disputes over his fragmented estate upon his death. A stream of documents from the months and

143 See document #139 (January 28, 1489). As evidenced in a petition of May 27, 1501 (document #257), Francesco had sought to transfer his permanent residence to the country estate at the end of his life. 144 See document #109 (November 27, 1486). 145 Hicks, “Sources of Wealth” 18 – 19. 146 See document #217 (February 25, 1494). 147 The average dowry of an affluent Sienese woman in the fifteenth-century was about 400 florins. See Hicks, “Sources of Wealth” 38 – 40. Francesco’s elder daughters Laura and Lucrezia married and settled in Urbino. A fourth daughter, Antonia, became a nun in the convent of San Girolamo in Vallepiatta. See Nevola, “Lots of Napkins and a few surprises” 73, 80 (note 29).

years following Francesco’s December 1501 death enumerate his wife’s failure to execute his will, his outstanding debts to Pandolfo Petrucci and the bank of Alessandro

Bichi, and the fractious relationship between his wife and children. After years of quarreling, his home on the piazza San Giovanni was forcibly sold in 1509 to one of

Pandolfo’s attendants for a low price of 230 florins; the country estate in San Giorgio was liquidated four years later for 675 florins.148 Yet, as Fabrizio Nevola has demonstrated, beyond the monetary sum of his properties, Francesco di Giorgio’s true value is attested to by the list of individuals involved in the debates over his estate in the period 1503 to

1515. Here one finds not only Pandolfo and Bichi – among the wealthiest and most powerful figures in early Cinquecento Siena – but also Giacomo Cozzarelli, the fortification designer Giorgio Vieri, with whom Francesco had partnered in the development of the Cerreto defenses, and the accomplished intarsiatore Antonio Barili,

Francesco’s collaborator on the re-structuring of the bridges of Maciareto and Mersa.149

The celebrated artillerist Vannoccio Biringuccio, author of Della Pirotechnica and son of

Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, was also present, serving as a guarantor of the property transactions.150 It is perhaps Biringuccio’s presence, more than any of the others, which most clearly demonstrates the enormous role Francesco played within Siena’s artistic community. Although his legacy was less abiding in Urbino, Naples and Florence, within

Siena, Francesco di Giorgio was remembered and revered for centuries.

148 Nevola, “Lots of Napkins and a few surprises” 74. 149 On Francesco di Giorgio’s collaborations with Giorgio Vieri, see documents #113, 141 and 247 (July, 1487; February, 1489; and 1498). For documents relating to Francesco and Antonio Barili’s work together, see documents #100, 107, 115 and 128 (October, 1485; July and September, 1486; July and November, 1487). 150 Nevola, “Lots of Napkins and a few surprises” 77.

Chapter II: Technical Training & the Architect’s Education

In the spring of 1469 Francesco di Giorgio appealed to become operaio dei bottini

– overseer of Siena’s extensive system of underground aqueducts. On April 28 of that year, the commune accepted Francesco’s ambitious proposal – to find new sources of water and increase the water in the hallmark Fonte Gaia by one-third – and within a month he had taken control of the city’s water systems.1 At age thirty, Francesco was already well-established as a painter and sculptor. He managed his own lucrative bottega in Siena, and had established a presence in the office of city works. However, the 1469 bottini contract is the first definitive record of Francesco di Giorgio’s work in engineering or architecture, and notably, within the original document he is referred to as

“depentore,” rather than “architetto,” as he subsequently came to be called by Duke

Federico da Montefeltro. Scholars often seize on these points, arguing that prior to his

1475 departure to Urbino, Francesco’s experiences in architecture were few.2 Yet, this misperception may be readily refuted by a more comprehensive reading of the available documentation. The politically prestigious and technically advanced position of operaio dei bottini was not one bestowed upon a novice. Likewise, Duke Federico da Montefeltro of Urbino, the most powerful military leader of the day, only hired the best artists and architects, and had neither the time nor interest to appoint an amateur technician who required on-the-job training. In order to even be considered for the position of Urbino

1 Francesco di Giorgio appealed for the position of operaio dei bottini with Paolo d’Andrea. In the contract, Francesco is listed first, and appears to have been the leader of the partnership. See document #11 (April 28, 1469). 2 As given by Francesco Benelli, “Francesco’s familiarity with constructive issues of military architecture began only a little later than his work as an architect of religious and civic buidings, not earlier than the end of 1476.” See Benelli 150.

court architect, Francesco must have already been considerably accomplished.3 His appellation as “depentore” in the bottini contract referred to the position he then held in

Siena – master of his own thriving workshop – but it did not define his expertise.

The following chapter focuses on Francesco di Giorgio’s early career in Siena, examining the various component of his technical training – expertise which provided the foundation for his career as an “architect.” Francesco’s basic training, as an apprentice within a large, multifaceted workshop, was by no means exceptional. His most notable predecessors and peers – Filippo Brunelleschi, Aristotele Fioravanti, Michelozzo

Michelozzi, Baccio Pontelli, Luca Fancelli, Biagio Rossetti, Giuliano da Maiano,

Giuliano da Sangallo, among others – were also brought up within polyvalent workshops, where through training in metal-work, sculpture or cabinetry, they developed manual dexterity, practical know-how and design talent. Like Francesco di Giorgio, these architects were renowned for their technical expertise, and were routinely involved in the design of construction machinery, fortifications, and hydraulic systems.4 But as in the case of Francesco, the histories given for these individuals typically gloss over the period of their technical formation, examining not how they received the title architetto, but what they did once they were recognized as such. Michelozzo (1396 – 1472), for example, was apprenticed in sculpture and metalwork, but according to historical tradition, his career only really began in 1444, when as the Medici’s favored architect he designed the family’s Florentine palazzo. His status as “architect,” we are told,

3 N. Adams makes a similar argument, see his “L’architettura militare di Francesco di Giorgio,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, eds. F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994): 126. Counter to my argument, Marvin Trachtenberg argues that early Renaissance artists were often appointed court architects because of their enormous creative authority and political clout, not because they were experienced builders. See M. Trachtenberg, Building-In-Time: From Giotto to Alberti and Modern Oblivion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010): 281 – 283. 4 R. Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1980): 357 – 358.

subsequently allowed him to earn the technically advanced positions as military architect to Florence and capomaestro of the city’s Duomo.5 Similarly, it is said that Baccio

Pontelli (c.1450 – 1492) began his career in earnest when he was hired as “engineer in chief” to Giuliano della Rovere (future Pope Julius II).6

One might surmise that the truncated histories of Michelozzo and Pontelli are simply an artifact of the surviving documentation; as with many early-modern architects, there is very little record of their work prior to their major commissions. But as there exists a relatively significant corpus of material regarding Francesco di Giorgio’s upbringing, it is somewhat easier to retrace the technical training which carried him from apprentice to architect. Under the guidance of Lorenzo di Pietro “il Vecchietta,” he gained admittance to the Opera del Duomo, a laboratorio of artistic production in all media and the headquarters for all of the commune’s construction and engineering projects – the bottini, the city fountains, the fortifications, civic buildings and churches.

Francesco’s intellectual development outside the workshop, which focused on architectural theory and technical treatises, was also important and served as an extension of his manual training. The contents of his pocket-sized notebook of machine designs, the so-called Codicetto Vaticano (c. 1460 – 1475, Ms. Lat. Urbinate 1757, Biblioteca

Apostolica Vaticana), confirms that Francesco pursued a theoretically rigorous course of study beyond the scuola d’abaco.7 Guided by the formidable legacy of Jacopo Mariano

Taccola, whose illustrated treatise De Ingeneis served as the basis for the Codicetto,

5 See A. Fara, “Michelozzo e l’architettura militare” and Igor Fisković, “Michelozzo di Bartolomeo a Dubrovnik 1461 – 1464” in Michelozzo: scultore e architetto (1396 - 1472), ed. G. Morolli (Florence: Centro Di, 1998): 269 – 285. 6 The most comprehensive study of Pontelli remains that of G. de Fiore, Baccio Pontelli architetto fiorentino (Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1963). 7 Mussini 17 – 18. For a summary of different scholars’ opinions regarding the date of the Codicetto, see Mussini 25.

Francesco studied Latin, read treatises on mechanical design, and conceived of his own treatise on architecture, which just as that of his predecessor, promoted the ideal of the technically trained, learned architect.8

Francesco di Giorgio’s faith in the paramount importance of the architect’s technical training is confirmed in his Trattato di Architettura, which he likely initiated in

Siena in the late-1460s, continuing to modify and amend it during his subsequent years in

Urbino.9 The final section of this chapter examines the Trattato di Architettura, focusing on Francesco’s theory of disegno in relation to the architect’s technical practice. Here, as in the chapters which follow, the text used is that of the second, definitive version of the

Trattato di Architettura, as conserved in the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141. As given by

Francesco, disegno – a term which referred to both the processes of composition and the expression of ideas with drawings – was a practical skill of indispensable value to the architect, and his emphasis on drawing throughout the Trattato, both in text and illustration, perfectly epitomizes the primacy he placed on this architectural tool.

Drawing was the means by which the architect recorded information, generated ideas, communicated concepts and worked out design problems. The illustrations Francesco included in the Trattato – linear diagrams, orthogonal projections, transparent and exploded views, and perspectives – make use of applied geometry and are decidedly practical in their form and function. These were drawing types Francesco knew and had developed from his own experience, and by using them in his Trattato, he not only

8 In pursuing this humanist study, Francesco distinguished him among working artists, and even members of the patriciate, who typically did not have good knowledge of Latin. On Renaissance education see R. Goldthwaite, “Schools and Teachers of Commercial Arithmetic in Renaissance Florence,” The Journal of European Economic History 1 (1972): 419. 9 On Francesco study of Vitruvius, in Siena and Urbino, and the genesis of the Trattato di Architettura see Mussini 1 – 15.

codified a system of architectural draftsmanship, but also delineated the mechanical and intellectual processes by which architects were to develop and communicate their ideas.

Francesco’s theory of disegno, therefore, may be directly tied to his promotion of the technically-adroit architect.

The Spedale di Santa Maria & the Opera del Duomo

Lorenzo di Pietro Vecchietta, although recognized primarily for his abilities as a painter and sculptor, was also an accomplished architect, and as favored artist of Pius II and longtime associate of the Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala, had his choice of many of Siena’s preeminent artistic and building commissions.10 The Spedale, which primarily served as a hospital, orphanage and welfare institution, was also Siena’s wealthiest civic institution and largest landowner, and as such was seat of a larger, autonomous municipal organization which controlled a substantial portion of the building carried out within

Siena and the surrounding contado.11 Among the Spedale’s most lucrative properties were a set of fortified granaries, which stored the harvests from the institution’s adjacent working estates, while also doubling as rural strongholds to be used in times of enemy threat. The Spedale, therefore, was not only a seat of a socio-economic power, but was also militarily important as the major patron of defensive construction within the commune.12 Vecchietta’s architectural projects were those assigned to him by the civic

10 Vecchietta was even given permission to design and build his own funerary chapel with the Spedale church of S.S. Annunziata. For the contract see See G. Milanesi, Documenti per la Storia dell’Arte Senese, vol. II (Holland: Davaco Publishers, 1969): 368 – 369. Vecchietta’s chapel was destroyed in the sixteenth- century. See also H. van Os, Vecchietta and the sacristy of the Siena Hospital Church: a study in Renaissance religious symbolism (Gravenhage: Staatsuitg., 1974): 45. 11 The Spedale’s control of the Sienese building industry is briefly referenced by F. Prager and G. Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis (Cambridge: MIT, 1972): 4. See also Balestracci 29. 12 Os 1 – 2.

authorities of the Spedale. In 1460, he was endorsed for the distinguished position of architect to Pope Pius II, and there is record that he traveled to Rome to personally deliver his model for the new Piccolomini Loggia.13 At the end of the same decade, he collaborated on the renovation of the Spedale and its church, the S.S. Annunziata, while also acting as communal military architect, providing fortification plans for the port towns of Sarteano, Ortebello, Monte Argentoli, Talamone and Monte Acuto.14 There is also reason to believe that Vecchietta was involved in the development of Siena’s city eastern walls – a project which was initiated in 1416, but remained largely incomplete in

1458 when Pius II became pope. It was only under Pius II’s direct instruction that work on the walls was propelled, being brought to completion in the period between 1462 and

1473.15

As apprentice to Vecchietta in the period between roughly 1455 and 1460,

Francesco di Giorgio was exposed to his master’s activities in architecture and defense design. He was also given entrée into the workshops of the Spedale di Santa Maria and the Opera del Duomo, the latter of which functioned as the communal clearinghouse of artists, architects and technicians. The chief of cathedral works (operaio del Duomo) was responsible for not just the construction and ornamentation of the Duomo, but also oversaw work on all other civic and religious structures within the city, including the

13 Although the commission ultimately went to Antonio Federghi, the fact that the commune first nominated Vecchietta for the job is telling. 14 In 1468, Vecchietta was paid for drawings and models of the fortifications at Orbetello and Monte Acuto, and in 1469 he was called with other masters to advise at Orbetello and Talamone. He was paid for another model of Monte Acuto in 1470. See B. Gille, The Renaissance Engineers (London: Lund Humphries, 1966):102; A. Natali, “La chiesa di Villa a Castiglione Olona e gli inizi del Vecchietta,” Paragone 35 (1984): 6; and Vigni 66. 15 Benelli 144; S. Pepper and N. Adams, Firearms and Fortifications. Military Architecture and Siege Warfare in Sixteenth-Century Siena (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986): 34.

city’s fountains, cisterns, wells and aqueducts.16 Under Vecchietta’s tutelage, therefore,

Francesco would have been introduced to Siena’s most skilled technicians, as well as to many of the foreign specialists brought in fill labor shortages and consult on specific projects. The ledger books show that in addition to artists from the Tuscan region, the

Opera del Duomo employed artists from Germany, France and further removed Italian states. There is, for example, record of painters from Bologna, German cabinetmakers,

Lombard masons, sculptors from France, and an organ-maker from Prato. For technical work involving mining and excavation, the city relied on miners from Massa and

Montieri.17 In the mid-fifteenth-century, the city’s leading masters – Vecchietta, Sano di

Pietro, Antonio Federighi and Giovanni di Stefano – treated the Duomo workshop as their own, pooling their labor forces of painters, sculptors and craftsmen in the execution of the numerous ongoing projects.

The artists who frequented the workshop of the Opera del Duomo were individuals of manifold artistic and technical expertise, few of whom were so specialized as to work in only one discipline or media. Along with painters and sculptors – individuals who were employed in the ornamentation of the cathedral – there were dozens of mechanics and collaboratori – literally “collaborators” – individuals of broad technical expertise, who regularly moved between positions involving the excavation and maintenance of the bottini, mining, the harvesting of marble and stone, land-surveying, and the construction of Siena’s walls, fortresses, churches and civic structures. Their

16 The archival records relating to the Opera del Duomo are filled with references to projects outside of the cathedral. See M. Butzek, “Chronologie,” Die Kirchen von Siena: Der Dom S. Maria Assunta, vol. 3, part 1 (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1985): 1 – 262. 17 D. Baldestracci, D. Lamberini and M. Civai, I Bottini medievali di Siena (Siena: Edizioni Alsaba, 1993): 46.

repertoire of practice was determined by the diverse needs of the commune, and was rooted by an extensive knowledge of applied mathematics, derived from their early education in abaco. Scuole dell’abaco were ubiquitous in Renaissance Tuscany, and taught future merchants and craftsmen practical arithmetic and geometry which was directly applicable to practice. Common abaco exercises asked the student how to assess the cost of a lot of merchandise, how to calculate the area of a plain, or the capacity of a barrel, and how to measure the distance between two points.18 But the collaboratori’s fluency in practical arithmetic and geometry was just as much the product of the empirical knowledge they gained through practice – that which was exchanged, tacitly and also explicitly, between individuals within the Opera. Teaching and knowledge- exchange was fundamental within a group of such as the collaboratori, whose expansive job description made it impossible for its members to be singularly specialized. The collaboration and instruction which occurred within the Opera worksites also helped to establish relationships and to reinforce ties within Siena’s artistic community.19

It was within this community of technical expertise that Francesco di Giorgio received his start in architecture. A careful reading of the documents allows us to trace

Francesco’s activity within this network through his collaboration with some of its most notable exponents, namely Vecchietta, Guidoccio d’Andrea and Pietro dell’Abaco.

Guidoccio d’Andrea (c. 1440 – 1479) was an architect and engineer, and among

Vecchietta’s chief collaborators within the Spedale di Santa Maria. Pietro dell’Abaco, as

18 F. Camerota, “Teaching Euclid in the Practical Context: Linear Perspective and Practical Geometry,” Science and Education 15 (2006): 324; F.K.C. Rankin, The Arithmetic and Algebra of Luca Pacioli (c. 1445 – 1517) (PhD Diss, The Warburg Institute, 1992): 12. 19 On informal mathematical teaching and the communities which it forged, see A. Marr, Between Raphael and Galileo: Mutio Oddi and the Mathematical Culture of Late Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011): 57 – 58.

his name suggests, was a master of practical mathematics (abaco), and regularly acted as structural engineer on communal building projects, surveying construction sites, making building estimates, assessing completed work, overseeing the supply of materials, and managing workers’ payments. He was also a professor of geometry and arithmetic, and composed his own treatise on abaco.20 In 1466, Guidoccio was named head of works of the Spedale, and was given responsibility not only for the renovation of the SS

Annunziata – a project with which Vecchietta, Francesco di Giorgio and Pietro dell’Abaco were all involved – but also for the development of the farms, mills and defenses maintained by the Spedale outside the city.21 Documentation from the late-

1460s and early-1470s reveals that both Vecchietta and Pietro dell’Abaco were part of the specialist team composed by Guidoccio to develop the Sienese fortifications at

Sarteano, Monte Acuto and Orbetello.22

During this same period, Guidoccio d’Andrea also was also named designer of the

Bruna River dam – a three-hundred meter long weir, which was to create a lake to be stocked with fish, ending Siena’s reliance on foreign markets for this commodity. The development of the costly and ultimately disastrous dam project occupied Siena’s most skilled technicians, and documents concerning its development again show Francesco di

Giorgio’s and Pietro dell’Abaco’s collaboration.23 Pietro was involved with the Bruna

20 Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco” 387. 21 On Francesco’s involvement with projects in the Spedale in 1470 and 1471, see documents #18 – 20, 22, 24 – 29, 31 and 32. A document of December 16, 1466 records Pietro dell’Abaco making measurements in the Spedale. See N. Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco, a Renaissance Estimator from Siena,” 388, n. 24. 22 See Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco” 392; Vigni 66, 81 – 82; G. Cecchini, “Maestri Luganesi e Comaschi a Siena nel Secolo XV,” Architetti e scultori del Quattrocento, ed. E. Arslan (Como: Antonio Noseda, 1959): 132, 137, 141. 23 Adams, “Architecture for Fish: the Sienese dam on the Brenta River” 769 – 773; and R. Jappelli, “Monumental Dams,” Mechanical Modeling and Computational Issues in Civil Engineering, ed. M. Frémond (Boston: Springer, 2005): 25 – 26. The Bruna dam was among the most costly engineering projects undertaken by Siena, costing more than 15,000 gold florins.

dam project from its inception, and between 1469 and 1478, he made regular visits to the worksite, consulting with the masons at work, taking measurements, and completing estimates on future material needs and costs.24 Within this period, concerns regarding the strength of the dam sent Pietro to study the Florentine dam at Fucecchi, near Empoli. It also prompted the project commissioners to call in experts, such as Francesco di Giorgio, who in the summer of 1476 was asked to verify the quality and state of work of the dam.25 But this was certainly not the first time Francesco consulted with Pietro, or vice- versa. In the final review of Francesco’s term as operaio dei bottini, a document which will be further considered in the next section, Pietro dell’Abaco is listed as having on four occasions collaborated with the architect.26

The connections between Vecchietta, Guidoccio d’Andrea, Pietro dell’Abaco and

Francesco di Giorgio, and the varied projects they executed, attest to Francesco’s role within Siena’s community of skill artisan-technicians. The ties between these men – who were otherwise employed in painting, sculpture, fortification design, construction management and mathematical education – also speak to the permeability of the applied artistic professions in the early-modern period. The theory that painters, sculptors or architects were to be regarded as “liberal artists,” distinct from skilled or “manual” workers, was still far from the reality in Quattrocento Siena. Those designers with technical dexterity and on-site, manual experience – individuals like Jacopo della

Quercia, Vecchietta, Antonio Federigi, and Giacomo Cozzarelli – won the city’s major

24 From 1461 Pietro dell’Abaco was paid by the commune as a mathematics instructor, and from 1467 he was named “measurer of the commune.” See Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco” 387 – 393, and Adams, “Architecture for Fish” 770. 25 On Pietro dell’Abaco’s trip to Fucecchio, see Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco” 390. For Francesco di Giorgio’s early involvement in Bruna dam, see document #53 (July 25, 1476). 26 In the final review of Francesco di Giorgio’s and Paolo d’Andrea’s term as operai dei bottini (see document #42), Pietro dell’Abaco is listed four times.

architectural commissions. These men were Siena’s great architects, designing not just palaces and churches, but also fountains, aqueducts, fortifications, mills and machinery.

Their ability to realize great buildings stemmed from the first-hand knowledge they gained on the work-site – an understanding of material properties, geometric formulae, and construction techniques – which through application they continually expanded, and transmitted to younger generations.27

Sienese engineering and the bottini

Between the fourteenth- to sixteenth-centuries, the Sienese tradition of engineering and technical design was supremely manifest in the construction and management of the bottini (Fig. II.1).28 The challenges posed by the city’s environmental conditions – its elevated, arid site and rocky and uneven terrain – made engineering essential for civic life, and throughout the early modern period, Sienese engineers devised a series of novel mechanisms to compensate for the paucity of water. Industrial production was powered by a network of communal-owned mills located on the Merse

River, about thirty kilometers outside the city center, and fish hatcheries, wind- and animal-powered mills were developed to help alleviate food shortages. The commune also funded reclamation initiatives in the contado, and constructed canals, dams, and bridges to manage the distribution of water.29 Beginning in the mid-thirteenth-century, the city endeavored to solve its persistent water problems by restoring the ancient system

27 H. Schlimme, “Introduction. Practices and science in early modern Italian building,” Practice and Science in Early Modern Italian Building, ed. H. Schlimme (Milan: Electa, 2006): 13 – 14. 28 P. Galluzzi provides a thorough overview of the rich tradition of Sienese engineering in his Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento da Brunelleschi a Leonardo da Vinci (Florence: Giunti, 1996): 25 – 47. 29 Ibid 34. The Merse River mills processed all the grain in the commune, and also served as the center of Siena’s wool, tanning and iron trades. On Sienese production, and mills and canals of the Merse, see Baldestracci, et al. 15 – 16, 20 – 23.

of aqueducts which by then was largely in ruins, and expanding it with the construction of new tunnels.30 The existing bottini were in effect extensions of local spring banks.

Excavated in soft, calciferous tufa stone, the ancient tunnels functioned as both sources and conduits of underground water. The newer channels, by contrast, were faced with brick barrel-vaults, reinforced with wood beams and iron pins, and carefully plastered to keep pure water in and contaminants out.31 In both form and function they represented new, previously untried technology. Their function was to transport water from newly tapped sources outside of the city walls to fountains systematically distributed within the city. The entire network of tunnels – old and new – covered over twenty-five kilometers.

Each one of these was large enough to accommodate an adult worker.32

Although the bottini system was well-developed by the early-fifteenth-century, maintenance and expansion of the tunnels demanded extensive manpower and resources.33 Within the older aqueducts, in which mineral-laden water was constantly seeping in on all sides, the walls and ceilings required constant maintenance to keep them from becoming clogged. 34 Although such cleaning and maintenance may seem like minor tasks, this work required a good deal of technical expertise. In order to improve and regularize water pressure in the conduits, a familiarity with hydraulic forces and the structural dynamics of the bottini was essential. Work on the newer channels was even more demanding. Positions involving hard, physical labor were filled by manual workers

30 Comune di Siena, ed. I Bottini: Acquedotti medievali senesi (Siena: Edizioni Gielle, 1984): 15. 31 M. P. Kucher, The Medieval Roots of the Modern Networked City: The water supply system of Siena, Italy (PhD Diss. University of Delaware, 2000): 111 – 116. Construction on the newer channels did not in fact begin until the mid-fourteenth-century. 32 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 46. 33 Ibid 125; and Comune di Siena 14. In order to finance construction, additional taxes were levied – on bread, grain, meat and wine – and in several instances, wealthy Sienese citizens paid for the construction of channels that would lead directly to their homes. 34 Kucher 115 – 116.

(manovali), hundreds of whom were employed on a daily basis removing excavated earth and stone from the tunnels, and transporting wooden beams, girders, and other building materials to the worksite.35 Skilled miners were present in large numbers as well, finding employment not only within the bottini, but also in the mines of the contado and in the city itself, where extensive grading of the rocky, uneven foundations was often necessary before a construction project could even begin.36 The manufacture of materials was another aspect of the bottini construction. Numerous ovens were placed throughout the city for the sole purpose of producing bricks for the aqueducts and fountains.37 The commune also produced all of the specialized tools necessary for the construction and maintenance of the bottini – single and double-point stone picks, mattocks, iron stakes, mallets and chisels.38

The design and construction of the new tunnels was orchestrated by a team of highly trained specialists. Extending through hundreds of meters of mixed stone bedrock, the engineering of the new conduits was an exacting task. The course of each bottino had to be precisely measured, so that as the channel was excavated, it would cut through the uneven terrain following the most direct route possible and would rise at the shallowest possible constant gradient. If a conduit became too narrow at any point, or rose too quickly, the entire aqueduct would need to be recalibrated.39 Bottini designers also had to

35 Comune di Siena 21. 36 The basic excavation required for the bottini was dark and dangerous work – laborers could easily fall into open pits, and unfinished or unsecure tunnels were known to collapse on excavators. For more on the dangers of mining, the “darkness and terrors of the underground world,” and the culture of mysticism that developed within the bottini work-sites, see Comune di Siena 22, 26. For Sienese mining traditions see ibid 13 – 14. 37 Ibid 21. 38 Baldestracci et al. 47. 39 Kucher 119; Comune di Siena 24; Baldestracci et al. 46. At times, the Sienese were reliant on the assistance of expert silver miners from the Tuscan towns of Massa and Montieri, and during certain periods, the foreigner specialists represented nearly half of the skilled workforce in Sienese bottini. Although local workers were often hostile to these foreign specialists, due to the preferential treatment and

be certain that the structure of the vast barrel-vaulted tunnels was sufficient to withstand the pressure caused by the rising water, as well as the weight of hundreds of cubic meters of rock and earth. In order to ensure that the tunnels were properly aligned, the underground conduits were punctuated by a series of vertical shafts – smiragli or sboccatorii – which extended from the top of the tunnel to approximately one meter above the ground. These well-like structures not only helped the builders trace the course of the channels and maintain a constant incline, but they also brought fresh air to the workers within the tunnels and provided an egress through which excavated materials could be removed.40

Entering the workforce of the bottini, Francesco di Giorgio was introduced to the complex technical practices necessary for the operation of the aqueducts. He would have been familiar with the construction techniques required to build and reinforce the brick vaults and sboccatorii, and was undoubtedly proficient in the sophisticated mathematics necessary to calculate distances, volumes, and rate of water flow.41 Although within the employment contract of April 28, 1469 Francesco di Giorgio and his partner Paolo d’Andrea are recognized as painters, they undoubtedly had prior experience working with

Siena’s myriad water systems, experience which won the approval of “many and various citizens” and ensured the commissioners of Siena that the two men were “highly qualified for the office of the bottini and especially to find new sources of water.”42 Still, the speculative and unpredictable nature of the work required a certain degree of on-the-

generous salaries they demanded, the Massa and Montieri miners were considered indispensable to the excavation of the channels. 40 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 41; Kucher 120. 41 Skills required by the operaio dei bottini are discussed in Baldestracci et al. 47 42 See document #11 (April 28, 1469).

job innovation and training. The 1469 contract stipulates that Francesco and Paolo were to substantially increase water flow into the Fonte del Campo, augmenting the existing amount by at least one-third. They were given authorization to quarry where necessary and to build new tunnels to achieve this end. On June 8, the pair received funds to initiate their first project: the construction of a new channel of eighty-braccia in length

(approximately forty-eight meters) which would introduce a new source of water to the

Fonte Nuova.43 Records from the ensuing three years show that Francesco and Paolo’s tenure as operai had three essential components: the extensive cleaning and repair of the existing channels, the excavation of the new aqueduct, and the construction of six new

“sboccatorii.”44

Due to absolute importance of the bottini for the civic life, sanitation and security was a major concern, and as operaio, Francesco di Giorgio also practiced defensive design. The major urban fountains distributed throughout the city – such as the

Fontebranda, the Fonte Nuova and the Fonte Castagno, on which Francesco worked – were carefully designed to minimize contamination or destruction. Each water station, fed through an underground lead pipe, was comprised of three or more tanks and enclosed within a substantial brick structure to prevent wind, rain and animals from entering.45 As exemplified in the Fontebranda, the fountains themselves were engineered as mini-citadels. Enclosed by thick brick walls and crowned with merlons, the fountain appears more like a fortification than a place of communal life and nourishment (Fig.

43 See document #12 (June 8, 1469). Using conversion of 1 Sienese braccia = 60.11 cm, as given by H. Burns, “I disegni di Francesco di Giorgio agli Uffizi di Firenze,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, ed. F. P. Fiore (Milan: Electa, 1994): 350. 44 See document # 15 (June 5, 1470). 45 On the design of the Sienese fountains, see Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 50.

II.2).46 In fact, during the early-modern period, Fontebranda, like all other water repositories within Siena, was guarded by communal officials, who were responsible for ensuring that no one polluted or poisoned the water.47 The tunnels also presented security hazards in that they could be used as underground streets, permitting unwanted visitors covert entry into the city.48 Knowledge of the aqueduct network, and the points at which the system might be entered, was thus a guarded military secret, and enormous effort was devoted to limiting access to the channels.49

In version one of his Trattato di Architettura, Francesco di Giorgio includes a discussion of subterranean water sources in his chapter on “Military Arts and War

Machines.” Here, he describes how to protect the aqueducts from unwelcome visitors by inserting security portals in the “smiragli.”50 As noted previously, Francesco constructed similar safeguarded bottini-entrances while operaio, and as evident in the subsequent projects he undertook in Urbino and Naples, such projects, and the skills they entailed in regards to hydraulic forces, pressure conduits, and structural systems, had a determinative influence on his architectural practice. Perhaps most akin to a bottino construction was the subterranean tunnel and mine Francesco devised for the Aragonese in 1495.51 The

46 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 58. The Fontebranda was constructed in the thirteenth-century. 47 Comune of Siena 12 – 13. During periods of widespread epidemic, such as the Black Death of 1348, the bottini and fountains brought more harm than good to Siena, acting as conduits of disease. The devastating toll of the Black Death, which killed between one-third and one-half of Siena’s population, only augmented city’s concern with its hygienic condition. 48 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 60. In 1466, the bottini were used to this end when a group of exiles furtively entered the city through the tunnels. Although the intruders were stopped at the Fonte del Campo, which was barred with two sets of wooden doors, the incident alerted the Communal officials of the security hazards posed by the channels. 49 N. Adams, D. Lamberini and S. Pepper, “Un disegno di spionaggio cinquecentesco. Giovanni Battista Belluzzi e il rilievo delle difese di Siena ai tempi dell'assedio,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 32 (1988): 559 – 560. In addition, the design of the fountains as anti-ports provided citizens with a covered, secured place to gather here during times of crisis. See Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 60. 50 Martini, Trattato 210. 51 N. Adams, “L’architettura militare di Francesco di Giorgio” 126.

tunnel scheme, which extended from the urban periphery to the Castel Nuovo, allowing the Neapolitan troops to detonate a bomb under the Aragonese stronghold, was a milestone in military engineering and revealed a profound knowledge of excavation techniques.52 The process was described by the Andrea Spannocchi, Sienese ambassador in Naples: “The castle now stands in isolation; Maestro Francesco di Giorgio is working around it with tunnels and other materials to capture it […] it has already been severely damaged with tunnels under the ground and bombardment of the perimeter walls.”53

Notably, Francesco’s conception for the underground mine may be traced in the

Codicetto, and thus to the period when he was involved with the bottini. Folios 85 and 86 of the little book contain a series of sketches of cannons, bombs, and fortifications under fire, as well as castle under which a mine has been drilled (Fig. II.3).

Francesco also incorporated tunnels and hydraulic systems into his permanent constructions. For example, at the Palazzo Ducale in Urbino, he installed a complex system of collecting and conserving rain water, which included pipes, filters and pumps, as well as royal bathing chambers. The baths, which featured heated floors and had both a tepadarium and caldarium, were undoubtedly the work of a hydraulic engineer.54 Similar systems of water circulation appear in the fortifications Francesco di Giorgio’s developed in Urbino and the Kingdom of Naples. An ample and reliable source of water was essential in the modern fortification. Not only was water necessary for the sustenance of the soldiers, who might find themselves confined to the castle for extended periods, but it

52 See R. di Battista, L. Molari and P. G. Molari, “The First Launching of a mine: Francesco di Giorgio and the Capture of Castel Nuovo,” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio, ed. B. Hub and A. Pollali (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011): 163 – 175. 53 As quoted by di Battista, et al. 169. 54 M. Luni, “Francesco di Giorgio Martini e L’Antico nel Palazzo Ducale di Urbino,” Piero e Urbino, Piero e le corti rinascimentali, ed. P. Dal Poggetto (Venice: Marsilio, 1992): 50 – 51.

was also required for the cleaning and cooling of cannons. The design Francesco realized for the castle of Taranto, for example, included three wells, three cisterns, as well as a distribution system whereby water could be transferred between the different levels of the fortification.55

The vaulted, cylindrical bottini are also echoed in the long narrow tunnels and spiral stair-ramps Francesco installed in many of his Urbino constructions. The fantastic helical ramps were one of the Sienese architect’s signature design elements, and feature in the palace-forts of Mondolfo and Sassocorvaro, as well as in the ducal palaces of

Urbino and Urbania, and the convent of Santa Chiara (Figs. II.4 & II.5). Tunneled passages, underground or between towers, appear in almost all of his fortifications.56 Just as with the bottini, Francesco structured the tunnels and stair-ramps as cylindrical brick shafts, an intrinsically strong form which can withstand enormous radial forces. The helical staircases, the rises extending between two inter-set cylindrical shafts, are like rotated tunnels, extending vertically rather than underground or along a graded axis.57

Similarly, the smiragli Francesco installed in Siena’s bottini display strong parallels with the chimney structures (camini) and airshafts for which he was renowned.

Writing to Urbino in February 1484, the architect Luca Fancelli asked Francesco di

Giorgio to come Mantua in order to fix the Gonzaga fireplaces so that they might function like those at the Palazzo Ducale – that is, “very usefully without the least appearance of smoke.”58 The fireplace chimney or airshaft, like the aqueduct, was

55 F. Ricci, Francesco di Giorgio e il Castello Aragonese di Taranto (Taranto: Scorpione Editrice, 2012): 18. 56 S. Edwards, “La Scala Elicoidale: The Spiral Ramps of Francesco di Giorgio. An Architectural Re- Invention,” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio, ed. B. Hub and A. Pollali (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011): 107. In addition, Francesco also installed spiral stairs in the castles of Ortona and Manfredonia. 57 On the formal character of the stair-ramps, see Edwards 108. 58 See documents #91 and 92 (February 18 and March 12, 1484).

essentially a vacuum system. Both structures were formed as long, cylindrical or rectangular brick channels, which created an internal pressure system to draw smoke or water up through the shaft.59 Just as in the subterranean channels, within the base of a massive stone fortification, air-ducts were imperative. The shafts brought air to the windowless bunkers, ventilating the firing halls from the smoke and fumes given off by explosions and cannon fire. And just as the smiragli might also be used as conduits to transport materials, so too were the fortification airshafts.

The post as operaio dei bottini, therefore, gave Francesco di Giorgio technical, computational and analytical skills which were applicable far beyond Siena’s underground aqueducts. The extensive network of water channels, which was often credited with making the city “more beautiful underground than above” were truly the highlight of Sienese architecture, and as chief overseer of this system, Francesco proved that he was prepared to take on a wide range of projects in the art of building.60

Jacopo Mariano Taccola

While Vecchietta was Francesco di Giorgio’s immediate advisor, who introduced him to architecture and the Opera del Duomo, Jacopo Mariano Taccola (1382 –

1453/1458) provided Francesco with technical and conceptual models. Mariano Taccola, who tellingly called himself the “Archimedes of Siena” in reference to his ability to invent exceptional mechanisms, stood at the center of the convergence between Siena’s

59 For a history of fireplace design and function, see N. Hill, The English Fireplace: Its architecture and the working fire (London: Quiller Press, 1985). Francesco also describes the camini as a vacuum in the Trattato: “El quarto è facendo più ampla e lata la linea del vacuo verso la parte di dentro che quella verso delli omini stando al foco…” See Martini, Trattato 333. 60 When Charles V visited Siena in 1536, he is said to have commented: “Siena is more beautiful underground than above.” See Kucher 191; Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 46.

artistic and academic worlds.61 A review of his career and achievements further delineates the intellectual and technical culture of mid-fifteenth-century Siena, and the environment in which Francesco was introduced to architecture.

A reputable sculptor in his own right, Taccola was well-connected within the artistic circles of Siena and Tuscany – friend of Jacopo della Quercia, outspoken supporter of Donatello and confidant of Filippo Brunelleschi – and was also exceptionally learned, having completed a six-year course of study in notarial law by

1407.62 From 1424 to 1434 he served as chamberlain in the Casa della Sapienza – the college of the Studio, or university, of Siena.63 Established in the thirteenth-century, the

Studio was unprecedented as the first university founded by a town without the blessing of a higher authority, and was considered by Siena’s leaders as one of the city’s

“principal crowns.”64 The close connections between commune and Studio allowed individuals to move freely between municipal and intellectual circles. University professors were encouraged, and sometimes even required, to hold positions within the government, doctors of the Spedale di Santa Maria often taught medicine in the Studio,

61 On Taccola’s choice of the epithet “Archimedes of Siena,” see Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 18 – 19. 62 J. Beck, “The Historical ‘Taccola’ and the Emperor Sigismund in Siena,” The Art Bulletin 50 (1968): 310 – 312. Payments of the Opera del Duomo record Taccola’s activity as sculptor between 1408 and 1442. As Beck notes, the fact that Taccola was involved in the Duomo decoration for over thirty-years indicates his high regard as a sculptor. Jacopo della Quercia was godfather to Taccola’s daughter. On Taccola’s support of Donatello, F. Prager and G. Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 20. On Taccola’s relationship with Brunelleschi, see F. Prager and G. Scaglia, Brunelleschi: Studies of His Technology and Inventions (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1970): 111 – 132. 63 As chamberlain of the Sapienza, Taccola lived in the Studio and was responsible for receiving guests and foreign students, who came from Germany, Portugal and Spain among other countries. 64 The Studio, informally established in the 1240s, received a foundation charter by Emperor Charles IV in 1357. In fifteenth-century meeting notes of Consigilio generale, the Studio is praised for the revenue it generated, the contacts and influence it gave the city, and its service educating the citizens. See Denley, Commune and Studio 27, 66; and Nardi 251.

and even the maestri d’abaco were known to teach courses in the university.65 As chamberlain in the Studio, therefore, Taccola had access to the leaders of Siena’s principal clerical, governmental and civic offices.66 He was a friend of Mariano Sozzini, a celebrated professor of law, and likely had contact with Leon Battista Alberti and Ciriaco d’Ancona, both of whom spent time in Siena in the 1430s and 1440s.67 It was likely also due to his position within the Studio that Taccola gained access to the Emperor-elect,

King Sigismund of Luxembourg in 1432, subsequently earning the title of “nobiles familiares” to the Hungarian court.68 In the final stage of his career, Taccola assumed civic roles that reflected his abilities in both administration and engineering – serving as communal estimator and as “viaio,” or superintendent, of Siena’s urban roads.69

Despite all of his artistic, political and social accolades, Taccola was most renowned as an author and inventor, and it was in this capacity that he was known by

Francesco di Giorgio. Around 1424, Taccola began to experiment with mechanics, and over the course of the subsequent thirty-years, he developed an extensive canon of machine designs, both real and fantastical, which he recorded in his two treatises, De

65 Pietro dell’Abaco was among those who taught geometry and arthimetic in the Studio. See G. Cecchini, “Maestri luganesi e comaschi a Siena nel secolo XV,” Architetti e scultori del Quattrocento, ed. E. Arslan (Como: Antonio Noseda, 1959): 132. 66 Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 8. On the administration of the Studio, see Denley, Commune and Studio 23 – 27. 67 For the history of the Studio of Siena in the Renaissance, and the many distinguished humanists who lectured there, see Denley, Commune and Studio. Also P. Nardi, “Lo Studio di Siena nell’età Rinascimentale: Appunti e Riflessioni,” Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria 99 (1992): 249 – 265. 68 Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 22 – 23. Alberti was in Siena for seven months in 1443 while in service to Pope Eugenius IV. In De Ingeneis, Taccola notes that he shared his ideas with many distinguished individuals, including a Spanish Cleric Antonious Catelanus, and the Sienese lawyers Daniele Nicholai Romanellis and Pietro de Micheglis. See Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 15 – 17. On the Emperor’s visits to Siena, see Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City 33 – 45. 69 On Taccola as Communal estimator see Galluzzi, “Gli Ingegneri del Rinascimento 35 – 36. Taccola’s position as viaio is cited by Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 17. On the position of viaio, the technical skills it required and the social prestige it carried, see F. Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City 13, 17.

Ingeneis (1427 – 1441) and De Machinis (c. 1450) (Figs. II.6 – II.12). The first treatise, which was conserved in the library of the Studio, came to serve as a technical reference book and was studied by generations of practitioners.70 De Machinis, by contrast, was written expressly for patrons and leaders, and was seldom referenced by working men.71

From the drawings and annotations of the two treatises, Taccola has been credited with an impressive series of technical inventions, including the underground mine, the suction pump, an underwater breathing apparatus, and a plan for the desalination of sea water.72

When Taccola initiated work on De Ingeneis, he sought to write a formal treatise on technical architecture and machine design.73 Divided into four books, the tract pairs illustrations with short Latin inscriptions, explaining the function of a range of hydraulic devices, the specialty of Siena, as well as gear-shafts, construction machinery, military devices, and systems for measuring height and distances. Explicit cross-references between the four books help readers navigate the material and reflect Taccola’s methodical organization. Still, as De Ingeneis evolved, so did its form and function.

Books I and II, conserved in an autograph copy in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in

Munich, comprise of a total of 137 folios, and as indicated by the memoranda, were compiled between 1427 and 1441.74 The assorted drawings vary not only in content, but also in quality and finish. Some folios are quite polished – centered illustrations paired

70 On the legacy of Taccola’s De Ingeneis, see Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 191 – 204. 71 Ibid 32 – 33. 72 Beck 309. 73 In the first dated memoranda of De Ingeneis (December 6, 1427), Taccola notes that he had completed tests on four of his own mechanical inventions and this possibly served as the ground for his writing a treatise. See Prager and Scaglia Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 39. Throughout De Ingeneis, Taccola refers to the “architect,” assigning him with the design of machines, bridges and other technical constructions. 74 Codex Monaco Latinus 197

with concise annotations – while others are more disordered – with cursory notes and sketches haphazardly added into the margins (Figs. II.6 – 8). In contrast, Books III and

IV are shorter, only forty-nine folios in total, and far more uniform in composition and content. Held today in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale in Florence, the two books were composed explicitly for the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, who resided in Siena between July 1432 and April 1433.75 The manuscript opens with a portrait of the

Emperor, and in a formal dedication, Taccola asks to become a member of the Imperial court (Fig. II.9).76 The Emperor evidently did not accept Taccola’s offer and as a result,

Books III and IV of De Ingeneis remained in Siena. However, unlike the first two books, no further emendations were made to this half of the treatise.77

Examining the folios of De Ingeneis, one is struck by the great authority Taccola granted the image. In certain respects, this was in keeping with an established tradition of engineering treatises, such as those of Guido da Vigevano (Texarus, 1348), Conrad

Kyeser (Bellifortis, c. 1405), and Giovanni Fontana (Bellicorum Instrumentorum liber, c.

1430), which Taccola undoubtedly studied. Yet, the books of Vigevano, Kyeser and

Fontana differed from Taccola’s De Ingeneis in that these authors were doctors, not artists. Moreover, unlike Taccola, Vigevano, Kyeser and Fontana were not driven to innovate and did not have the training to elucidate the forms and functions of operational mechanisms.78 As an experienced artist and engineer, Taccola was able to render more

75 Books III and IV are conserved in the Codex Palatina 766. On the conditions of Sigismund’s stay in Siena see Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City 29-33, and J. Beck, Mariano di Jacopo detto il Taccola: Liber Tertius de Ingeneis ac Edifitiis non Usitatis (Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1969): 19-20. On folio 73v, Taccola wrote: “completed in the Domus Sapientiae in the city of Siena on 13 January 1433.” See Prager and Scalgia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 148. 76 Prager and Scaglia Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 145. 77 Beck, Mariano di Jacopo detto il Taccola: Liber Tertius de Ingeneis 23. 78 Galluzzi, Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento da Brunelleschi 26-27, and Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 18.

technically complex devices than his predecessors, and to infuse the relatively mundane images with a great deal of vitality, humor and fantasy.79 He provided landscape details, and inserted images of knights and warriors, and a range of animals and birds. Although the drawings are still rather elementary in terms of technique and execution – they lack a systematic scale and display a limited knowledge of perspective – they are remarkably informative. By suspending reality and flattening his images, Taccola was able to show how an aqueduct might transport water over a mountain, for example, or how a terracotta receptacle might be used to retrieve sunken treasures at the bottom of a lake (Fig. II.10).

Taccola consciously employed illustration as a didactic tool, and throughout the text he directs the reader to the images with phrases such as “as seen in the design” or “although obvious from the drawing.” For Taccola, everything given in text may be better understood through images.80

In highlighting his images, Taccola also called attention to his ingenuity. A fundamentally curious man, Taccola wanted to devise engines of greater speed, power, efficiency, to develop more powerful cannons, to make more secure defensives, and to improve modes of construction.81 This is not to say that his devices were always feasible, or even realistic. Some of his illustrations, such as the mermaid horseman, the giant

Archimedean screw and the tree-house fortress, are overtly fantastical and almost seem comical (Figs. II.7 & II.11). Yet as exploratory design exercises, such images elucidate

Taccola’s conception of the architect as an inventor. Progress, according to Taccola, was not possible without experimentation, and the multitude of drawings he included in De

79 Beck, Mariano di Jacopo detto il Taccola 22. 80 Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 135, 96. 81 Ibid 153.

Ingeneis display his own proclivity toward continuous and unfettered imagination.

Within books one and two, many folios show the architect returning to the same concept four or five times, additions made visible in the different drawing styles, different inks and the use of different pen nibs. Folio 60r is one of such pages, illustrating multiple ways one might attach a defensive shield or an extendible attack-arm to a naval vessel

(Fig. II.6). The relatively simple drawings contain no dimensions and were never intended to be realized. These were design concepts – ideas which, if realized, would have to be modified according to the needs of a given project. Taccola took it as a given that an architect would be able to adopt basic structural designs, and is explicit that the architect needs to be able to find his own solutions.82

Let it be noted that one cannot explain each and every detail, because ingenuity resides in the mind and intelligence of the architect rather than in the drawing and writing. Many things occur in the course of work that the architect or worker never planned. Therefore, let the architect be experienced and learned. He should have read a good deal and seen much, and be always prepared. But one principal thing is to be noted: if the architect is not gifted by nature with subtle and perspicacious ingenuity, he is worth little.83

Taccola, therefore, saw the architect as a man like himself, who was able to unite technical construction and humanist study – two seemingly divergent fields – in his role as an inventor of great machines. This vision for the architect was colored by the collaborative culture fostered within Siena’s Studio and the Opera del Duomo.84 As someone who had worked many years in the Duomo and had assisted in the design and

82 On folio 15r, Book I, Taccola writes: “Not everything that is in these designs must be said expressly.” (“Et nota semper quidquid designatur in eo non sprimitur.”) See Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 37. 83 Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 99. 84 Still, Taccola was careful not to reveal too much. He used “veiled speech,” to ensure that “the many things that I have acquired with long labor shall not be known at once,” and provided drawings that often lacked detail and specificity. Ibid 38.

maintenance of the city’s infrastructure, Taccola was well aware that great projects were realized not by individuals, but by teams. Within De Ingeneis, Taccola not only shared his ideas, but emphasized the importance of collaboration. He recorded a private conversation with Brunelleschi, and even reproduced the Florentine’s famous design for the crane used on the Duomo worksite and his infamous marble-transport barge (the so- called “Badalone”) (Fig. II.12). Elsewhere in De Ingeneis he indicates when he shared his ideas – with the Sienese diplomat Piero de Micheglis, for example, or with the jurist

Mariano Sozzini – as well as his source for certain designs, such as the chain or Tartar pump (Book II, folio 80v), which was given to him by an otherwise unknown

Bartolommeo Pasquini.85

Within the greater tradition of Sienese technical design, Taccola saw his role as that of motivator, providing ideas for other architects, who, “gifted by nature with subtle and perspicacious ingenuity,” could turn the conceptual illustrations of De Ingeneis into concrete solutions. Dozens of comparisons between De Ingeneis and Francesco di

Giorgio’s Codicetto reveal that the young architect was among those who took inspiration from Taccola. Not only did he copy Taccola’s designs, but he also seems to have used the career of the fabled “Archimedes of Siena” as a model for his own. Like Taccola,

Francesco dedicated himself to the study of antiquity, and devoted years to the composition of his own treatise on architecture. The first version of the Trattato di

Architettura (c. 1475 – 1485) draws heavily upon De Ingeneis, incorporating many of

Taccola’s designs for chimneys, hydraulic works, military devices and construction machinery, translating large portions of his discussions on these subjects, and echoing his

85 See Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 44 – 45.

statements on the primacy of drawing in architecture.86 Francesco’s subsequent career also displayed strong parallels with that of Taccola. Like Taccola, he sought employment in a prestigious foreign court, and like Taccola, he rose to become a leading social and political figure in Siena. Finally, just as Taccola had, Francesco shared his work with others, allowing students to copy his treatise and learn from its canonical images.

Siena’s “school” of architecture and the Codicetto Vaticano

Francesco di Giorgio was most likely introduced to Mariano Taccola’s ideas in the Studio of Siena, where he may have even had contact with the aging polymath in the early-1450s. As the common ground for Siena’s upper and middle classes, it was not unusual to find citizens utilizing the Studio’s resources, and as affirmed by the sixteenth- century Sienese architect Pietro Cataneo, the university was the place where the city’s inhabitants received invaluable training in the sciences (mathematics, geometry, astronomy and medicine).87 Cataneo’s faith in the Studio as a stepping stone for professional development was the product of his own experiences. Trained as copyist and scribe, Cataneo was introduced to architecture through his work within the university’s scriptorium, where he copied and studied Francesco’s Trattato di Architettura, and later

86 G. Scaglia,“ Francesco di Giorgio, autore,” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena del Rinascimento, ed. P. Galluzzi (Milan: Electa, 1991): 64 – 66. 87 Like all universities of the early modern period, the Siena Studio was organized upon an Aristotelian curriculum of the practical arts (rhetoric, grammar, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy). But at its core, it was a practically-oriented institution, the majority of students taking degrees in law or medicine. See Mussini 10 – 11, and Denley, Commune and Studio 240. In his L’Architettura, Cataneo comments: “The honored Studio will be of much use to the city, because, in addition to the money which it brings in, there come many students from far away, and from close regions individuals from noble and honored families, who give the institution the prestige of their name. But even beyond this, what is most important is that the city’s inhabitants will be trained in different distinguished sciences, and because of this, they will bring great honor and fame to their city.” See P. Cataneo, L’Architettura, in E. Bassi, ed., Pietro Cataneo, Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola, con l'aggiunta degli scritti di architettura di Alvise Cornaro, Francesco Giorgi, Claudio Tolomei, Giangiorgio Trissino, Giorgio Vasari (Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1985): 207.

completed an advanced course on mathematics.88 Notably, Baldassare Peruzzi was among Cataneo’s teachers in the Studio, where, in addition to his post as Communal

Architect (1527 – 1531), he taught perspective and architectural draftsmanship to those who were “interested and wanted to learn.”89 Thus, in conjunction with the Opera del

Duomo, the Studio functioned as an informal “school” of architecture, providing students with theoretical and mathematical knowledge that would complement the practical training they received on the worksite.90

As an ambitious and talented young artist, with connections to the Spedale di

Santa Maria and the Opera del Duomo, Francesco di Giorgio would have easily gained admittance to the Studio, and his presence in the university’s library is absolutely affirmed in his pocket-sized Codicetto, which as noted, derives from De Ingeneis. Yet,

Francesco was certainly not the only student to consult Taccola’s book. The survival of two late-fifteenth-century Sienese manuscripts of technical drawings – the codex Palatina

767 in the Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, and the codex Additional 34113 in the British

Library – reveal the degree to which the contents of De Ingeneis were circulated in Siena, and speak to the local tradition of theoretical architectural education (Figs. II.13 & II.14).

The British manuscript, a nearly two-hundred-fifty folio reference book, is particularly telling in this regard. The manuscript contains copies of almost all Taccola’s drawings

88 R. Binaghi, “Fortuna critica del Codice Cataneo,” Arte Documento 8 (1994): 74. On the scriptorium of Siena, see G. Scaglia, “Francesco di Giorgio, autore” 69. On Cataneo’s mathematical treatise, see R. Binaghi, “Pietro Cataneo Architettore nostro diletto ad Orbetello,” Studi in onore di Renato Cevese, eds. G. Beltramini and A. Ghisetti Giavarina (Vicenza: Centro internazionale di studi di architettura Andrea Palladio, 2000): 44 – 46. 89 See V. Annecchino, “Baldassare Peruzzi e la didattica dell’architettura a Siena,” Baldassare Peruzzi 1481 – 1536 ed. C. Frommel, et al. (Venice: Marsilio Editori, 2005): 312. Peruzzi’s contract stipulated that he “sit obligatus eius artem [si tratta dell’architettura] docere omnes querentes et volentes discere.” 90 On Siena’s “school” of architecture see, M. Mussolin, “Prassi, teoria, antico nell’architettura Senese del Rinascimento. Un percorso per immagini attraverso i documenti della Biblioteca Comunale,” Architetti a Siena. Testimonianze della Biblioteca Comunale tra XV e XVII secolo, ed. D. Danesi, M. Pagni and A. Pezzo (Siena: Silvana Editoriale, 2009): 68 – 69.

and annotations, as well as many of Francesco’s original designs, as known from his

Trattato and the Opusculum de’Architectura. One also finds at least three references to the achievements of “Master Francesco of Siena.” The anonymous scribe who assembled the manuscript was undoubtedly in contact with Francesco di Giorgio, and had access to his notebooks as well as the original version of De Ingeneis.91

The study of De Ingeneis is also evidenced within the manuscript itself. Eleven folios of Book I bear small X-marks, added by one or more copyists to indicate that the machine designs had been copied (Figs. II.15 & II.16).92 The addition of these X-marks, clearly rendered by a copyist, also suggests that perhaps not all of the drawings in De

Ingeneis are Taccola’s. Luigi M. Tocci has argued that the sketches on folio 130v of

Book II – a pontoon, two wind-motors, and boat-water-mill – as well as the Italian text, were added by Francesco di Giorgio (Fig. II.17). This material derives from the more polished Books III-IV of De Ingeneis, and Tocci reasons that Francesco added this material to one of the blank pages of the first half of the notebook, while making additions to several other pages.93 The confused arrangement of the X-marked folios suggests that a second hand possibly added drawings here as well. Folio 38v, for example, bears six different types of ink (Fig. II.7). These drawings, evidently rendered on six different occasions, present not only different subjects, but also display noteworthy discrepancies in terms of style and execution. While the author of these marginal

91 For discussion of the Ms. Palatina 767 and the Additional 34113, and their relation to the treatises of Taccola and Francesco di Giorgio, see Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 34. 92 Marks of this type are evident on folios 35v, 36r, 38v, 41r and 41v. These marks bear strong resemblance to the marks on the folios of Francesco’s Taccuino dei Viaggi (Gabinetto dei Disegni e Stampe, Uffizi UA318 – 337), which Howard Burns has argued were added by Francesco during his transfer and re- drawing of the images. See Burns, “I disegni di Francesco di Giorgio agli Uffizi di Firenze” 350 – 377. 93 L. M. Tocci, “Disegni e appunti autografi di Francesco di Giorgio in un codice del Taccola,” Scritti di Storia dell’Arte in Onore di Mario Salmi, vol. 2 (Rome: De Luca Editore, 1962): 203 – 212

drawings will forever remain anonymous, what is relevant here is the suggestion of a collaborative approach to architecture and architectural education.94

In this context, Francesco di Giorgio’s Codicetto may be understood as a unique record of how an individual architect drew upon and developed the knowledge shared among Sienese practitioners in his own course of architectural education. Measuring just

81 x 59 mm and comprised of nearly two-hundred parchment folios, the Codicetto has no parallel among surviving art and architectural drawing books of the Renaissance. At once both model-book and notebook, the pocket-size manuscript represents the largest collection of Francesco di Giorgio’s autograph drawings, and is a priceless record of the young architect’s training. Based on sequential ordering and grouping of folios, such as the commentary on cannons, which extends folios 42v – 44r, or the exploration of siphon-pumps on folios 142r – 153r, it appears that at least a good portion of the

Codicetto was pre-bound. As will be discussed, there is also reason to believe that the book was filled in a linear manner, beginning with what is in effect folio 1. Although the little book is undated, scholars generally agree that Francesco assembled it in the early

1460s, when he was first exposed to architecture within Siena’s Opera del Duomo, and continued to make additions through the mid-1470s.95

Like a traditional model-book, Codicetto is composed of fine materials and includes a series of copy-drawings of design prototypes. However, the small size of the book and the additive, and at times sketchy, quality of its drawings, distinguishes it from a standard collection of model drawings. The model or pattern books common in the

94 Little is known about technical education in the Renaissance, and unfortunately there is no surviving record of the Studio library or the scriptorium. On a possible inventory for the library of the Studio, see Denley, Commune and Studio 386 – 388. 95 Mussini 25.

100

fifteenth-century artist’s bottega included an assemblage of finely executed stock compositions and motifs which could be easily copied or referenced by members of the workshop. Giuliano da Sangallo’s codex Barberini, a collection of models and polished study drawings of antiquities, exemplifies this type (Fig. II.18).96 Composed around the same time as the Codicetto, the large parchment folios of the codex Barberini feature meticulously rendered model-drawings, carefully arranged on each sheet with neat annotations giving the objects’ name, location and other relevant details. In comparison, the sketches of the Codicetto appear perfunctory and undetailed, and scholars’ general neglect of the small manuscript is likely due to the lackluster quality of the drawings.

Beyond a few references to its contents and remarkable pocket-size, little has been said about why Francesco di Giorgio assembled the Codicetto, or how it was used. 97

The Codicetto was Francesco’s personal reference book, and as such, it served a much different function than Sangallo’s luxurious volume. Filled with over one-thousand drawings – illustrations of pumps, siphons, dams, bridges, aqueducts, mills, balances, construction tools and mechanism for transporting materials, as well as military machines and fortification plans – the manuscript is truly overwhelming. A thorough examination of its images, many of which are repetitions or variations on the same basic device, is tedious and only re-poses the question of why the architect put such effort into assembling the odd little book. Unfortunately, the textual component of the Codicetto offers limited assistance. Francesco’s annotations are rendered in a nearly indecipherable

96 Codex Barberiniano 4424, Giuliano da Sangallo, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (455 x 390 mm). S. Borsi, Giuliano da Sangallo: I Disegni di architettura e dell’antico (Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1985): 7. 97 L. M. Tocci published a facsimile version of the Codicetto, accompanied by a short, somewhat speculative commentary. See, F. d G. Martini, Das Skizzenbuch des Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Vat. Urb. lat. 1757, ed. L. M. Tocci (Zürich: Belser Verlag, 1989). The little book has also been summarily reviewed by P. Galluzzi in his “Le macchine senesi” 30. See also F. Prager and G. Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 191 – 195, and G. Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 51.

101

minuscule script, meant for his reference alone, and that which is legible appears to derive from De Ingeneis. Yet, it is from this essential fact that our understanding of the

Codicetto begins to take shape. Taccola’s treatise, we must remember, belonged to an academic institution, not an artist’s workshop. Thus, it was as a student of mechanics working in the university, not on the job site, that Francesco assembled the Codicetto.

It appears that Francesco di Giorgio conceived the Codicetto as a kind of “cheat- sheet,” a light-weight reference volume easily transported between the Studio, the workshop and the job-site. Inundated with a large quantity of new information, unable to differentiate the key points from the more minor details, and not yet confident in his ability to remember the models or develop his own solutions, the twenty-five-year-old novice copied everything into the notebook. In assembling the book, Francesco was conscientious to maximize the amount of material he could fit on each page. On multiple folios, such as 70v and 82r, he added horizontal and vertical lines as a way of organizing the material and differentiating the individual entries (Figs. II.19 & II.20). Due to the small dimensions of the book, these boundaries also limited the amount of material he could add into each section. As a result, on several folios the script grows increasingly microscopic. As one turns page after page, it seems as if the composition of the Codicetto was almost a personal challenge for Francesco, as he endeavored to crowd into each page as much information as possible.

The first half of the Codicetto includes numerous images taken directly from

Taccola’s originals, which Francesco rendered on a smaller scale with slight modifications. For example, he repeated Taccola’s illustrations of the underground canal feeding into a fish pond, the Tartar pump, roof-beam supports, and mobile attack dragons

102

(Figs. II.21 – 26). This type of copy–drawing conformed to standard fifteenth-century practice, whereby the apprentice learned the exemplary compositions of the master by reproducing them.98 But Francesco was already a trained artist and did not need to look to

Taccola for figural models. Most of the images, in fact, are not simple copy-drawings.

More often than not, Francesco added or omitted particulars, introducing in certain cases significant modifications in respect to the model. Just as Taccola had advocated,

Francesco used De Ingeneis as a source of inspiration, judiciously copying and regrouping certain models in a way that made sense to his own study.

This process of copy and modification is evident in Francesco di Giorgio’s studies of Taccola’s “Good Harbor” design, which as given in De Ingeneis included an iron chain suspended between two guard towers (Fig. II.27).99 Francesco first rendered a near- copy of the original image (folio 32r), but later modified the design, adding his own variation on a simpler version (folio 112r) (Figs. II.28 & II.29). Francesco also clarified and improved upon several of Taccola’s designs, including the box-caisson, a watertight retaining structure which provided a dry work environment for the construction of underwater foundations, such as those of a dam or bridge. Taccola claimed that the box- caisson was his own design, and dedicated several folios of De Ingeneis to its construction. Accordingly, Francesco also devoted multiple folios of his notebook to the caisson, bringing together in his Italian translation material from De Ingeneis Books I and

98 F. Ames-Lewis, Drawings in Early Renaissance Italy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981): 16. 99 Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 35.

103

II with other pertinent details from Books III and IV, and leaving several folios blank for additional notes and drawings.100

As Francesco proceeded to add to the small manuscript, and simultaneously progressed in his own course of technical training, the material he rendered became increasingly innovative.101 In contrast to the meek copy-drawings of the first hundred folios, the illustrations of the second half of the Codicetto are those of an artist with a swift and steady hand. The designs for mills, construction machinery, devices for moving and lifting weights, and piston pumps given here significantly improve upon those given by Taccola (Figs. II.30 & II.31). Francesco even provides a more sensible and effective device for raising a column, or other heavy object, from the bottom of a lake or river

(Figs. II.32 & II.33). In all of these designs, Francesco shows an attention for detail which is absent in De Ingeneis. His illustration of a winch and roller frame, a device used to pull and lift heavy materials, for example, delineates the gearing mechanism and pitch circles in a manner that Taccola did not (Figs. II.30 & II.31). Scattered among the latter- half of the Codicetto, one also finds schemes for gear-shafts, columns-lifting devices, multiple-wheel rotary mills, a directional windmill, and obelisk transport mechanisms which are entirely original.102 Francesco includes initial study-drawings for fortifications, including a plan which would later be materialized in the Rocca of Sassocorvaro, as well

100 Prager and Scaglia, Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis 63 – 64. Francesco’s discussion of the box-caisson appears on folio 89r of the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141 See Martini, Trattato 490. The box- caisson was not actually put into use until the seventeenth-century. 101 Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 33. Francesco elaborated further on the box-caisson in his Trattato, and negating Taccola’s earlier claims, noted that the construction was still a “new and unusual invention.” 102 Ibid. Although contemporary accounts made reference to some of these mechanisms, the Codicetto is the earliest dated source to illustrate them.

104

as early versions of his hallmark “open-box” machines illustrations (Figs. I.2, II.34 –

36).103

Comparison of Francesco’s version of Taccola’s “Good Harbor” (Fig. II.28) with his foreshortened illustration of a gear-shaft (Fig. II.37) reveals the artist’s immense growth, as he progressed from modifying copy-drawings to developing his own sophisticated machine designs. This shift may seem dramatic, however, given the prolonged composition of the Codicetto, and the fact that Francesco assembled it during the formative years of his artistic maturation, that he made such intellectual strides was not unreasonable. By the time Francesco began adding to the second half of the

Codicetto, he was well-advanced as an engineer. The images from these folios constitute the essential canon of his technical designs, which in subsequent years, he continued to re-use, featuring them in his Opusculum, and the first and second versions of his Trattato.

The Codicetto, therefore, taken along with what we know about Francesco’s training under Vecchietta and study of Taccola, prompts a revised history of his development as an architect. Although still unknown in the court of Urbino and with little to show for his architectural talents, by the late-1460s Francesco had begun to assemble the principal designs which he would continue to use throughout the remainder of his career.

Francesco did not suddenly blossom into an architect under the tutelage of Duke Federico da Montefeltro. He was the favored candidate for the position of Urbino court architect because of the exceptional skills he already possessed.

103 M. Kemp, “‘La diminutione di ciascun piano’: la rappresentazione delle forme nello spazio di Francesco di Giorgio,” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena nel Rinascimento, ed. P. Galluzzi (Milan: Electa, 1991): 108.

105

Technical training in the Trattato: Francesco di Giorgio’s theory of Disegno

Chief among Francesco di Giorgio’s technical skills was disegno. Although drawing was a fundamental tool for all architects of the Renaissance, Francesco’s theoretical amplification of the concept of disegno – the association between drawing, skill, and invention – was exceptional. The theory of disegno he developed in his

Trattato di Architettura, which corresponded directly to his practice, enabled him to codify the intellectual process of architectural design, and in turn, to codify the role of the architect as well. As explained by Francesco, drawing was both a means of representation and a creative process by which the architect realized original designs. It was also the means by which the architect controlled the evolution of the building – from its initial conception, to its development in working plans and models, to the instruction of the masons and builders.104 The following section examines Francesco’s theory of disegno through the conceptual illustrations he included in the Trattato. The drawings of the Trattato are those which fulfill a didactic and expository function, conveying just enough information about the mechanism or structure in a comprehensible manner so as to instruct the reader and spur his practice. They are not definitive models, but show the reader how to communicate designs and how to think about architecture. In demonstrating the utility and efficiency of drawing, and specific practical drawing types, the Trattato di Architettura codified a system of architectural draftsmanship. The drawing-types illustrated by Francesco were not only employed by subsequent generations of architects, but in effect lay the groundwork for the establishment of modern standards of architectural representation.

104 D. Lamberini, “Practice and Theory in Sixteenth-Century Fortifications,” Fort 15 (1987): 13.

106

In the prologue of the Trattato di Architettura (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141),

Francesco declares that the art of drawing (antigrafica) is “necessary in any operational science,” and due to the great utility it serves in the many disciplines in which it is used, is to be “ranked first among the liberal arts.”105 Francesco’s use of “arte” here sagaciously elides the ancient Greek “technē,” or the Latin “artes mechanicae,” terms which traditionally referred to the mechanical arts (carpentry, metalwork, handcrafts and construction), with the emergent Renaissance conception of fine arts (painting, sculpture and architecture), the practice of which was rooted in drawing. Because drawing was inextricably linked to “scientia” (knowledge), and in particular geometry and arithmetic, the fine arts could therefore be considered among the intellectual arts (the artes liberale).106 The ancient Greeks, Francesco explains, were exemplary draftsmen, and by encouraging the use of drawing, antigrafica, they ensured continued artistic excellence.

Advocating for a revival of ancient practice, he writes:

And while in our own day drawing is held to be unworthy and inferior to many other mechanical arts, nonetheless anyone who reflects on how useful and necessary it is for every human activity, whether for the process of invention, the exposition of ideas, working or in the military arts – and whoever considers too how closely related it is to geometry, arithmetic, and optics will easily judge, and with good reason, that it is a necessary means in every theoretical and practical aspect of the arts.107

105 Martini, Trattato 294. “[…] era esistimata l’arte del disegno in qualunque operativa scienza, che le prenominate. […] e conosciuta dopo breve tempo l’utilità sua e la nobilità di molte scienze delle quali presuppone la notizia, fu in modo celebrate, che, siccome ne scrive Plinio, nel primo grado delle liberai era riputata…” 106 Our understanding of the terms “science,” “technology” and “history,” is distinct from that of the early modern period. “Scientia” in Latin means “knowledge” in a broad sense and has none of the methodological or disciplinary meanings that we today associate with “science.” See P. Long, Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2001): 2-3. 107Martini, Trattato 294. “E benché ai dì nostri sia reputata vile et inferiore a molte altre arti mecaniche, niente di meno che considerasse quanto sia utile e necessaria in ogni opera umana, sì nella invenzione, sì in possere esplicare li concetti, sì nell’operare, sì all’arte militare – dall’altra parte geometria, aritmetica, prospettiva a questa essere affine – facilmente giudicaria essa essere uno mezzo necessario in ogni cognizione et opera delle cose fattibili, con dritta ragione.”

107

By correlating drawing (antigrafica), with art, mechanics and scientia, Francesco revised the contemporary definitions of these terms. Implicitly, he also redefined what was meant by architecture. Drawing, as an intellectual endeavor, was not the work of the lowly craftsman, but an integral tool in the art of building and mechanics.108 Francesco’s use of the term antigrafica, literally “that art which precedes” or “the art that comes before,” underscores his conception of drawing as both a technical skill and a conceptual process. Clearly, he saw no contradiction this. The applications and abilities of disegno were as rich and diverse as those of the individual architect. In a deceptively simple passage at the end of Trattato book five, he relates the mechanical art of drawing to artistic invention and ingegno:

Moreover, in addition to this art [disegno], and the science and intelligence acquired by books and drawing, [the architect] must have invention, without which it is not possible to be a good architect, because the many things which one is unable to describe or to teach are ultimately left to the discretion and judgment of the maker. […] Also, it is necessary that the architect supply the writing and painting with ingegno. And ultimately, as I have said, invention is necessary for the perfection of art, as many individuals who have in their minds the structure of a building with its proportions, are unable to realize it, not knowing it entirely themselves nor illustrating it for others with drawing.109

108 P. Long, “Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars. From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age,” History of Science Society 88 (1997): 3. 109 Martini, Trattato 483 – 484. “…saria molto utile e quasi necessario che l’architetto, overo chi vole pigliare frutto alcuno da questa mia piccolo opera, intendesse qualche poco di diesgno, peroché senza quello non si può bene intendere le composizioni delle parti dell’architettura, et oltre a questo perché questa arte, oltre a la scienzia et intelligenzia acquisita da libri e disegni, ha di bisogno di invenzione, senza la quale non è possibile essere bono architetto, perché molte cose, non potendosi descrivere né insegnare, bisogna restino nella discrezione e giudizio dell’artefice. Oltre a questo, queli disegni che sono messi per esempli in ogni parte, non possono essere in tutto dichiarati, perché le superfice estrinseche coprono le intriseche [….] Adonque fa di bisgono supplier con lo ingegno alla scrittura e pittura. Ultimamente, perché come ho ditto la invenzione è necessaria a perfezione dell’arte, molti, avendo in la mente fabbricato uno edificio con le sue convenienti proporzioni, non possono poi mettarlo in opera, non sapendolo né a sé né ad altri col disegno dimostrare.” This section, as Maltese indicates, is not included in the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141.

108

Disegno, therefore, according to Francesco, not only allows the architect to clarify and communicate his ideas, it also spurs ingegno and encourages innovation. The architect who uses disegno can envision in two- dimensions objects and structures that never previously existed, and through his extraordinary powers of invention, and his ability to express these unfamiliar concepts, he is able to develop original and correct design solutions.110 By contrast, the individual without drawing can neither form original designs, nor can he even adequately convey his basic ideas. Francesco’s definition of architecture depended on and was reinforced by his conception of disegno. From his point of view, there was no such thing as an architect who did not use drawing.

The true force of Francesco di Giorgio’s theory of disegno, however, lay in the images themselves. Paraphrasing Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Francesco explains that images are more easily comprehended by the intellect than text, and are also more memorable.111

Using the verbs demonstrate, show, clarify, manifest, signify, and designate (dimostrare, mostrare, dichiarare, manifestare, segnare, disegnare), he routinely reminds the reader that in the explication of architecture “writing [alone] is defective.”112 Drawing, like text, possessed a language that had to be learned and interpreted. But once the fundamentals of disegno were mastered, the architect had at his disposal a far more extensive, and infinitely variable, lexicon of expressive and cognitive terms. Attaining fluency in drawing, Francesco believed, was best taught by example, and as with all the other mechanical procedures required in architecture, the student architect ultimately learned

110 Kemp, “From ‘Mimesis’ to ‘Fantasia’” 350. 111 “[Here, I] supplement with a drawing, as the sense of sight provides more guidance than explanation, as it is the most noble sense and the most unique [form of] judgment, as Aristotle affirms in the introduction of Metaphysics, and in this art [i.e. architecture] things are more powerfully conveyed with images than without them.” See Martini, Trattato 399. 112 Ibid 393: “perché troppo longo saria ogni particular per parole esplicare; sia adunque accettato el supplemento della pittura in quello che la littera fusse difettiva.”

109

through practice. Accordingly, Francesco limited his theoretical explication on drawing, and in structuring his treatise, gave primacy to the image. “Those authors who write on painting and architecture without images,” he asserts, “leave for us books with little invention.”113 Throughout the Trattato, images are granted authority over the text, and in effect literally demonstrate disegno not only as a mode of explication, but also as means of invenzione. On almost every subject, Francesco includes multiple variations on each design type, illustrating how with drawing, the architect might experiment with different forms and develop new ideas. The section on “case e palazzi,” for example, features sixty-eight plans for four types of houses and palaces.114 Francesco is similarly extravagant in his examples of city plans, providing twelve examples for what amounts to one of the shortest sections of the Trattato. This demonstration of invenzione through disegno recalls the crowded folios of the Taccola’s De Ingeneis, where in the act of drawing we see how the author was carried away by the powers of his invention.

Still, although Francesco di Giorgio could show his reader drawing, and could provide examples of drawing as a scientific and creative tool, he could not teach him how to draw. The actual mechanical process of drawing was a skill that architect had to master on his own. As he explained in the book’s conclusion:

This work is ultimately not a set of instructions […] but rather it is for those who think and have some intelligence in disegno, without which, one could not understand compositions and parts of architecture, for the exterior surfaces hide the interior ones; of each part I have given ample examples, and because the complete architect must invent in many unforeseen circumstances, it would be impossible to achieve that without disegno; and because I cannot clarify everything, these parts are left to the discretion of the architect.115

113 Martini, Trattato 294. 114 The four residential types Francesco di Giorgio illustrates in the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141 are: “Houses of Artists,” “Houses of Merchants,” “Houses and Palaces of Princes and Lords,” and “Houses and Palaces of Republics” (folios 16v – 24v). 115 Martini, Trattato 505 – 506. “Uno documento ultimatamente non è da pretermettare al quale dieno avere avvertenzia quelli che di questa mia operetta desiderano consequire alcuno frutto, e questo è che questi tali

110

Here, Francesco correlates the illustrative nature of his drawings with his credence in the architect’s manual training. The passage recalls Taccola’s assertion that “many things occur in the course of work that the architect never planned,” and thus, the architect must be intelligent, learned and “always prepared.” De Ingeneis taught that the architect was first and foremost an inventor and practitioner, and following this model, Francesco presented his Trattato as a practitioner’s guidebook.

The practical nature of the Trattato, and Francesco di Giorgio’s technical approach to architecture, is immediately evident in the drawing types he employs. The drawings of the Trattato are those which make use of practical geometry – geometrical diagrams, orthogonal, perspectival and axonometric projections, transparent and exploded views, and cutaway sections. Although Francesco was undoubtedly familiar with a broad canon of mathematical texts, including those of Euclid and Archimedes, which were central in the study of Renaissance mathematics and mechanics, the Trattato makes no reference to such erudite works.116 The arithmetic and geometry which most interested Francesco belonged to the practitioner’s realm, and correspondingly, the drawings of the Trattato were composed for the use of the practicing architect. These are

s’ingegnino avere qualche intelligenzia del disegno, perché senza quello non si può bene intendare le composizioni e parti dell’architettura perché le superficie esteriori comprano le interior e d’ogni parte longo saria dare esempli, e perché il complete architetto richiede la invenzione per molti casi occurrenti indescritti che senza disegno é impossibile consequire, e perché non possendo ogni minima parte dichiarare, quelle che restano sono nella discrezione dell’architetto.” 116 It is quite likely that Francesco knew Euclidian geometry from a secondary source, such as abaco manual or an edited commentary. As discussed by Gino Arrighi, Francesco’s discussion on “Geometria” in Trattato I corresponds closely with La Practica di Geometria of Leonardo Fibonacci. See G. Arrighi, ed. La Praticha di Gieometria dal Codice Ashburnham 361 della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze (Florence: Giunti, 1970). Considering Francesco’s penchant for Aristotle, it is also remarkable that he did not make use of the pseudo-Aristotelian Mechanica (or Questiones Mechanicae), which was known from medieval manuscripts and published in 1495 by Aldus in the corpus Aristotelicum. For more on this text see, P. L. Rose and D. Stillman, “The Pseudo-Aristotelian Questions of Mechanics in Renaissance Culture,” Studies in the Renaissance 18 (1971): 65-104.

111

not definitive models. Rather, they are meant to orient the reader, showing him not only how to design, but also how to think about space, building structures and proportions. A review of the principle drawing types of the Trattato illustrates how Francesco used disegno as a means to systematize and communicate technical knowledge.

Francesco di Giorgio’s geometric diagrams – which illustrate the quadrature series, explain modes of measurement, and describe proportional relationships – are the most minimalistic drawings included in the Trattato (Fig. II.38). The geometry employed in this material is analogous to that outlined by Euclid, although reformulated according to working customs. As was common in commentaries of Euclidean and Archimedean geometry, as well as in the vernacular trattati d’abaco, Francesco developed his explication around linear diagrams, parsed in terms of lettered points, ratios, and cords.117

Although the practitioner using the Trattato would likely not have known Euclid, he would have been familiar with abaco from his years of primary schooling.118 The abstract, geometrical diagrams of the Trattato, therefore, belonged to an established mode of didactic representation with which Francesco’s readers were already intimately familiar. Moreover, the linear diagrams are directly related to orthogonal (plan and section) drawings. Orthogonal projections had been continuously employed since antiquity, favored because they were both pictorial and measurable, and according to

Vitruvius, all those who attempt architecture must first master the three basic drawing types: plan, elevation, and perspective (orthographia, ichnographia, and scaenographia).119 In the Trattato, Francesco di Giorgio included numerous examples of

117 Kemp,“‘La diminutione di ciascun piano’” 105. 118 See R. Goldthwaite, “Schools and Teachers of Commercial Arithmetic in Renaissance Florence” 418 – 434. 119 Martini, Trattato 39.

112

the orthogonal plan in his sections on Houses and Palaces, Temples and Fortifications, which, utilizing simplified geometries, present the essential characteristic of the structure

(Figs. II.39 & II.40). From a single ground plan the practitioner could derive basic measurements which, if applied in a proportional-design system, could be used to develop a comprehensive set of building measures for a specific project.120 Although the

Trattato includes few orthogonal pairings (plan and elevation), Francesco was clearly adept with this systemized mode of representation. This is evident in his illustration of the Ionic capital (folio 34r), as well as in numerous drawings in the Saluzziano Raccolta of antiquities and the Taccuino dei Viaggi (Figs. II.41 & II.42). The aligned section and elevation plans of the capital, whose correspondence is traced with plumb lines, are models of orthogonal drawing. The image is not a scaled prototype – it includes no dimensions – but rather a diagram showing how the architect (or mason) might understand the proportions and constituent parts of an Ionic capital.

The “transparent” and “exploded-view” drawings included in the Trattato di

Architettura also had precedents. Variations on these representational modes were included, albeit in a less effective manner, in the mechanical texts of Guido Vigevano,

Giovanni Fontana, and Taccola (Figs. II.12, II.43 & II.44). But these erudite Latin treatises were not widely circulated among the working population of artists and architects, for whom transparent and exploded-view renderings were still somewhat of an anomaly. By featuring these types of drawings in the Trattato, therefore, Francesco introduced them to a wider audience of practitioners and furthered their codification in

120 R. Betts, “Structural Innovation and Structural Design in Renaissance Architecture,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52 (1993): 9 – 11; and W. Lefèvre, “The Emergence of Combined Orthographic Projections,” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700, ed. W. Lefèvre (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004): 225 – 226.

113

modern, technical illustration. And indeed, the impact of the Trattato was such that within the multitude of mechanical and architectural treatises published in the sixteenth- century, transparent view renderings were a standard feature.121 Francesco used transparent and exploded views as a means to efficiently demonstrate both the internal and exterior components of a given structure – a camino, fortification or mechanical device – in a single image (Fig. II.45). For example, the illustration of the suction pump shows the internal piston mechanism of the hollow cylindrical tube (Fig. II.46). The technically-minded reader would see that when the piston was pulled up, with its two capped valves closed, the system would create a suction, forcing the water to rise and be pushed out of the top.122

While the reader was likely at least somewhat familiar with the geometric diagrams and transparent-view drawings featured in the Trattato, Francesco’s perspectival projections were more novel, and represented a decisive shift in the manner by which architecture was conceived and communicated. Unlike Alberti, who advised the architect against the use of perspective, arguing that these images provided distorted representations from which it was impossible to draw concrete information, Francesco recognized the demonstrative efficacy of perspectival representations.123 As he explained in book six, on the “Parts and Forms of Ports”:

It is very difficult to demonstrate at the same time the intrinsic and extrinsic things, and those things which are hidden, as are found in the sea or in some other great body of water, without the use of perspective and straight lines or natural

121 E.S. Ferguson, Engineering and the mind's eye (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992): 82. 122 Although there are a handful of exploded-view images in the Trattato, a great many more appear in the Raccolta of machine designs appended to the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141. 123 Kemp “‘La diminutione di ciascun piano’” 107.

114

drawing. As without such an indirect way, or by use of some new or unusual inventions, the human intellect cannot teach [architecture].124

Francesco di Giorgio’s drawings of fortresses and harbors utilize a particular elevated perspective, akin to the isometric or axonometric projection, although not as systematic in view point or scale. The isometric projection, a three dimensional rendering without foreshortening, makes evident the geometric layout of the structure – the mass of the towers, and the layout of the bastions and perimeter walls – without the distortions caused by phenomenal convergence (as with an illustration rendered in a single-point perspective).125 Francesco undoubtedly favored this mode of representation for its economy. He could show his reader multiple sides of the structure, rendered in relatively consistent scale, while also demonstrating how it responded to the local topography. For the fortification illustrated on folio 75v, Francesco even included dimensions, confirming that the axonometric projection might preserve the measurements of the depicted structure (Fig. II.47).

But Francesco’s mastery of perspective as a means to systematize information is most evident in his “open-box” machine drawings – a mode of representation which he was first to adopt and standardize (Fig. II.48). Designed according to a rough perspective, the quadratic frames provided a regularized system in which the author could visually organize the different machine parts, conveying a mass of information more

124 Martini, Trattato 489 - 490. “Ma ‹è› difficilissimo e gran penura ‹h›a lo autore overo inventore imprimare nella mente d’altri quello che lui manifesto coll’intelletto apertamente vede, e massime per dimostrare ad un medesimo tempo le cose estrinseche e intrinseche e anco delle occulte, come sarebbe il fondare in mare o in alcuna altra profundità di acque e non per via di prospettiva e rette line o natural disegno, ma per una certa via indiretta o d’alcune nuove e inusitate invenzioni, la quale ingegno umano non porria per alcun modo insegnare.” 125 Kemp,“‘La diminutione di ciascun piano’” 107; F. Camerota, “Renaissance Descriptive Geometry: The Codification of Drawing Methods,” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700, ed. W. Lefèvre (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004): 184.

115

explicitly than was possible with previous modes of representation.126 This is not to say that the open-box illustrations were without limitations, of which Francesco was well aware. The box system made it difficult to accurately demonstrate the physical relationship between the component parts of a mechanism, and often particular details, such as joints and fastenings, were omitted. But within the Trattato di Architettura, the open-box machine illustrations were used as didactic tools, not precise models, and their efficacy in this regard was attested to in their continued presence in manuscripts and printed books throughout the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries.

Francesco di Giorgio’s impact on the codification of a formal language of architectural representation was such that in the study of early-modern architectural drawings, the discerning eye must be careful to distinguish between those images copied directly from the Sienese architect, and those rendered according to his graphic manner.

Open-box illustrations akin to those of the Trattato appear in anonymous study-sheets, reference volumes of mechanical and military design, and dozens of personal notebooks, including, among many, those of the Florentine mechanic and clock-maker Benvenuto della Volpaia, the distinguished mathematician Guido da Monte, Leonardo da Vinci, and the seventeenth-century French architect Jacques Gentillâtre (Figs. II.49 – II.52).127

Transparent-view, axonometric and perspective renderings, were also habitually used by

126 Kemp,“‘La diminutione di ciascun piano’” 108. 127 Leonardo da Vinci’s Codex Madrid II (Ms. 8937, Bibioteca Nacional, Madrid) contains open-box machine drawings. Benvenuto della Volpaia’s notebook (c. 1520 – 1525) is conserved in the Biblioteca Marciana, Venice (codex It. 41.5363), as is Guidobaldo del Monte’s late-sixteenth-century book (Lat. VIII. 87, 3048). The notebook of Jacques Gentillâtre (1578 – 1633) is conserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris (Ms. Français 14727). On this see also, A. Marr, “Copying, Commonplaces, and Technical Knowledge: The Architect-Engineer as Reader,” The Artist as Reader. On the Education and Non- Education of Early Modern Artists, ed. H. Damm, M. Thimann and C. Zittel (Leiden: Brill, 2013): 421 – 446.

116

architects from the sixteenth-century onward, and are still customarily employed by contemporary architects. While Francesco di Giorgio did not invent any of these illustrative forms, by featuring them in his Trattato di Architettura he established them as part of an accepted descriptive language among architects, and thus significantly directed the means by which building professions think about, create and communicate architecture.

117

Chapter III: The Architect’s Travel

Travel was essential for the Renaissance architect, who took to the road for the purposes of study – to examine antiquities or to apprentice in a foreign master’s bottega – as well as to gain new job opportunities, consult on developing projects, or to fulfill existing commissions. Out of choice or by necessity, almost all successful architects of the Renaissance were mobile. The Dalmatian architect Luciano Laurana, for example, rotated in service between Urbino, Mantua, and Naples. Fra Giocondo traveled even greater distances, serving as court antiquarian and architect in Naples, “designer of battlements” to King Charles VIII in France, fortification and hydraulic engineer in

Venice and superintendent of building at St. Peter’s in Rome.1 Likewise, Leon Battista

Alberti, Baccio Pontelli, and Giuliano da Sangallo, to name only a few, led highly itinerant careers. Constantly on the move, these men customarily spent only a short period at a given site. They completed site surveys, examined existing works, and developed the designs for new constructions, but did not stay on site to oversee construction. Once a project was underway, they served as project administrators, monitoring the building processes from afar and mediating information between the construction managers and the patron.2

1 On Laurana, see. A. Bruschi, “Luciano di Laurana. Chi era costui? Laurana, fra Carnevale, Alberti a Urbino: un tentativo di revision.” Annali di architettura 20 (2008): 39 – 45; on Fra Giocondo, see R. Brenzoni, Fra Giovanni Giocondo Veronese: Verona 1435 - Roma 1515; figura genialissima e tipica della versalità rinascimentale italiana alla luce delle fonti coeve e dei documenti esposti cronologicamente (Florence: Olschki, 1960). 2 This process is discussed in relation to Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and Galeazzo Alessi in, P. Belardi, “Disegno Architettonico e remote control nei carteggi di Raffaello, Antonio da Sangallo e Galeazzo Alessi,” Il Disegno di Progetto dalle origini al XVIII secolo. Atti del Congresso Roma 22 – 24 aprile 1993 (Rome: Gangemi, 1997): 47 – 50.

118

In many ways, Francesco di Giorgio was the prototypical itinerant architect.

Although there is little documentation of his travel prior to his transfer to Urbino c. 1475, it is quite possible he visited Rome during the papacy of the Sienese native Aeneas

Silvius Piccolomini (1458 – 1464), as many of his contemporaries did.3 Among others,

Lorenzo di Pietro Vecchietta and Antonio Federighi, with both of whom Francesco had contact in the late-1450s, took the opportunity under Pius II’s patronage to visit the

Eternal City, and would have encouraged the young architect to do so as well.4 On the basis of stylistic analysis and documentary record, Francesco may also be traced to the

Tuscan provinces of Montemassi and Campagnatico in the years between 1472 and

1476.5 Following his transfer to Urbino, Francesco had no choice but to travel. In addition to his responsibilities overseeing the design of the monumental Palazzo Ducale, he oversaw the development of approximately one-hundred-thirty constructions distributed throughout the 2,800 square-kilometers of the Duchy.6 Records from the

1480s and 1490s show him moving back and forth between Siena and Urbino, while also filling commissions in Ancona, Cortona, Iesi, Milan and Pavia, Bologna, and serving as

3 On Pius II’s patronage of Sienese artists, including Vecchietta, see Patetta 795 – 800. On Vecchietta as architect, F.P. Fiore, “Siena e Urbino” Storia dell’architettura italiana: Il Quattrocento (Milan: Electa, 1998): 281 – 282. 4 Os, Studies in Early Tuscan Painting 41 – 45. Even in his later years, Vecchietta continued to seek to opportunities outside of Siena and his support of Francesco in 1475, when the latter sought to end his business partnership with Neroccio di Landi so that he could relocate to Urbino, suggests that the elder artist favored Francesco’s decision to leave. Vecchietta’s credence in the importance of working abroad his further attested to in a document of 1460, regarding his commission to complete two marble statues for Siena’s Loggia Mercanzia. The contract indicates that Vecchietta received the Loggia commission “so that he has cause to pursue his calling in Siena and not elsewhere, which is requested of him and which he is endeavoring to do.” On Federighi’s travels to Rome, see J. Paoletti, “Antonio Federighi: A Documentary Re-Evaluation and a New Attribution,” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 17 (1975): 90, 114 – 115. 5 See document #37 (October 17, 1472). On Francesco’s involvement with a fresco cycle in Campagnatico, see L. Martini, Cristoforo di Bindoccio e Francesco di Giorgio: due botteghe di pittori senesi del Trecento e Quattrocento a Campagnatico (Siena: ali edizioni, 2005). 6 G. Chittolini, “Su Alcuni Aspetti dello Stato di Federico,” vol. 1, Federico di Montefeltro. Lo Stato. Le Arti. La Cultura, 3 vols. (Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1986): 61. It is noteworthy that in the Trattato di Architettura Francesco notes that he has “designed and brought to completion” numerous constructions, but never does he claim to have “built” these. See Martini, Trattato 427, 459.

119

defense consultant in Campagnano, Civitavecchia, Lucignano, Lucca, Montepulciano, and Naples.7

Francesco’s mobility – the extent of his travel and the speed at which he moved from place to place – was remarkable even among his itinerant peers. This travel, moreover, was not for the faint of heart. Although the Italian peninsula is relatively small in terms of its geographical contours, its rough and varying terrains made early-modern travel extraordinarily difficult. The roads were generally in poor condition, and highway robbery was common. Pilgrims and merchants endured travel by necessity, often moving in groups, and when nobles and civil servants traveled, they were frequently accompanied by armed escorts.8 Francesco di Giorgio would have traveled by horse, the fastest means of ground transportation, and along the Roman roads, he might have covered between thirty and fifty kilometers per day.9 Thus, for example, it would have taken him about four days to travel between Siena and Urbino, and at least ten days to go from Siena to

Naples – not an insignificant amount of time for a man who was juggling multiple commissions across the Italian peninsula. Documentation indicates that he was

7 Francesco di Giorgio may have also made visits to Florence and Venice, but there is no concrete documentation for these trips. For a hypothesis on Francesco’s presence in Venice, see M. Morresi, “Francesco Di Giorgio e Bramante: osservazioni su alcuni disegni degli Uffizi e della Laurenziana,” Il disegno di architettura: atti del convegno, Milano, 15 - 18 febbraio 1988, ed. P. Carpeggiani e L. Patetta (Milano: Guerini, 1989): 117-124. For Francesco’s participation in the 1491 competition for the façade of Sta. Maria del Fiore, Florence, see document # 174 (January 5, 1491). 8 C. Ericsson, Roman Architecture expressed in sketches by Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Studies in Imperial Roman and Early Christian Architecture (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1980): 36 – 37. The inconvenience of long distance travel was further exacerbated by the near constant political conflict in Italy, which heightened tensions between travelers, municipal authorities, and military personnel. Foreign travelers faced the danger of armed conflict, incited by disagreements concerning currency, fiscal or solely as the result of political biases. 9 H. Barow, Roads and Bridge of the Roman Empire (London: Edition Axel Menges, 2013): 62; Pepper and Adams 189.

120

commonly reimbursed for his travel expenses, and on occasion, his patrons specially arranged his transportation by horse or ship.10

Considering the enormous demands of early-modern travel – time, energy and expense – it is constructive to consider how this requisite component of the architect’s practice shaped his working methods. This chapter focuses on the principal catalysts for the architect’s mobility – education, politics and patronage – in relation to Francesco di

Giorgio’s documented travel. Francesco’s autograph notebook of antiquarian studies (the so-called Taccuino dei Viaggi), provides a record of his travel for educational purposes.

My examination of these drawings does not concern his conception of Roman architecture per se – that is, how the images relate to the fragmented monuments or how

Francesco’s interpretation of the ruins is reflected in his built works – but rather considers what the sketches relay about the architect’s training and creative development.11

The political valences of the architect’s travel are brought to the foreground in examination of Francesco’s itinerant position as fortification consultant to the Kingdom of Naples. The discussion here draws upon Sienese correspondence records, contemporary Neapolitan commentaries, travel diaries and payment receipts. Within the turbulent political climate of fifteenth-century Italy, architecture was both an expression of power and the physical structure of defense. The state-employed architect was

10 Payment receipts of 1480 indicate that Francesco was reimbursed for his provisions while in the employ of the Aragonese. Likewise, when Francesco traveled to Milan in 1490, his lodging was pre-arranged and in addition to a salary, the Sforza court compensated his expenses for food, clothing and travel. See documents # 153 and 161 (May 20 and July 4, 1490). In 1487, the Sienese arranged to have a horse ready in Urbino so that Francesco could travel as quickly as possible. See document #117 (October 8, 1487). In a letter of March 23, 1493 (document #209) the Aragonese promised to transport Francesco by ship to Naples. 11 Studies of this nature have completed by Christoffer Ericsson, Howard Burns and Manfredo Tafuri. See: Ericsson op. cit; H. Burns, “I disegni di Francesco di Giorgio agli Uffizi di Firenze” 350 – 377; and M. Tafuri, “Le chiese di Francesco di Giorgio Martini,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, eds. F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994): 21 – 73.

121

responsible not only for the design of buildings, but also often served as an ambassador, advising on matters of construction and military strategy and rendering his services to foreign states as a form of diplomacy. Francesco’s position in Naples epitomizes this model. Still under the employ of the Commune of Siena, he was never officially appointed as the Aragonese architect, but served as a purveyor to the Neapolitan court.

Over the course of the approximately twelve-year period from 1484 to 1496, Francesco worked largely by “remote control,” consulting on the design and construction of dozens of military constructions within the 58,000 square-kilometers of the Neapolitan

Kingdom.12 Although many architects of the Renaissance held similar appointments,

Francesco’s assignment in Naples was exceptional due to the massive scale of the

Aragonese defense program, the great dispersion of sites, and the speed at which the structures were to be executed, and for this reason, it serves as a particularly insightful case study of the itinerant architect’s working methods.

As in the previous chapter, the final section here relates Francesco di Giorgio’s practice to the methods espoused in the Trattato di Architettura. Although the Trattato does not explicitly deal with the architect’s travel, Francesco’s unwavering belief in the architect’s need for mobility is evident throughout the tract. The final version of the

Trattato (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141) includes numerous references to the practitioner’s travel – to examine ancient models, to complete site surveys and collect data on materials and environmental conditions, and to gain necessary technical

12 Wolfgang Lotz was the first to use the term “architect by remote control,” in reference to Galeazzo Alessi. The term was subsequently used by P. Belardi and F. Toker. See W. Lotz, “Introduzione ai lavori del convegno,” Galeazzo Alessi e l’architettura del Cinqueceno (Genoa: Sagep Editori, 1975): 10; F. Toker, “Gothic Architecture by Remote Control: An Illustrated Building Contract of 1340,” The Art Bulletin 67 (1985): 67 – 95; and Belardi op. cit.

122

experience. This on-site training, Francesco repeatedly reminds the reader, was essential for professional success. 13 By emphasizing his own mobility and wide-ranging experiences throughout Italy, Francesco affirmed the validity of his theory in practice.

Travel for antiquarian study: the Taccuino dei Viaggi

The Taccuino dei Viaggi (Uffizi A318 – 337) – a set of Francesco di Giorgio’s autograph sketches of Roman monuments – serves as a literal record of the architect’s travel for the purposes of antiquary study (Figs. III.1 – 7).14 Francesco, like many of his contemporaries, considered the ancient Greeks and Romans exemplary in their art and architecture, and in his Trattato di Architettura, he asserts that knowledge gained from first hand observation of ancient monuments was essential for architectural excellence.15

Implicitly, travel was understood to be a key component of this study. The association between architectural education and travel was a deeply rooted in early modern building culture. In the Middle Ages, guild statutes required builders to travel for a given period before they were eligible for mastership, following the prevalent belief that the apprentice needed to gain as much experience as possible, and he could only do this by traveling to diverse building sites.16 In the fifteenth-century, in conjunction with the rise of

13 See for example, Martini, Trattato 378. 14 The dating of the Taccuino folios is unconfirmed. Ericsson associates the Uffizi drawings with Francesco’s trips between Naples and Siena in the early 1490s, but Burns has argued that it is equally possible that Francesco completed the drawings during earlier study trips. The fact that he was under commission of the Aragonese king by April 1479 opens the possibility that some of the drawings might date from this time. Arnold Nesselrath believes that the Taccuino drawings date from between 1486 and 1490, based on their correspondence with the Raccolta of ancient architectural models included in the codex Saluzziano. See: Burns,“I disegni di Francesco di Giorgio agli Uffizi di Firenze”; Ericsson op. cit; and A. Nesselrath, “Disegni di Francesco di Giorgio Martini,” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro, ed. F.P. Fiore (Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004): 337 – 368. 15 Martini, Trattato 295. 16 M. Carpo, Architecture in the Age of Printing: Orality, Writing, Typography, and Printed Images in the History of Architectural Theory (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press, 2003): 39. The term “journeyman” originates from the old French “journee” meaning one day, and literally means “a man who works for one day,” or “a man who travels.”

123

humanism, the theoretical component of architectural education was increasingly accentuated, and architects began to travel not only in order to gain mechanical experience, but also by choice – to examine the remnants of the classical past. This study, however, was not the task of an apprentice, but one typically pursed by a more mature individual as part of his long, self-directed climb to the apex of the architectural profession.17 In De re Aedificatoria, Leon Bastista Alberti urged the architect to visit

“the biggest and most important buildings,” and to assemble a catalogue of models which would help him to better to distinguish good design from bad, and supply him with ideas for his own practice.18 It was this type of systematic study, which according to Vasari elevated Filippo Brunelleschi from proficient artist to Florence’s most celebrated architect.19 Francisco de Holanda also emphasized the importance of antiquarian study in his Roman Dialogues (1548), commenting: “I ask myself, what fortresses of foreign cities do I not yet already have in my album? What immortal buildings and what weighty statues does this city still possess that I have not already stolen, carrying them away with me, without carts or ships on light sheets of paper?”20

Holanda’s reference to the drawing’s extraordinary power to steal away great monuments “without carts or ships on light sheets of paper” speaks to the importance of this media in antiquarian study. But this is not to say that the antiquarian study drawings were uniform, or that there was even a defined process for examining the ruins. The

17 In De Architectura, which served as a theoretical bench mark for many fifteenth- and sixteenth-century architects, Vitruvius speaks of the architect’s training as a life-long endeavor. See Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, trans. I. D. Rowland (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999): 23. 18 De re aedificatoria, Book IX.X. See L.B. Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, trans. J. Rykwert, N. Leach and R. Tavernor (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988): 315. 19 Vasari, “Filippo Brunelleschi” 331 – 332. 20 F. de Hollanda, Diálogos em Roma (1538). Conversations on Art with Michelangelo Buonarroti, ed. G. D. Folliero-Metz (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1998): 69.

124

sketchbook of Simone di Tomaso del Pollaiolo “Il Cronaca,” for example, features annotated plan, section and elevation drawings of architectural details, neat studies intended to convey specific information (Figs. III.8 & III.9).21 Giuliano da Sangallo’s

Codex Barberini, by contrast, provides artful reconstructions of dilapidated or partial buildings (Figs. II.18 & III.10).22 This carefully curated set of illustrative models – architectural plans, elevations, machines, and ornamental details – were meant to inspire new designs rather than provide information for exact replication. Both Cronaca and

Giuliano’s drawings were rendered in the workshop, based on notes and measurements taken from on-site investigations. Francesco di Giorgio’s Taccuino dei Viaggi presents what these initial, on-site studies probably looked like. The cursory sketches, drafted in a number of minutes, if not seconds, were likely among a more extensive collection of similar drawings assembled by Francesco over the course of his career. These were the architect’s personal notes – they were not to be copied – and are distinct from Giuliano’s polished illustrations and Cronaca’s precise, orthogonal drawings. Francesco did not take time to lay out his studies or to order them by place. On many pages the drawings are overlapped, turned sideways or entirely inverted. Yet, it is this referential quality of the

Taccuino that makes it so revelatory of the architect’s travel and observational processes.

But before discussing the Taccuino drawings, it is necessary to comment briefly on the annotations Francesco di Giorgio included on the folios, which provide information in regards to the subject and location of the monuments. These notes, likely added in a subsequent stage of organization, evidence the mnemonic function of the

Taccuino and the fact that Francesco took the effort to include them is highly significant.

21 Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montréal holds multiple folios of Cronaca’s notebook. 22 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Codex Barberinus latinus 4424.

125

Despite their hasty appearance, the Taccuino sketches are highly informative records, which in a few quick lines capture what was evocative about a place or monument. His economical rendering of the Baia stuccos (U 331Ar), for example, was certainly not a complete depiction of the ornamental scheme. But it its few, carefully chosen lines, it illustrates a pattern and provides its user with enough information to reconstruct a mental image of the structure (Fig. III.1). The place-association Francesco included with the sketch was thus essential to its function. Without the label, the Baia study was only a schematic, disconnected reference, but with the name attached, the drawing came to stand in for the place. The value of the image lay not in its fine draftsmanship or beautiful forms, but in its ability to capture a specific experience.23

The annotations included on Taccuino folios also allow us to approximately date the folios between 1485 and 1495, and help to reconstruct the architect’s travel itineraries. A geographical plot of the locations recorded – Averno, Baia, Capua, Chiusi,

Cuma, Miseno, Monte Cassino, Naples, Narni, Perugia, Pozzuoli, Rome, San Germano,

Spoleto, Terni, and Tivoli – shows that the sites Francesco studied fall within three general regions: Umbria, Rome and Campania. Each of these lies somewhere between

Siena and Naples, and would have been accessible by one of the major Roman roads – specifically, the via Cassia, the via Flaminia, or the via Appia (Maps II & III).24 It is possible, therefore, that Francesco executed part or all of the Taccuino drawings in conjunction with one or more of his journeys to the Aragonese capital. This hypothesis is further supported by the fact that several of the locations – Averno, Baia, Capua, Miseno,

23 This conception of antiquarian study is supported by the fact that multiple generations of artists and architects traveled to the same places to draw the same monuments. 24 Barow 44.

126

and Pozzuoli – were municipalities of the Neapolitan Kingdom and were easily accessed from Naples. Still, knowing what we do about Francesco’s interest in antiquity, it is equally possible that the Taccuino was born out of separate trips dedicated solely to antiquarian study.

Examination of the individual drawings, focusing on their form, line quality and sequential placement on the folios, offers additional clues regarding Francesco di

Giorgio’s possible travel itineraries to Umbria, Rome and Campania. This analysis also provides insight into his processes of antiquary study. Take for example folio UA 335, which combines studies from the dispersed locations of Chiusi, Tivoli, and Perugia (Figs.

III.2 & III.3). On the recto side, Francesco rendered two ground plans for structures at

Hadrian’s Villa in Tivoli. The regularized geometries of the plans, which include measurements given in feet (piedi), suggest that he took creative liberties to fill in those parts which were difficult to comprehend. As Francesco admitted in the Raccolta of antiquities appended to the codex Saluzziano, the plans he provided were largely inventions, born out of his ingegno.25 He reconstructed the ruins with the assumption that they followed a geometric logic. This same system provided the basis for his original architectural plans, and thus it is not surprising to find a clear correlation between his symmetrical, centralized plans from Tivoli with the theoretical models he provided in the

Trattato (Figs. III.3 & III.11). The “x” check-marks included over each of the plans are likely those of a copyist, who transferred the Taccuino studies into the Trattato and other

25 Martini, Trattato 275. “De’ quali edifitii qui di socto fondi facce circunferentie et hornamenti loro sicondo el mio debile ingiengnio fighurati saranno …” Richard Betts emphasizes that Francesco di Giorgio’s study drawings “contain far more imagination than archaeological fact.” See R. Betts, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio (PhD Diss. Princeton University, 1971): 24; and R. Betts, “Si come Dice Vetruvio: Images of Antiquity in Early Renaissance Theory of Architecture,” Antiquity and its Interpreters, ed. A. Payne, A. Kuttner and R. Smick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000): 248 – 250.

127

model-books. Francesco’s development of architecture – both real and imagined – in terms of geometrical systems is again demonstrated in the three palazzo and two fortification plans he included on the recto side of folio UA 335. These drawings, which bear no indication of place, were likely Francesco’s original creations. Although un-

“checked,” again variations on these plans also appear in the Trattato (Figs. III.2 &

III.12).

Sometime after Francesco di Giorgio drafted the UA 335 ground plans, he re-used the sheet, overlapping the orthogonal drawings with decorative studies of monuments in

Chiusi and Perugia. At Perugia, he recorded a figurative capital from the fifth-century temple of Sant’Angelo, rendering in quick descriptive pen strokes the contours of the sculpted male nudes, dogs, wild animals and acanthus leaves. The loose contours of this drawing are echoed in those of a figurative relief which Francesco observed at Chiusi.

Chiusi, a small town on the Roman via Cassia, lies between Siena and Perugia, about eighty-kilometers from the former and fifty-from the latter. Taccuino folio UA 335, therefore, might record Francesco’s travel from Rome to Siena, and the stops he made in

Perugia and Chiusi en route. Alternatively, the Chiusi and Perugia drawings may have been completed on another occasion, perhaps along with those of Spoleto, Terni and

Narni, during several-day study-trip in the Umbrian region. The suggestion of such of tour, of course, is entirely hypothetical. However, considering the great value of the

Taccuino drawings – the fact that they subsequently came to feature in the Trattato – it is constructive to consider them as the product of planned research trips. These are not the architect’s doodles. Facing continual time pressures, Francesco would have scheduled concentrated periods within certain regions in order to complete on-site antiquary studies.

128

The folios featuring studies from Rome, including Tivoli, the Palatine and the

Pincian Hills, show the swift pace of Francesco’s study. The skewed plan drawing of the

“academia” of Hadrian’s Villa (UA 319v), for example, is clearly hastily drafted on-site

(Fig. III.4). Standing among the ruins, Francesco likely made a few visual measurements, paced out the dimensions of the long rectangular “sala” and the adjacent spaces and then offhandedly set down the contour lines.26 But despite its rough contours, this is no mean sketch. The Tivoli study exemplifies how the architect-antiquarian used drawing as a means of observation. The extra line on the left side, as well as lighter, tracery marks around the square cortile and the apses of the great hall, show how Francesco modified the drawing as he progressed with his investigation. This same inquisitive drawing process is evident again on folio U 334A, where Francesco recorded building plans and details from the Circus of Maxentius, the Palatine Hill, Santo Stefano Rotondo, and the

Roman campagna (Fig. III.5). Drafting out the plan of the Circus of Maxentius on the recto side, Francesco focused on the upper left corner of the structural frame. The reworked, flat lines are those of the architect deep in thought, attempting to visualize in plan the ruined, monumental structure. The solution he developed here became the model for the remaining three corners. Francesco’s notes regard the building dimensions, the change in elevation and the stepped seating area. But his interest in the Circus appears to have been purely intellectual. He wanted to understand the ancient plan, but not necessarily to recreate it.

The drawings of the Taccuino dei Viaggi, therefore, tell us more about Francesco di Giorgio’s approach to architecture than they do about the ruins he studied. His ability

26 In his comparison of the Taccuino studies with the ruins they represented, Ericsson found that Francesco’s measurements were often approximations. See Ericsson 166.

129

to skip between sites, examining and remaking ruined structures, is evocative of his enormous physical, creative and intellectual dexterity. His work was never singularly focused. Constantly on the move, and thus constantly pressed for time, Francesco’s antiquarian study-trips were inevitably conjoined with his other projects. This is supremely manifest on folio UA 326, which shows Francesco as painter, sculptor, builder and antiquarian (Figs. III.6 & III.7). The recto of the folio features painterly studies of muses taken from a Roman sarcophagus in the church of San Paolo. The sheet also includes two building plans, and a copy of an inscription from the Campo Marzio in

Rome. On the verso, Francesco copied sculptural decorative details from the Abbey of

Monte Cassino. Like all the other drawings of the Taccuino, these are momentary studies, rendered in a swift hand. They were the objects which particularly resonated with the architect over the course of his travels, and those which fueled his practice.

Francesco di Giorgio as architect-consultant to Naples (1479 – 1491)

Francesco di Giorgio’s travel for the purpose of antiquary study, although “not with little effort,” was work that he undertook voluntarily. However, the travel he undertook on behalf of the Aragonese, whom he intermittently served as fortification advisor between 1484 and 1496, was far less agreeable. This was a position which stemmed from his existing bonds with Duke Alfonso II of Calabria – it was not one that he actively pursued, and certainly, it was not one that he enjoyed. Francesco’s involvement in the development of the Neapolitan fortifications between 1484 and 1489, although poorly documented, is confirmed through secondary reference, and circumstantial evidence. This activity is noteworthy for multiple reasons. For one,

Francesco’s work in the kingdom in the 1480s would have provided the foundation for

130

his well-documented service there the following decade. Moreover, the fact that he was able to serve as architectural consultant to Naples during the period when he resided elsewhere, speaks to the highly collaborative nature of early-modern fortification design and the architect’s unique role. Rarely on-site, Francesco was able to monitor the development of the Neapolitan fortification by sending models, drawings and instructions to local building supervisors. While one might well question why the Aragonese did not look to hire an architect who could be more readily available, the appointment of a single, authoritative architect was in fact not then an option for the Neapolitans. Not only was great size of the kingdom prohibitive – no single architect could possibly supervise all of the building works within the 58,000 square kilometer region – but the Aragonese’s constrained finances following the 1481 Ottoman incursions prevented them from being able to hire highly skilled, and therefore expensive, military designers on a full-time basis.27 What the Aragonese needed were architect-consultants, skilled fortification designers who could collaborate on numerous, regionally and formally diverse projects.

Francesco di Giorgio was an ideal candidate for the position due not only to his extensive knowledge of defensive architecture and contemporary warfare tactics, but also because he knew how to develop adaptable, yet effective fortress designs, and could to efficiently communicate these to workmen from afar.

Francesco di Giorgio’s service as architect-consultant to Naples in the 1480s and

1490s was directly related to the adverse circumstances the kingdom then faced. In the final two decades of the fifteenth-century, the Kingdom of Naples was participant not only in pan-Italian conflicts – the Tuscan War (1478 – 1481), the War of Ferrara (1482 –

27 Bentley 29; Hersey 4.

131

1484), and the Italian War (1494 – 1498) – but also suffered from internal infighting, and external attacks (from the Ottomans, 1480; the Venetians, 1484; and the French, 1494).28

The Aragonese desperately needed expert fortification design, and Francesco was among the most knowledgeable in this field. Moreover, as discussed previously, by 1480 the

Sienese architect already had an established relationship with the Aragonese. As evidenced in a series of thirteen payment receipts dated April 1479 – June 1480,

Francesco served Duke Alfonso II during the Tuscan War and appears to have been kept on retainer with the Aragonese, receiving regular stipendiary payments – “pro provisione.”29 Referred to as “pinctore senese,” Francesco is credited for making a painting of Poggio Imperiale, the site of the key battle of the Tuscan War, as well as a mirror (“specchio”) for Duke.30 It is possible that Alfonso was also looking to employ him on future architectural projects in Naples. One of two payment receipts dated January

30, 1480, indicates that a certain Cristofalino, presumably one of Francesco’s assistants, collected a reimbursement of six ducats for the cost of vellum (“panno”).31 The document does not specify the intended use of the folios, but does note that they were supplied by “Antonio de Capoa.” Over twelve years later, the name of Antonio of Capua appears again in the Neapolitan records in a document regarding Fra Giocondo’s reproduction of Francesco di Giorgio’s military designs – drawings which were to be bound in model books, and most likely for the use of Aragonese builders.32 Although the

28 Bentley 30 – 33. Moreover, poor relations between King Ferrante and Innocent VIII prompted the Pope to excommunicate Ferrante from the church in September 1489. 29 Francesco was most likely introduced to Alfonso II by Federico da Montefeltro, who as captain general of the Papal-Neapolitan alliance and longtime ally of the Aragonese, would have naturally lent his architect’s services to the Duke of Calabria. See Clough, “Federico da Montefeltro and the King of Naples: a study in fifteenth-century survival,” Renaissance Studies 6 (1992): 118 – 143. 30 See documents #66 and 76 (October 17, 1479 and May 31, 1480). 31 See document #71 (January 30, 1480). 32 See document #195 (June 30, 1492).

132

documentation is inconclusive, the fact that Antonio di Capua was responsible for assembling construction manuals of Francesco’s models in 1492 suggests that the vellum he provided the architect in 1480 might have been used for a similar purpose.

Yet, whatever projects Alfonso II planned with Francesco di Giorgio in early

1480, these would have become of secondary concern following the Turkish attack at

Otranto that summer, at which point he returned to Naples, devoting the next year to preparing his troops for battle. Francesco, despite his allegiance to Alfonso, does not appear to have assisted in the duke’s four month campaign of 1481, but remained in

Urbino in service to Federico da Montefeltro. Still, it is worth noting that two of his close collaborators – Ciro Ciri of Casteldurante and his former Sienese partner, Neroccio de’

Bartolomeo Landi – did serve the Aragonese in this period, and thus it even if Francesco was not himself present in Otranto, he was undoubtedly aware of the developing situation there, and may well have advised on strategic matters.33 Moreover, subsequent documentation confirms that the Sienese architect was involved in developing the

Neapolitan defenses as early as 1484. From this information, combined with circumstantial evidence, we may reconstruct his role as fortification design consultant in the second-half of the 1480s.

The most ambitious construction commenced by the Aragonese in the 1480s involved the eastern walls and defenses of Naples – a substantial new system was to augment the Castel Nuovo, Castel Sant’Elmo and Castel’Ovo, and link them within a

33 On the pivotal role Ciro Ciri played in the 1481 seige at Otranto see Carducci 61 – 92. Neroccio de’ Bartolomeo Landi’s service to Alfonso in Naples in 1481, previously unnoted, is attested to in a document reproduced by Borghesi and Banchi. Considering Neroccio’s partnership with Francesco di Giorgio in Siena (c.1469 – 1475), and Francesco’s service to Alfonso II in 1478 and 1479, it seems likely that Francesco introduced Neroccio to Alfonso. Documents #81 and 82 (June, 1481) indicate that he was then active in Tuscany and the Marche. See S. Borghesi and L. Banchi, Nuovi Documenti per la storia dell’Arte Senese (Siena: Enrico Torrini Editore, 1898): 259.

133

city-wide network.34 According to an account of an anonymous Neapolitan chronicler, the public ceremony marking the initiation of the eastern wall took place on June 15,

1484. As recorded by the chronicler, a six-ducat gold sirene was placed under the new walls, the design for which was “overseen by the engineering captain Master Francesco of Siena” (“soprastante l’ingeniere capo Maestro Francesco da Siena”).35 Although the account does not specify that the named Francesco was in fact Francesco di Giorgio, there was no other architect of equal renown from Siena, and no other Francesco was known to work for the Aragonese. Still, progress on the massive western wall of Naples was quite slow, and official documents indicate that two other individuals, Antonio

Spinello and Antonio Latro, supervised the construction.36 Moreover, the Neapolitan chronicler only comments that Francesco “oversaw” the urban defenses. We might conclude from these documents, therefore, that Francesco’s involvement in the new defenses was enough to merit notation, but that the extent of his contribution was limited.

Francesco’s minimal involvement in the Aragonese defense campaign in the mid-

1480s accords with the fact that during this period, the kingdom built very little. Due to the scarcity of financial resources in the aftermath of the Ottoman attacks, the Aragonese were limited to constructing walls and bastions only when absolutely necessary.37 Early- modern fortification construction was extraordinarily expensive – requiring considerable quantities of stone, brick, and lime, large teams of manual laborers, as well as stone

34 Carducci, “La ricostruzione del castello di Taranto nella strategia difensiva aragonese (1487 – 1492),” Archivio storico pugliese 48 (1995): 131, 134 – 136. 35 Salazar, ed. “Racconti di storia napoletana,” Archivio storico per le province napoletane 33 (1908): 507 – 508. 36 Hersey 45; Russo, “La Murazione Aragonese di Napoli,” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane (Naples: Societa Napoletana di Storia Patria, 1987): 87 – 91. 37 On the Aragonese financial difficulties in the 1480s, see Bentley 30 – 33.

134

cutters, carpenters and building supervisors.38 One large bastion might cost 15,000 lire – not an inconsiderable sum when one considers that the monumental Strozzi palace in

Florence cost just under 250,000 lire.39 It was in fact not until the close of the second

Barons’ Revolt (Congiura dei Baroni) in 1487 that the Aragonese finally had the means to invest in their defenses. Using the funds amassed from the liquidation of the barons’ property, King Ferrante was able set in motion an extensive Aragonese defense scheme, constructing or reconfiguring forts at sixty-two locations in Puglia, Basilicata and

Calabria, including those at Belvedere, Brindisi, Carovigno, Castrovillari, Cetraro,

Corigliano, Crotone, Gaeta, Gallipoli, Manfredonia, Massafra, Matera, Monte

Sant’Angelo, Ortona, Otranto, Pizzo, Reggio Calabria, Rocca Imperiale, Taranto, and

Vasto (Map IV).40 Due to “suspicion of the Turks,” the greatest emphasis was placed on the defenses of the coastal cities of Puglia.41 Documents from this period also record that construction on the Neapolitan walls was expedited, using thousands of square meters of imported stone.42

While there is no record of Francesco di Giorgio in Naples in either 1487 or 1488

– documents from this period show that he was then busy in Urbino and Siena – there is reason to believe that he was involved with the Aragonese defense program in these

38 Undoubtedly, labor costs were the greatest expense. While local citizens and military troops might be enlisted to complete manual labor, skilled laborers had to be recruited and paid according to the competitive market rates. See R. Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1980): 123 – 124. 39 See Goldthwaite, “The Building of the Strozzi Palace: The Construction Industry in Renaissance Florence,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, vol. X (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1973): 189; and Pepper and Adams 30. 40 On the Neapolitan fortification program of the late-Quattrocento see Adams, “L’architettura militare di Francesco di Giorgio” 139 – 155; and M. Dechert, “The Military Architecture of Francesco di Giorgio in Southern Italy,”Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 49 (1990): 161 – 180. Also, “Storia del Castello di Pizzo,” Museo del Castello Pizzo Calabro, Piazza della Repubblica, 1, 89812 Pizzo Vibo Valentia, Italy. 28 December 2012. 41 Carducci, “La ricostruzione” 142. 42 Hersey 45 – 46.

135

years. A payment receipt dated to 1489 indicates: “On the 26th day of May, Master Jorgi

Senese and Master Angelo de Rosano and associates were paid forty-five ducats for the excavation of the moat [of Manfredonia].”43 As with the June 15, 1484 account, it seems likely that the engineer “Master Jorgi Senese” was Francesco di Giorgio. Still, as with the earlier document, the Manfredonia receipt does not specify the nature of Francesco’s work, although the payment he received, and the fact that he was named along with a group of “associates,” indicates that his role was not trivial.44 The significance of the architect’s involvement is further supported by the project itself – trench construction – which, according to Francesco, was essential to any fortress. Deep, wide ditches are a characteristic feature of almost all of the Sienese architect’s fortifications and are emphasized in the Trattato di Architettura.45 It is thus reasonable to assume that

Francesco was specifically called upon to oversee construction of the Manfredonia ditch.

Without additional information, one might conclude that Francesco di Giorgio’s presence in the Neapolitan Kingdom in 1489, as in 1484, was an isolated case. However, a substantial amount of secondary and circumstantial evidence regarding the Aragonese building program in the period 1484 – 1489, and in particular, in the years 1487 and

1488, suggests otherwise. As attested to a set of instructional letters sent by King Ferrante to provincial building supervisors in these years, the Aragonese indirectly controlled the development of their fortifications through a top-down system of design administration.

The letters indicate that the kingdom not only provided its municipalities with the funds

43 Dechert 171. 44 A skilled worker typically earned approximately 100 ducats per year. The fact that Francesco di Giorgio received almost half this much for his work on the Manfredonia ditch, a project which required significant labor but minimal building materials, indicates that it was a substantial project. 45 Francesco di Giorgio believed that the ditch was essential to any fortress. In the Trattato he comments that “A fortress without a ditch is like an animal without limbs.” See Martini, Trattato 474.

136

to construct defenses – those amassed from the confiscated baronial properties – but also supplied building plans and plastic models which the local building administrators were to implement. In numerous letters the King emphasizes that the provincial building authorities are to develop their fortifications “according to the designs which I have sent.”46 A Neapolitan treasury receipt of February 1488, for example, affirms that a wooden model had been completed for the castle of Manfredonia. Similarly, a document of July 1488 records that Alfonso II had signed off on a model of Rocca Imperiale executed by a certain Nardo of Siena.47 How exactly the Kingdom came to generate these plans is not specified, and probably varied on a case-by-case basis. Certainly, the architect would have required detailed site surveys and measurements before initiating a building design. The mechanisms of this process are alluded to in a letter of January

1487, sent from Naples to the building commissioner of Cetraro, Diego Vela. Here,

Ferrante requests that Diego appoint a building administrator to complete a thorough survey of the proposed fortification site and send it to Naples. The King then, working with an architect off-site would review the proposal, making emendations as necessary.48

46 In his letter to Luisetto de Summa at Castrovillari, King Ferrante warned “che per vai si habbia da fornire secundo la forma del disegno che ve damo.” To the governor responsible for Cilento, the King wrote: “secundo lo disegno et ordine ve havemo dato, intervenendoce lo parere et judicio de Mastro Juliano Fiorentino.” “Juliano Fiorentino” is presumably Giuliano da Maiano, although King Ferrante indicates he contributed only his “advice and opinions” to the final plan. See Carducci, “La ricostruzione” 152. 47 Carducci, “La riconstruzione” 153; and F. Martorano, “In Calabria sulle trace di Francesco di Giorgio,” Francesco di Giorgio Martini: rocche, città, paesaggi: Atti del convegno nazionale di studio, Siena, 30-31 maggio 2002 (Rome: Kappa, 2004): 184 – 185. Carducci provides the transcription: “uno modello del castelo relevato de legniare secundo le designio mandato allo Duca de Calabria.” Martorano quotes from a document of July 29, 1488, which indicates that payment was given to “mastro nardo di sinise per farci lo modillo di lo castillo di legname chi lo mando ad lo I.S. Duca in Napoli.” 48 L. Volpicella, Regis Ferdinandi primi instructionum liber (10 maggio 1486 – 10 maggio 1488) (Naples: L. Pierro and Figlio, 1916): 138. Letter of January 27, 1487. Ferrante wrote to the building commissioner Diego Vela in regards to Cetraro: “proveda lo loco piu atto, la dispesa, et omne alta cosa necessaria per fare una fortezza conveniente alla terra, et ne avvise distintamente, et ne mande lo disegno de lo loco, de la spesa et del tempo ce vorrà per ponerla in fortezza… acciò che, visto lo disegno et havuto lo avvisò, possiamo deliberare quello se haverà da fare per stato et servitio nostro.”

137

The documents suggest that this system was employed on numerous projects underway in the final years of the 1480s, in which the principal architect was not directly involved in the construction process. Thus, even if not based in Naples, Francesco could have easily consulted with the Aragonese leaders on their defenses, and supplied design schemes for numerous fortifications.

The patrimony of the otherwise unknown “Nardo of Siena” referenced in the document of July 1488, who executed the model of Rocca Imperiale, provides the basis for further speculation. Is it possible that Nardo was working with Francesco di Giorgio, executing or finishing models which the latter had previously developed? Documentation regarding Francesco’s consultation on the tiburio of the Milan Duomo confirms that he was accustomed to work in such a manner – initiating a model prior to his arrival on site, so as to expedite the building process.49 If Francesco implemented a similar working procedure in Naples, he could have easily collaborated on the designs of numerous

Aragonese fortifications, in particular, those at Bari, Brindisi, Gallipoli, Monte

Sant’Angelo, Manfredonia and Taranto. All six of these fortifications were under construction in the late-1480s, and on the basis of formal qualities – their irregular contours, great almond-form and cylindrical towers, and deep ditches – all have been traditionally attributed to Francesco di Giorgio (Figs. III.13 – 15).50 It is quite possible that Francesco’s 1489 trip to Manfredonia was part of a multi-site tour through the

Pugliese region, the fortifications of which were highly important due to their location on

49 On Francesco di Giorgio’s model for the tiburio of the Duomo of Milan, see document # 157 (June 10, 1490). 50 Carducci, “La ricostruzione” 133 – 146.

138

Italy’s eastern shore, and the design and development of which monopolized the architect’s energies in the subsequent years.51

Still, it is important to emphasize that Francesco di Giorgio’s contribution to the

Neapolitan defenses was not that of authorial-architect. The indirect, supervisory role implemented by the Kingdom in these years meant that, even more so than in the traditional early-modern building-design processes, the architect never worked alone. The

Aragonese defenses were realized through the cooperation of hundreds of individuals, and even at the design level, no single voice was determinative. The immense amount of physical work involved in the construction process – for digging foundations, quarrying stone, and transporting materials – was carried out by hundreds of anonymous laborers.

There were also the specialists – carpenters, stone cutters, masons and artillery designers, who may have circulated between projects – and administrators – the logisticians responsible for structuring the worksite, procuring materials, employing personnel and making sure that the project had the finances it required.52 The records cite a number of architects and engineers, some better known than others, who were involved with the

Neapolitan defenses in this period. The Florentine Giuliano da Maiano, who served the

Kingdom recurrently between 1484 and 1490 primarily as a residential designer, advised on fortifications in the late-1480s.53 Other architects named include Giulio Antonio

51 Francesco di Giorgio is recorded in Siena on February 21 and July 10, 1489 (documents #141 and 145), and thus his trip to Puglia must have occurred between these two dates. The architect’s activity in Naples in the late-1480s is also suggested by Gentile Virginio Orsini’s request of Francesco’s services in November 1490 (see document #169). In his letter to the signoria, Orsini (Lord of Bracciano and Captain General of the Neapolitan forces) indicates that he was familiar with Francesco’s work. See Weller 375 – 376. 52 This is discussed by W. Lefèvre in his forthcoming article “Architectural Knowledge.” 53 Hersey 58 – 75; F. Canali and V. C. Galati, “Roberto Pane e un’incompiuta revisione dell’ architettura Salentina nel Rinascimento nell’Italia Meridonale, Giuliano da Maiano, Francesco di Giorgio Martini e Antonio Marchesi da Settignano a Napoli nelle Corte dell’Umanesimo Baronale di Terra d’Otranto,” Bollettino della Società di Studi Fiorentini 7-8 (2001): 75 – 79.

139

Acquaviva, Ciro Ciri, Giacomazzo da Trento, Pietro d’Orfeo, a certain “Giuliano da

Pisa,” Fra Giocondo, Luca Fancelli, Antonio Marchese da Settignano, a Master Vincenzo di Cordona, Baccio Pontelli, Jacopo di Pavia, Neri Placido, and primus inter pares,

Francesco di Giorgio. Telling of the collaborative nature of the defenses, no one of these figures is ever named as “architect” of a specific project. But equally significant is that fact that no one of these individuals was as distinguished as Francesco di Giorgio in the field of fortification design.

Francesco’s “indispensable” service to Naples and the wear of travel (1491 – 1497)

Thus, by 1491, the date of Francesco di Giorgio’s first, firmly documented trip to

Naples, one might reasonably assert that the Sienese architect was already well acquainted with the Aragonese Kingdom and the defensive challenges it then faced. This is further supported in the official correspondence – between the Aragonese and the

Signoria of Siena in the years 1491 – 1497 regarding Francesco di Giorgio’s services in the southern kingdom – the strikingly familiar tone of which suggests the architect had a prior history in Naples. In his letter of February 13, 1491, the Duke of Calabria addressed the signoria as “my dearest friends,” and wasting no time with his appeal, followed: “We have the greatest need for several days of Master Francesco architect, of that magnificent city of Siena, to make some presentation-designs.”54 The duke, it appears, was familiar with Francesco and the work required for the Aragonese fortifications, and knew the exact project-drawings he required from the architect. Here, as in the subsequent correspondence, Alfonso II’s great admiration of Francesco, and recognition of his unparalleled expertise in fortifications, is plainly evident. The development of the new

54 See document #175.

140

defenses was not a matter of construction techniques, but of design and military strategy.55 Thus, even though Francesco di Giorgio worked with many collaborators – among others Neri Placido, whom in fact the duke indicated should accompany

Francesco to Naples – there was clearly an exceptional value in having the architect immediately on-hand. Considering the great time and expense of travel – resources the

Aragonese then held in short supply – it is unlikely that they merely wanted Francesco’s sign-off. Whereas in the previous years defense construction was reasonably monitored with letters and drawings, the threat of a French invasion beginning in late-1480s –

Charles VIII had a plausible claim to the Neapolitan Kingdom through his Angevin inheritance – nullified this option for work the following decade.56 From 1491 to 1497,

Francesco di Giorgio’s direct consultation in Naples was of absolute necessity. The manner in which he undertook this work, and the travel it involved, is telling of the transitory nature of early-modern architectural appointments, and correspondingly, the provisional quality of the design process. The architect had to be able to pick up a project which was already underway, and to collaborate with local workmen and building supervisors. He was also expected to obey the every wish and demand of his patrons – an expectation which, as seen in the case of Francesco di Giorgio, was not always welcomed and bore serious consequence when not adhered to.

Shortly after Alfonso II’s letter of February 13, 1491 – in which he pleaded and

“urged” the Sienese to grant Francesco license to serve the Aragonese – it seems that the architect departed for Naples, where he remained for approximately three months.

According to a Neapolitan treasury receipt filed on May 30 in Lanciano, a town on the

55 Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence 363. 56 On Charles VIII’s claim to Naples, see Bentley 34 – 36.

141

eastern coast of the Abruzzi region, Francesco had spent his visit with the duke

“designing and overseeing the construction of the forts of the kingdom.”57 The defense of

Abruzzi, and also Puglia, was a major concern for Alfonso, due their coastal location, and thus susceptibility to Turkish attack. Just prior to calling Francesco to Naples, the duke spent two months (November and December, 1490) touring the fortifications in the area and making recommendations for improvements. Traces of Francesco’s involvement in the region’s defenses in the period from March to May 1491 are found in the Castle of

Vasto – located approximately forty-five kilometers from Lanciano. Noteworthy here are the fort’s almond-shaped towers – a signature element of Francesco’s defense design, which also features in his plans for the castles of Carovigno, Fossombrone, and Monte

Sant’Angelo (Figs. III.16 – 18). The almond or “prow-shaped” bastions were innovative in the curved form of their faces, which maximized the potential of perimeter coverage by fire flanking the fortification walls. As used on the castle of Vasto, the almond bastioned ensured that the entire structure could be defended from within.58

During the three spring months of 1491, Francesco likely consulted on other defenses within the general region of Vasto – that is, from the eastern coast of Abruzzi down into Puglia – including those of Manfredonia, Monte Sant’Angelo and Massafra.

This trip appears to have been the beginning of a larger regional defense program, on which Francesco continued to advise during the course of his successive trips to the south. 59 Although there is no further documentation of the architect’s activities from this

57 See documents #177 and 178 (May 30 and 31, 1491). 58 M. Dechert, City and fortress in the works of Francesco di Giorgio: the theory and practice of defensive architecture and town planning (PhD Diss. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1983): 76 – 87, 268 – 269. 59 A. G. Giavarina, “Fonti documentarie e lettura di fabbriche: Francesco di Giorgio Martini in Abruzzo,” Esperienze di Storia dell’Architettura e di restauro, ed. G. Spagnesi (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1987): 103 – 104; and Carducci “La ricostruzione” 155 – 156.

142

period, the survival of Alfonso II’s itinerary from the previous winter, recorded by his secretary Joanpiero Leostello, offers an approximate template of the travel Francesco di

Giorgio undertook in this period.

Over the course of the duke’s two month winter tour, he covered approximately seven-hundred-fifty-kilometers by horse, surveying the region’s defenses and making arrangements for future developments. Based in Foggia for ten days in December, he was able to ride directly to Manfredonia to “oversee the building which was being executed according to his orders.” He then traveled to Monte Sant’Angelo and Cerignola, spending the new year in Andria. In the first three weeks of January, he toured Canosa,

Venosa, Massafra, Ascoli Satriano and Montefuscoli.60 The swift pace Alfonso maintained was in keeping with similar tours of inspection he had taken in 1488 and

1489.61 It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that on the road with Francesco in the spring of 1491, he kept the same pace. The site-visits the two made were undoubtedly quite brief – extending only a day or two – during which time Francesco would have likely consulted with local building supervisors and drawn up the necessary plans.

In Alfonso II’s letter of May 31, 1491 – sent to the signoria following Francesco di Giorgio’s three months of service – he indicated that the architect “has so greatly satisfied our needs.” Prior to his departure to Siena, however, it seems likely that

Francesco conferred with the Luca Fancelli on the sequential development of the Abruzzi fortifications. In a letter of May 13, 1491, Fancelli informs his patron, Francesco II

Gonzaga, that upon Aragonese orders, he will remain at least two more months in the

60 Canali and Galati 82; Joampiero Leostello da Volterra, Ephemeridi de le cose, folios 285v – 292v, 1480- 1495, ms, Bibliothèque nationale de France. 14 July 2014. . 61 Canali and Galati 77 – 79.

143

Kingdom of Naples, accompanying Alfonso II in the Abruzzi. Presumably, he was to replace Francesco di Giorgio as defense expert.62 One might reasonably question why the

Aragonese did not seek to retain an architect who could serve for a longer period – we can only assume that architects with such expertise were not readily available – as in fact, it was likely around the time that Fancelli returned to Mantua that the duke began to petition for Francesco’s return to Naples.63

Francesco returned to Naples the following March (1492), at which point, he was most likely in Puglia. Yet, on this occasion, Alfonso II succeeded in securing the architect’s services for at least nine months, during a period in which defense construction in Puglia was in high gear. Documents show that in July, the sculptor Guido

Mazzoni traveled with an escort to meet Alfonso and oversee work in Otranto, and shortly thereafter, Fra Giocondo was also sent to Puglia, where he was entrusted with overseeing building plans and “ordering certain structures” in Bari.64 The kingdom was then facing the possibility of another Ottoman attack, and as the duke commented in his letter of October 12, Francesco di Giorgio’s services were indispensable. “Francesco came to us as promised […] and also due to the suspicion of the Turks, he came to us out of need […] And so it is necessary that we hold him longer than we had originally thought.”65

At this time, the plans for the principal Pugliese defenses at Otranto, Taranto,

Gallipoli, Monte Sant’Angelo, and Brindisi were well underway, and in order to expedite

62 See document #176 (May 13, 1491). 63 In their letter to Alfonso II on January 18, 1492 (document #188), the Sienese indicate that “it has already been several months” since the duke wrote to request Francesco di Giorgio’s return to Naples. 64 Canali and Galati 83 – 84. 65 See document #200 (October 12, 1492).

144

construction, the kingdom extended its design-administration process one step further with the distribution of model books. Just before Fra Giocondo was transferred to Bari, he was paid for completing 126 illustrations for two books by Francesco di Giorgio: “one of architecture and the other on artillery and things pertinent to war.” The payment document provides no additional information about the books’ content, but does note that the volumes were made of paper, and bound.66 Earlier that same month, Fra Giocondo had also received twenty vellum folios on which to render fortress plans “of the kingdom and others places.”67 That the fortification drawings were composed on highly durable vellum suggests that they were intended for heavy use. 68 These books, possibly derived from Francesco’s explications on fortification design in the Trattato di Architettura, likely served as design manuals, providing Fra Giocondo and his collaborators with a pictorial archive of useful prototypes to reference while on-site. Although the manuals do not survive, the efficacy of this program is indirectly proven by the fact that the five major Pugliese fortifications were all complete by the end of 1492. Francesco’s name appears on none of these structures, yet each bears signature elements of his defense design: battered bases, ditches with counterscarp defenses, broad, squat towers, narrow interior corridors with vertical supply shafts, and underground tunnels (Figs. III.17, III.19

– 21).69

66 See document #194 (June 2, 1492). 67 See document #195 (June 30, 1492). 68 On the use of parchment in model-books, see H. Chapman, “Introduction,” Fra Angelico to Leonardo: Italian Renaissance Drawings (London: The British Museum Press, 2010): 48. Similar parchment design manuals were made for workers in Florence for the construction of the Duomo and the Ospedale dei Innocenti. See Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence 371. 69 Dechert, “The Military Architecture of Francesco di Giorgio in Southern Italy”165 – 174.

145

Francesco had been in Siena for only three months in 1493 when the Aragonese sent for him again.70 Rather unexpectedly, however, he denied the Aragonese request, claiming that he was sick, and feared that if he traveled again to Naples, he would never return home.71 Whether or not Francesco was sick is uncertain. More likely, he was exhausted with the Neapolitan assignment and the travel it required. The long journeys between Siena and Naples, and throughout the rough and varying terrains of the torrid

Neapolitan countryside, were not for the faint of heart. Moreover, it is clear that his sojourns to Naples were not by choice, but were prompted by the insistent and nagging requests of Alfonso II, a man notorious for his bad manners and cruelty.72 Writing to the signoria on November 23, 1492, the duke reminds them that Francesco had not voluntarily come to serve the Aragonese, and notes also that “he has not missed any opportunity to return to you.”73 Nearly age fifty-five, Francesco simply wanted to remain

Siena, serving his city and working on this own projects.

Certainly, the Duke of Calabria never believed that Francesco di Giorgio was sick. On March 18, 1493 he sent a despondent letter to the signoria, in which he underscored the necessity of Francesco’s services “in order to complete the buildings and fortifications of the kingdom.” He continued: “We do not take great pleasure in this work, nor do we employ outsiders for these tasks […and thus] understanding the reluctance and resistance of the said master Francesco, we are filled with sorrow.”74

Several days later, Alfonso followed up with a second letter, informing the signoria that

70 The duke’s letter of November 23, 1492 (document #201) suggests that Francesco di Giorgio was then en route back to Siena. 71 See documents #206 and 207 (March 2 and March 13, 1493). 72 Hersey 4; Moores, “New Light on Diomede Carafa and his ‘Perfect Loyalty’ to Ferrante of Aragon,” Italian Studies 26 (1971): 6. 73 See document #201. 74 See document #208 (March 19, 1493).

146

he had made arrangements so that Francesco could travel by sea to Naples, rather than by land as he had previously done. Further, the duke noted that “when he is with us, we shall keep him at his comfort and ease.”75 Still, despite the duke’s accommodations, Francesco refused to travel. For their part, the Sienese were embarrassed by Francesco’s blatant disregard of the Neapolitan King, and in a handful of letters, repeatedly apologized for the “extraordinary stubbornness” of their architect.76

Francesco di Giorgio’s fear of becoming trapped in service to Naples appears to have been well founded. Although there was no further correspondence between the

Aragonese and Siena in 1493, a municipal account of February 18, 1494 indicates that by this date, preparations were made for Francesco’s return south.77 The architect arrived in

Naples in March 1494, where he first supervised Alfonso’s frenzied attempts to prepare the Kingdom for the impending French attack, and later served as strategic advisor in the

Aragonese recapture of their capital city. Led by Charles VIII, a French army of nearly forty-thousand men had crossed into Italy in September 1494, and entered Naples in

February of the following year.78 Employing an unprecedented volume of iron-shot artillery, the French quickly took control of the Castel Nuovo and Castel dell’Ovo on

February 22, 1495. The events initiated a new phase of warfare, setting the stage for future developments in fortification architecture and military strategy.79 It took until

November for the Aragonese to reclaim their city, when, under the direction of Francesco

75 See document #209 (March 23, 1493). 76 See documents #210 and 213 (April 19 and May 14, 1493). 77 See document #216 (February 18, 1494). 78 For an overview of Charles VIII’s invasion into Italy, see D. Abulafia, “Introduction: from Ferrante I to Charles VIII,” The French descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95: Antecedents and Effects (Aldershot: Variorum 1995): 1 – 28. 79 Bentley 36 – 37.

147

di Giorgio, they launched a stealth attack against Charles VIII’s army, successfully detonating a bomb under their own castle and expelling the occupant French troops.80

Naturally, Neapolitan documentation from the period of the French invasion and the immediate aftermath is limited, but the complete absence of Francesco di Giorgio from the Sienese records suggests that he remained in Naples in 1496 following the

French retreat. This is further supported by a letter of March 1497, sent directly to the architect from the Neapolitan King Federico.81 The letter indicates that Francesco was closely involved the reconstruction of the severely damaged Castel Nuovo following the events of 1495, and that his presence on-site was considered essential. It is worth quoting at length, as it sheds light upon Francesco di Giorgio’s close relationship with the

Aragonese and the work he undertook on their behalf.

Master Francesco: You know that leaving us from Gaeta you promised to return soon: but as you did not come, we remained there very annoyed by the great inconvenience caused by your absence in regards to the building and design of the Castel Nuovo and other sites. And [we know] that to come to us, you will have to leave all your other obligations […] For our love, will you come immediately in such a mode as we are able to provide, and we will not suffer because you are not here.82

The king was clearly frustrated with Francesco – who appears to have left the kingdom under the false pretense of a prompt return – yet at the same time recognized the constraints placed on the architect. The position Francesco filled in Naples fell somewhere between reluctant servant and loyal professional. Although he did not want to serve in Naples, once on-site, he must have committed fully their projects, as his central

80 See R. Battista, L. Molari and P. G. Molari 163 – 175. 81 di Battista 172 – 173. 82 See document #233 (March 13, 1497).

148

role in the planning the Neapolitan defenses was such that the Aragonese could not see the projects proceeding without him.

Yet, fortunate for Francesco, the Neapolitans found an alternative. Just four days after sending the letter quoted above, the king wrote again, informing the Sienese architect that Antonio Marchese, his former assistant, had agreed to return and would take up the position as chief military architect.83 Whether or not Francesco was involved in Marchese’s transfer to Naples is uncertain. From January to March, 1493, the

Florentine native had accompanied Alfonso II on a tour of the fortifications of southern

Campania, and later that year, he received the contract to oversee work on the monumental and difficultly sited castle of Gaeta, a project with which Francesco was also involved (Fig. III.22). In the ensuing period, prior to the French attack, Marchese supervised the construction of Alfonso’s personal castle at Reggio Calabria and assisted with the implementation of defensive works in Naples. He was also Francesco’s close collaborator in the design of the Castel Nuovo mine.84 It is probable, therefore, that when

King Federico wrote to Francesco, he also contacted Marchese, and it was the younger architect’s prompt decision to return to Naples that allowed Federico to release Francesco from any further service.85 For his part, Marchese made his future in Naples. He was granted Neapolitan citizenship and given a house, and remained there until his death in

1522. Under the rule of Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, Marchese oversaw the redevelopment of the Castel Nuovo, the Castel Sant’Elmo and the western walls.86

83 See document #236 (March 17, 1497). 84 G. Ceci, “Nuovi Documenti per la storia delle arti a Napoli durante il Rinascimento,” Napoli Nobilissima 9 (1900): 84. 85 At this time King Federico also sent a letter to Benedetto da Maiano in Florence, suggesting that in Francesco di Giorgio’s absence he was aggressively seeking the services of several Tuscan masters. See Hersey 108. 86 Hersey 92; Ceci 84.

149

Architecture by “remote control”

Antonio Marchese was perhaps Francesco di Giorgio’s most successful disciple, earning the prestigious post as Royal Architect to the Kingdom of Naples, but he was by no means his only assistant. Francesco’s continual travel – on behalf of the Aragonese, for the duchy of Urbino and as Siena communal architect – required the support of dozens of aides and collaborators. At the court of Urbino he developed a system of networked architectural design, which allowed him to control numerous building projects simultaneously, spending minimal time on-site. Still, direct contact with the building site, even for a short period, was essential. As Francesco stressed in his Trattato di

Architettura, before the architect could design a building, he had to know its environment

– the material content of its foundations, the nature of the winds, and the quality and availability of natural resources.87 This knowledge was especially important in fortification design, where exceptional site conditions determined both the building plan and the defense strategy. As was common practice, Francesco would have begun each project by taking site measurements and completing preliminary survey drawings. With these data, he could develop the building plans, either on-site or off, which would then be entrusted to assistants and local building supervisors for execution. These plans were essential to the success of the defense project, and for Francesco di Giorgio, they were also the means by which he organized and managed his diffuse team of building associates.88

87 See Martini, Trattato 303 – 323. 88 Belardi 48. As shown in the well-documented case of the Rocca Paolina in Perugia (designed by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger in the 1540s), it was customary for off-site architects to communicate with construction supervisors on a daily basis using annotated plans and drawings.

150

Francesco di Giorgio utilized a system of “remote” design not only in Urbino, where by his own count he simultaneously managed the construction of one-hundred- thirty structures, but also in his appointments in Cortona, Jesi, Ancona, Milan and Siena.

The system was facilitated by the fact that, at least for those projects in Tuscany and the

Marche, the workforce was relatively consistent. In Urbino, as in Siena, Francesco had a team of workers – artists, carpenters and technicians – who customarily rotated en masse between projects.89 Because these individuals were familiar with the architect, and common features of his designs, Francesco was able to limit his involvement in the construction process. This is reflected in the documents. For the precariously cited church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio in Cortona, for example, Francesco made an initial, brief visit to the site in June 1484, producing a plan within ten days.90 The following year, he spent at least a month in Cortona, preparing the foundations for construction. But once the corner-stone was set he had no additional involvement with the project.91

Similarly, in 1491 he visited Lucca “for just a few days,” during which time he consulted with the local authorities and provided a model (or drawing) for city’s defenses.92

Francesco also worked by remote control in Naples. However, due to the exceptionally large area of the kingdom, and the scale and speed at which the Aragonese sought to develop their fortifications, the modes by which he worked were somewhat

89 A. Angelini, “Senesi a Urbino,” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500, ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1993): 332 – 335; and P. Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 30 – 34. 90 See documents #94 and 95 (June 17 and July 1, 1484). Francesco was in Gubbio on both dates – the first when he received the commission for the church design and the second when he was paid for his model – indicating that he must have made his site-visit to Cortona in the interim period. On the difficulties posed by the church’s site, see P. Davies, “Santa Maria del Calcinaio a Cortona come Architettura di Pellegrinaggio,” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001, ed. F. P. Fiore (Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004): 685 – 690. 91 See documents #96 – 98 (April and June, 1485). 92 See documents #180 and 192 (August 13 and 29, 1491).

151

altered. Among the most significant changes was the way in which he communicated with his assistants and the work-crews. In contrast to Urbino and Siena, where the sites lay within a relatively small area and could be reached within a day’s travel, the

Aragonese defenses were spread over a much greater distance. For Francesco’s assignments in Puglia in 1491 and 1492, for instance, it would have taken him almost seven days to travel by horse from Naples to Taranto (Map IV).93 Even if he remained full time in the Neapolitan Kingdom, there was no way he could have regularly visited the many ongoing projects in Puglia, Calabria, and Campania.

Beyond the constraints posed by distance and prolonged travel, the Neapolitan system also presented Francesco with many unknowns in regards to the essential building conditions. Working for the Aragonese, Francesco did not have the benefit of the years of experience he had had working within the Siena and Urbino, where he was intimately familiar with the landscape and environmental conditions, knew the standard construction processes, and had long-standing relationships within the artisan and building communities. The architect’s assignment in Naples was further complicated by the material and labor shortages the kingdom then faced. King Ferrante’s letters of instruction from 1487 and 1488 indicate that, in order to augment the local workforce, building administrators were to enlist local civilians, men between age fifteen and sixty, to assist with construction. The king and the provincial rulers also issued statutes to encourage the migration of foreign workers. Records from Capua, Manfredonia and

Monte Sant’Angelo show that a large number of foreigners – the majority from

93 This calculation is based on the rate of 50 km/day.

152

Lombardy – were active in the development of these fortifications.94 With such an assemblage of skilled and unskilled workers, it was absolutely essential that Francesco di

Giorgio’s closest assistants in Naples were individuals he knew well and in whom he had confidence. Thus, it is not surprising that many of the fortification supervisors in Naples

– among others, Baccio Pontelli, Neroccio de’ Bartolomeo Landi, and Neri Placido – had previous ties with him from either Siena or Urbino. Baccio Pontelli (c. 1450 – c. 1495) was one of Francesco di Giorgio’s long-time aides. Between 1479 and 1481 in Urbino, he assisted with the ongoing developments at the Palazzo Ducale, the Convent Santa Chiara and the Duomo. Pontelli left Urbino following Federico da Montefeltro’s death, but remained in contact with Francesco, and there is evidence that his work on the Rocca of

Senigallia (1481) and the castle of Civitavecchia (1483) was executed under Francesco’s guidance. Pontelli crossed paths with the Sienese architect again in November 1494, when he was called upon by Alfonso II to oversee fortification work in Calabria.95 In his letter to Pontelli the duke wrote: “We need you to serve us in certain works which we do not see how any other architect could complete satisfactorily. Once you have received this, for our love, come as quickly as you can without delay. We will be found in the territory of Siena.”96 It appears, therefore, that a group of Aragonese allies was scheduled to travel from Tuscany to Naples. As Francesco was then already in Naples, we might conclude that, faced with the need for reliable assistance, he had arranged for a group of

Tuscan architects to join him in the south.

94 Carducci “La riconstruzione” 155 – 156; E. Garofalo, Le arti del costruire: corporazione edili, mestieri e regole nel Mediterraneo aragonese, XV – XVI secolo (Palermo: Caracol, 2010): 33; 223 – 232; Volpicella 132. 95 See document #218 (November 4, 1494). P. Meneses, Baccio Pontelli a Roma: L’attività dell’architetto fiorentino per Giuliano della Rovere (Ghezzano: Felici Editore, 2010): 15 – 16; Canali and Galati 85. 96 Hersey 83; document #218.

153

Neroccio di Bartolomeo and Neri Placido were among Francesco di Giorgio’s

Sienese contacts who also made their way to Naples. Neroccio, primarily known as a painter, shared a workshop with Francesco in the 1470s. In fall 1481 he completed unspecified work for Alfonso II – the exact time when the duke was consumed with re- establishing control in Puglia – a strong suggestion that he assisted in the Aragonese siege efforts.97 Neri Placido was an associate of Pandolfo Petrucci, and worked with

Francesco di Giorgio in Siena on engineering-related projects in the late-1480s.98

According to the documents, he was also in Naples in the 1480s and 1490s, where he was recognized as one of Francesco’s more talented assistants. In his 1491 letter of request to the signoria, Alfonso II asked that “the great Neri Placido” accompany Francesco to

Naples. In subsequent correspondence, the duke noted that although Francesco refused to return, he had at least received excellent “advice sent by the magnificent Neri Placido.”99

Francesco di Giorgio’s assistants in Naples made up a kind of bottega of fortification architecture, and it was their involvement that made the Neapolitan fortification program possible. However, unlike in Siena and Urbino, where there was a clear administrative center, in Naples the structure was more diffuse. Although there was a workshop in Naples, in the years 1491 – 1493, Francesco was rarely in residence.

Instead, he moved peripatetically between sites, passing directives through a chain of intermediaries. His assistants stood in as veritable alter-egos, and in the cases of Antonio

Marchese and Neri Placido, their presence was valued on par with his own. The transient

97 S. Borghesi and L. Banchi, Nuovi Documenti per la Storia dell’Arte Senese (Siena: Enrico Torrini Editore, 1898): 259. 98 On Neri Placido, and his ties with the Petrucci family and the Nove, see C. Shaw, L’Ascesa al Potere di Pandolfo Petrucci Il Magnifico, Signore di Siena (1487 – 1498) (Siena: Edizioni Leccio, 2001): 21, 29-30. 99 See documents #175 and 208 (February 13, 1491 and March 19, 1493).

154

nature of Francesco’s assignment is highlighted in Duke Alfonso’s letter of March 24,

1493. Begging for Francesco to return, the duke promises that once back in Naples, his position will be more stable. “We shall keep him at his comfort and ease, without sending him anywhere; except [to those projects] on which he gives counsel and advice, whether he does this by word of mouth or through drawings.”100 The Aragonese appear to have kept their word. When Francesco di Giorgio returned south in 1494, he remained primarily in Naples, where he organized workers, acquired and distributed materials, and communicated with his on-site assistants – “by word of mouth or through drawings.”101

Francesco’s primary role then, whether in Urbino or Naples, traveling between sites or settled in one place, was to make project drawings. The designs he provided, and continually modified as the projects progressed, provided the foundation for the

Aragonese defense scheme. In his Trattato di Architettura, Francesco emphasized the difficulty of developing such plans. Disegno – the creative, intellectual and mechanical skill by which theoretical problems came to find practical solutions – required not only manual dexterity, but also extensive empirical knowledge. Although the painter or mason might be able to represent a fortification in drawing, he did not necessarily know how to design one. The plans Francesco executed for the Aragonese were not pictorial studies or fantastical visualizations, but visual instructions which provided an essential defensive program in an immediate and unequivocal manner using forms that were both legible to the patron – who was the first to receive them – and also the builders.

100 See document #209 (March 23, 1493). 101 Treasury receipts of August 26 and September 17, 1495 (documents #222 and 223) refer to Francesco di Giorgio’s salary, paid to an assistant on his behalf, and his reimbursement for materials.

155

Unfortunately, none of Francesco di Giorgio’s project drawings for the

Neapolitan fortifications survive. As working documents passed between many hands, the plans likely did not make it beyond the building-site. However, the fortification designs included in the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141 (c. 1495) to which Francesco’s

Raccolta of mechanical studies is appended, offer a general idea of what the Neapolitan plans would have looked like (Figs. II.40, II.47, III.26). The late date of the Raccolta also suggests a possible relation between the drawings here and those executed by Fra

Giocondo for the Neapolitan building supervisors. Although not autograph, the

Magliabechiana plans illustrate Francesco’s key principles of defense design, and many may be related to finished projects.102

These drawings, moreover – orthogonal ground plans, isometric perspectives and

(perspectival) profile studies – represent the essential drawing forms utilized by

Renaissance fortifications architects. This is evident in the comparison of several of

Francesco’s Magliabechiana drawings with the surviving, working plans and perspectives of Baldassare Peruzzi and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (Figs. III.24 – 26). Unlike the comprehensive, detailed blueprints employed by modern building contractors, the

Renaissance plans include few annotations in regards to dimensions, materials or the realization of details. Not only would the architect’s short on-site visits have prevented him from developing such meticulous plans, but in accordance with standard practice, it was understood that the building design was contingent on the construction process.

“Working drawings” of the Renaissance were primarily referenced in the initial phases of planning, and when used on the worksite, served as a means of orientation, rather than as

102 Fiore, Città e Macchine del ‘400 75 – 80, 118 – 119.

156

a blueprint.103 The supervisors who used the architect’s drawings were experienced builders, who took it as part of their job to work out the design details as construction progressed.104

The designs Francesco di Giorgio developed were exceptional in their progressive approach to offensive and defensive military strategy. The isometric drawing of Raccolta

205v, for example, illustrates the principle components of one of Francesco’s signature hexagonal-shaped defenses (Fig. III.23). As shown here, the fortification consists of a main centralized tower, six squat, semi-elliptical towers with gun emplacements on the flanks, an embanked curtain wall, walkways along the interior of curtain wall, and a

“double” entrance with ravelin. Beyond the curtain wall, Francesco placed a deep ditch, divided with a second wall for additional defense. The drawing also shows the glacis, or sloped embankment, on the outer periphery of the fort leading up to the counterscarp. In laying out the entire defensive scheme, this type of axonometric drawing allowed the patron and workmen to envision the architect’s proposed construction, while at the same time, ensuring architect control over the project. Advising on the Neapolitan defenses,

Francesco would have issued such drawings along with letters of instruction, and quite possibly also with material from the Trattato.

The building plans and design books distributed by the kingdom were the epistemological vehicle which established a new mode of fortification architecture. When a building supervisor was unsure about a specific aspect of the design – the dimensions of ditches, the angle of counter-scarp walls, or the location of gun emplacements – he could

103 W. Lefèvre “The Emergence of Combined Orthographic Projections,” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700, ed. W. Lefèvre (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004): 223 – 224. 104 D. McGee, “The Origins of Early Modern Machine Design,” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700, ed. W. Lefèvre (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004): 58 – 63.

157

consult the material provided to him, which outlined the basic components of defense construction, and which he could apply to his project. 105 One might say that because

Francesco di Giorgio was not on-site to answer these questions directly, his role was more theoretical or conceptual. In a sense, this is true. But the efficacy of remote control design lay in the ingenuity and knowledge of the material transmitted – the know-how of an experienced architect.

Travel in the Trattato

In the introduction to the seventh book of his Trattato di Architettura (codex

Magliabechiana II.I.141), Francesco di Giorgio highlights an anecdote taken from

Vitruvius concerning the wayward travels of the Socratic philosopher Aristippus.

According to legend, after being shipwrecked on the island of Rhodes, Aristippus quickly befriended the local people, with whom he effortlessly joined in discussions of philosophy and geometry. When Aristippus’ companions were ready to return home, they asked him what message he wished to send to his friends. He replied: tell them that the most valuable possessions are those which can withstand time, poor fortune and battle.

True wealth is that which one holds in his mind, and which ensures that even in a foreign land, you are never a stranger or at a loss for friends.106 Francesco di Giorgio included the

105 In the years following the French attack on Naples, the signature elements of Francesco’s defenses came to constitute a universal cannon of fortification architecture. This rapid diffusion of information stemmed from the drawings, individual folia which conveyed in a visual language a wealth of technical knowledge, invention, strategy and practical know-how. 106 This anecdote appears at the beginning of Vitruvius Book VI. See Martini, Trattato 495: “Ma con tutto che non altre retrebuzioni di meriti spesse volte si riceva che è ditto, non è da pretermettare alcuna parte virtuosa per li omini ingrate, ma, quelli spregiando, solo alli virtuosi e morali cercare di compiacere. Siccome Aristippo filosofo doppo il naufragio arrivato al lito di Rodi gionto in el Ginasio, due vide fugire geometr[i]che, allora tutto lieto volto ai compagni disse: “State di buona voglia imperoché io veggio vestigie di omini.” E così disputando di Filosofia e Ge[o]metria li fu dati grandi doni, i quali con li compagni distribuì. Dipoi dopo certo tempo volendo li compagni a la patria ritornare, domandando Aristippo ciò che voleva dicessero a’ suoi compatrioti, rispose: “Dite che faccino comprare e acquisto a’ figl[i]uoli loro così fatte possesioni le quali né fortuna né battaglia né mutazione de’ tempi lo possi torre,

158

story of Aristippus, just as Vitruvius had, as a way of underscoring the importance of the architect’s training and knowledge – the ever-portable experiences gained through years of practice. Here, as elsewhere in the Trattato, one finds an implicit link between travel and learning. It was through his travel and wide ranging experiences that the architect learned about his profession – about materials and the natural environment, the best modes of construction, and ancient building forms – and it was this same knowledge which allowed him to excel wherever he was needed. The following section examines how Francesco di Giorgio’s theory of architecture, in emphasizing the importance of travel and on-site training, implicitly defines architecture as an itinerant profession. Just as he did in his discussion of disegno, Francesco provided ample examples in regards to travel, affirming the validity of his theory in everyday practice.

In book one of the Trattato di Architettura, on “The Necessary Principles and

Norms” of building, Francesco lays out his Aristotelian approach to architecture, and with this, emphasizes the absolute necessity of the architect’s direct experience. Citing

Aristotle, he explains that art follows nature, and accordingly, the architect bases his designs on the underlying order of the natural world.107 In order to truly understand building, the architect must examine its essential causes, which are revealed only through direct experience. By using Aristotelian philosophy as a framework for his discussion on architecture, Francesco presents the discipline as an objective, empirical science, a “final cause” created for the “utility or glory of man” (alcuna utilità o gloria all’uomo).108 A

imperoché questi sono i veri presidui [difese] della vita, e non siccome quelli che si stimano e credano essare felici per ricchezze e non di dottrina e vanno errando per viaggi incerti…” 107 Martini, Trattato 294. 108 Ibid 301. “Quanto alla prima, perché ciascuno agente o fattore solo opera per conseguire qualche bono fine, come testifica Aristotile nel secondo della sua Fisica, similmente è necessario che lo architettore si mova ad edificare overo operare per alcuna utilità o gloria all’uomo conseguire. Laonde se questa utilità maggiore al mondo si conseque quanto essa opera è più durabile e felice, non solo debba lo architetto nella

159

complete understanding of architecture, he teaches, involves knowledge of its physical components (the material causes), the construction processes and building forms (formal causes), and the work of the architect (the efficient cause). It is to first of these subjects, the material causes, that Trattato’s book one is devoted. As Francesco firmly asserts, the earth’s essential conditions are all intrinsic in architecture, and “any building which is said to be that of an architect” must respond to these conditions.109

Book one of the Trattato reads like an encyclopedic entry on building materials and site conditions. In total, Francesco cites over sixty geographical locations in relation to soil conditions, the nature of the winds, water quality, and the sources for stone, marble and wood. In this, his reliance on the model of Pliny the Elder’s Natural

Histories is readily apparent. Among Francesco’s contemporaries, Pliny’s text was widely regarded as an authoritative source on natural science. The information was accepted as fact and was frequently copied or paraphrased, as in the Trattato, without citation.110 The section on the “Necessary Principles” of building combines references from the texts of Pliny, Vitruvius, Columella and Palladius, with the architect’s own personal insights, in effect giving the treatise an authoritative geographical breadth.111

On the subject of sands, for instance, Francesco pairs an example from the Nile River basin along with those he knew of first-hand, from Viterbo, Rome and Siena.112 By

intenzione e mente sua avere lo edificio, ma eziandio le ragioni della sua felice durazione, e secondo quella operare.” For a synopsis of Francesco’s use of Aristotle in the Trattato, see L. Lowic, “Francesco di Giorgio on the Design of Churches: the Use and Significance of Mathematics in the Trattato,” Architectura XII (1982): 153 – 160. 109 Martini, Trattato 309. “E queste cinque parti [astronomia, terreno, acqua, aria e vento] generali [sono utili ma] debbono essere estrinseche all’edificio [dello architetto] chiamate.” 110 C. Nauert, “Humanists, Scientists, and Pliny: Changing Approaches to a Classical Author,” The American Historical Review 84 (1979): 74. 111 As noted by Maltese, in addition to the works of Pliny and Vitruvius, material in book one of the Trattato di Architettura may be traced to Columella’s De re rustica and Palladius Rutilius Taurus Aemilianus’ Opus agriculturae. 112 Martini, Trattato 319.

160

integrating his local references with those farther afield, Francesco augmented the perception of his own learning. In order to stand as a definitive theory on architecture, the

Trattato di Architettura had to contain the rare and even somewhat obscure knowledge of the well-traveled practitioner.

Yet, the reader perceives a notable difference between those citations excerpted from the ancient texts and those drawn from Francesco di Giorgio’s own practice. The architect’s original examples convey a sense of conviction and authority absent in the secondary-source references, and in effect, underscore the Aristotelian notion that true knowledge is that gained through direct experience. On the nature of winds, for example,

Francesco underscores his first-hand experiences. “[As] I saw in the marina of the city of

Siena, in one day and within a single hour, more than 3,000 bodies sickened due to the southern winds.” Reiterating the value of this lesson, Francesco almost threatens his reader with the hazards the unpracticed architect might cause: “The architect,” he writes,

“must take account of [all] these conditions – the weather, location and all possible circumstances – as [if] they are discounted, diseases follow which multiply the ailments of men, and bring ruin to the city.”113 Similarly, in his discussion on the “Ways to Find

Water” in Trattato book two, Francesco emphasizes that his knowledge was derived from long practice, not from anything he read in a book. “Many of peculiarities [of this work]

I have found in many authors, but from my own great labor and diligence, and with more and more experience, I have learned them myself.”114

113 Martini, Trattato 309. “El secondo testifico io avere visto nella marittima della città di Siena, peroché in uno medesmo giorno et ora, più che tremila corpi ammalorono per li venti meridonali e convince a quelli.. A [tutte] queste condizioni debba avere avvertenzia lo architettore, quanto el tempo, el loco e la possibilità comportano, perochè, quelle disprezzate, sequano le malattie, multiplicano le mali disposizioni delli omini, delle quali cose ne resulta la deslazione della città.” 114 Ibid 355. This is a liberal translation of a somewhat awkward sentence: “li quali modi curiosamente ho tratti di più autori, e con fatiga e diligenzia facendo più e più esperienze ho trovato da me.”

161

This same sense of personal discovery is found in Francesco di Giorgio’s references to his antiquarian studies. On the very first folio of the codex Magliabechiana,

Francesco speaks of the excellence of ancient architecture, and the profound need he felt

“to consider the works of the ancient Romans and Greeks, the best sculptors and architects, verifying the correspondence between that which is recorded in text and the actual remains, and thus bringing new force to the words of the ancient authors.”115 In the following paragraphs, he comments on the great labor (fatiga) of his work, and notes that it was with no small effort that he brought to light the forms and proportions of ancient temples and palaces, columns, cornices, bases and capitals.116 In several other passages, he references the travel he undertook to examine the ruins, the forms and proportions of which he integrated into his design theory, and how by his “own experience with great diligence and no little effort,” he “found, saw and measured many times” the essential components of classical architecture.117

Yet, the reader never doubts Francesco di Giorgio’s conviction that the trips he undertook to study the ruins were well worth the effort. For example, in discussion of the chimney, “the most difficult part of the house to comprehend from the ruins,” the Sienese architect proudly asserts the originality of his findings. He cites the camini he studied at

Perugia, Baia, and Civitavecchia, noting: “I searched for fireplaces with great diligence

115 Martini, Trattato 295. “Onde [me] è stato necessario per molte circonstanzie e per considerare le opere delli antichi Romani e Greci optimi scultori et architettori, concordando el significato col segno, retrovare quasi come di novo la forza del parlare di più antichi autori.” 116 “[…] in molte cose io a mio proposito ho tratto di più autentici libri: e spezialmente da Vitruvio, massime nelle proporzioni di tempi e colonne, base e capitelli, cornice, et altre proporzioni di tempi e palazzi […] le quali io porrò, sono delle fatighe delli antichi, non con poca sollicitudine da me redutte a luce.” Ibid 297. 117 Ibid 490: “siccome per manifesta esperienzia veggio in questa mia operetta essarmi stato forza molte tralassare,” and ibid 378: “[i capitelli] le quali proporzioni io con gran diliegenzia e non piccolo fatiga per sperienzia ho trovato, visto e misurato più e più volte…”

162

and was unable to find any others, nor do I believe many may be found in Italy. I have never known a man who was familiar with antiquities and had found fireplace remains, and it astonishes me that neither Vitruvius nor any author on architecture makes any mention of them.”118 For Francesco, the act of discovering was of equal of importance to that which was discovered. “Architecture,” he writes, “is itself being continuously formed, just like the other sciences, each [discovery] adding to the next.” In order to progress, architects had to continually experiment, seek out inspiration and model new forms. This endless drive for advancement, Francesco explains, was due to the fact that in the eternal life of the world, the same sciences were repeatedly discovered, lost and re- founded. “And so, already an infinite number of times the experts in the art of architect, as in the other arts, have become ignorant.”119

The link between the architect’s on-site investigations and manual practice and the actual building-design process is most evident in Trattato book five, “The Form of

Castles and Fortresses.” This in not only the longest book of the treatise, but also the only one in which Francesco di Giorgio illustrates realized examples of his own design – the fortifications at Sasso Montefeltro, Cagli, Tavoleto, San Abbondio, Mondavio and

Mondolfo. But as he reminds the reader, his examples were only guidelines. “It seems to me enough has been said […] because the prudent and expert architect, who has knowledge and understanding of many parts of the rules and examples, may adapt and

118 Martini, Trattato 332 – 333. 119 Ibid 373. “Dico adonque che la architettura essendosi trovata successivamente, siccome tutte le altre scienze, l'uno agiognendo all'altro […] però che chi pone el mondo eterno, pone di necessità che infinite volte si è trovata e persa una medesma scienzia; e così già infinite volte li piriti nell’arte della architettura e nelle altre sono venuti ignoranti.”

163

apply these as is appropriate to the site, adding, subtracting and composing.”120 Similar statements appear paragraph after paragraph, in which Francesco is clear that it is up to the architect to assess the site conditions, calculate the appropriate measures and angles for the walls, ditches, foundations, and have the judgment (iudicio) to modify the basic defense design as necessary. On the subject of fortification bridges he states: “these may be made in infinite and various inventions according to the intelligence of those who are practiced (sono eserciati) in such exercises (tali esercizi).”121 His repeated use of esercitare – to exercise, operate, conduct or practice – emphasizes that the architect must first do, and from this training and experience will gain the intelligence to develop an infinite number of inventions. Likewise, in concluding his commentary on fortified towers, Francesco asserts: “[the towers] can take multiple forms, upon the discretion of the designer and according to the requirements of the place.”122

Thus, for Francesco di Giorgio, travel, and the associated concepts of practice, experience and study, comprised one of the most salient marks of an architect’s erudition and professionalism. Those architects who had spent time in diverse locales, knew

Mediterranean geography and had studied the materials, topography and artifacts of these places first-hand possessed an expertise which distinguished them from the more provincial capomaestri or building supervisors. As demonstrated in this chapter,

Francesco unquestionably upheld the theory he taught in his Trattato di Architettura in his own practice. And while he did not always enjoy travel, his mobility was the direct

120 Martini, Trattato 456. “Parmi assai sufficientemente sia ditto delli cinti delle mura, peroché el prudente e perito architetto, di più parti che per le regule et esempli ha conusciuto et inteso, porrà quelle adattare et applicate che si converrà alla natura del sito, aggiugnendo e diminuendo e componendo.” 121 Ibid 444. “… et a questi si può fare infinite e varie invenzioni secondo la intelligenzia di quelli che in tali esercizi sono esercitati.” 122 Ibid 442. “Le figure loro possono essere molte, a beneplacito del compositore e secondo che el luogo richiede, delle quali nel disegno si tratterà.”

164

result of his favorable professional status. His research trips to Rome and Campagna were a luxury only a handful of his contemporaries could afford, and the positions he filled in

Naples, Milan and Urbino, were a testament to his incomparable expertise.

165

Chapter IV: The Architect as Politician & Entrepreneur

The early-modern architect was by necessity a political animal. Unlike the painter or sculptor, the architect practiced in the public realm, and relied upon a distinguished public stature, and the favors and awards which accompanied it, to gain building commissions.1 Civic authorities needed to know that he was not only an excellent designer, but was also someone who could control the worksite and complete the assigned project in a timely, efficient manner. No less important was the architect’s financial discretion. In the early modern period, building was one of society’s principal economic activities – an investment in capital as well as human resources and materials – and thus had ramifications in a much broader range of public and private life. Building, and by extension architecture, was big business and in order to be successful, the architect had to navigate the multiple administrative, economic and political forces which ruled his profession.2 The architect’s political identity, a corollary of the highly public and political nature of his work, was therefore, a role he manipulated to gain cultural prestige and advance his career.

The great fifteenth-century Italian architects – Filippo Brunelleschi, Michelozzo

Michelozzi, Luca Fancelli, Giuliano da Maiano, Giuliano da Sangallo, Leonardo da

Vinci, and Fra Giocondo – fit this mold, in that all were highly esteemed and politically well-connected. Yet, how each came possess this authority varied considerably.

Brunelleschi and Michelozzi held positions within the Florentine government, and used

1 Trachtenberg 281 – 282. Directly or indirectly, public authorities regulated all major building projects, financing the development of new public palaces, churches, water systems and fortifications; setting building codes; and encouraging construction and reclamation initiatives through land grants and tax benefits. 2 Goldthwaite, “The Building of the Strozzi Palace: The Construction Industry in Renaissance Florence” 99.

166

their political presence as a means to accumulate social and cultural authority, and to further their own careers.3 Similarly, within the court of Lodovico Gonzaga in Mantua,

Luca Fancelli filled a diplomatic role, and by gradually accumulating political and artistic clout, gained entrée to more prestigious projects. But Fancelli’s career also shows how precarious the architect’s position often was. Following the death of Lodovico Gonzaga in 1478, the Florentine native fell into disfavor in Mantua, and for a period, was forced to seek patronage elsewhere – in Milan, Naples and Florence.4 Giuliano da Sangallo and

Leonardo da Vinci suffered similar reversals, and like Fancelli, relied on their entrepreneurial skills to earn commissions. Being politically and socially engaged was an inevitable part of the architect’s job, however, it did not necessarily correspond to monetary success or widespread acclaim.

In many respects, Francesco di Giorgio might be regarded as an exemplar of the architect-as-politician – establishing a social presence early on in the development of his

Sienese bottega, and systematically augmenting this authority by pursuing new projects, proposing and negotiating contracts within the Commune of Siena, and assertively advertising his skills to foreign patrons. Francesco was an inveterate entrepreneur and opportunist and more often than not his successes were achieved with considerable initiative and risk. This chapter examines the politics and entrepreneurship of Francesco di Giorgio’s practice, beginning with the example of his workshop’s “mass-production”

3 On Brunelleschi’s political career, see D. F. Zervas, “Filippo Brunelleschi's Political Career,” The Burlington Magazine 121 (1979): 630 – 646. For a brief biographical sketch on Michelozzi, see C. Vasoli, “Michelozzo e la cultura fiorentina del suo tempo,” Michelozzo. Scultore e Architetto (1396 – 1472), ed. G. Morolli (Florence: Centro Di:Associazione dimore storiche italiane, 1998): 9 – 20. 4 Luca Fancelli was originally appointed construction manager at the Palazzo Gonzaga at Revere, but after cultivating the Marquis’ favor, was allowed to propose, design and execute new projects, and was given permission and funds to brokerage deals with antiquarian suppliers in Rome. For the essential biography of Luca Fancelli see, C. V. Vatovec, Luca Fancelli, Architetto (Florence: UNIEDIT, 1979): 3 – 22.

167

of painted wedding chests (cassoni). These mundane domestic pieces, although relatively undistinguished within the architect’s greater corpus of work, speak to the commercial component of his bottega and to his ability to oversee large-scale artistic operations. This ability was further manifest in his position as operaio dei bottini (1469 – 1472). As previously discussed (Chapter II), the position of operaio required extensive technical skill, knowledge of hydraulics, excavation techniques and building systems. It also required entrepreneurial initiative. Francesco earned the post as overseer of Siena’s all- important aqueducts only after having raised outside financing for his ambitious proposal; failure would mean not only financial ruin, but also public disgrace.

The personal investment, and conscientious social and political positioning

Francesco displayed as operaio dei bottini were manifest in a different manner in his

Opusculum de’Architectura. As argued here, Francesco composed the exquisite manuscript of machine designs in a manner as to advance his own career. The Opusculum assumed authority through its association with Federico da Montefeltro, and as its images were increasingly copied, it came to function as an advertisement of the architect’s manifold expertise. In a similar fashion, Francesco drew upon the influence of his foreign patrons to augment his standing in Siena. In exchange for his services, Francesco had Federico and Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, and Alfonso II of Calabria write testimonies on his behalf, affirming his excellence and recommending him for the offices he sought to fill in Siena. Examination of Francesco di Giorgio’s tenure as communal architect in the late-Quattrocento reveals the extent of his authority. In addition to the projects he undertook involving the commune’s fortifications and hydraulic works, he collaborated with Nove leaders in Sienese mining initiatives and the development of a

168

local armaments industry. Organized under the purview of the Camera del Comune,

Siena’s central office of military organization, these productive initiatives yielded immense power and wealth. There is evidence that Francesco was involved in the production of cannons, and the major communal commissions he received in the 1490s, in particular that for two bronze angels for the Siena Duomo, suggest that he benefitted substantially from his affiliated mining endeavors.

The final section of the chapter examines Francesco di Giorgio’s approach to architecture against the background of Aristotelian social theory, components of which are discernible in the Trattato di Architettura. Like the Opusculum, Francesco di

Giorgio’s Trattato was in many respects a work of self-promotion. As evident in numerous passages of the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141, Francesco sought to create a tract which would augment his reputation and cement his name and accomplishments in posterity. The discussion here, however, considers the social and political valances of the

Trattato in another light. Focusing on the theoretical content of the Trattato, as opposed to the vehicles by which the theory was transmitted, attention is drawn to Francesco’s conception of architecture in respect to the greater social context in which it is formed. Of particular interest here are his discussions on building decorum, productive architecture, design economy and the architect’s role as civil servant.

Business in the bottega: Francesco di Giorgio’s production of cassoni

Between 1464 and 1475 Francesco di Giorgio’s prolific, Siena-based workshop produced an extensive body of work, a large percentage of which might be categorized as mundane domestic pieces – devotional images, sculptural relief panels and wedding

169

chests (cassoni).5 Following Florentine trend, painted cassoni became popular in Siena the second-half of the fifteenth-century, in greatest demand between 1460 and 1480.

These pieces, intended for a broader consumer market, were typically executed by less sought after artists, and might have been sold to intermediary shopkeepers for resale, or exported to markets outside of the city.6 The earliest cassoni panels attributed to

Francesco di Giorgio date between 1460 and 1463 – when at the start of his career, he sought to establish his niche within Siena’s competitive, artistic sector – and although the chests were not among his more exceptional works, by the early 1470s, they represented the largest sector of his workshop’s production.7 Francesco’s precocious production of cassoni is remarkable, therefore, not for the artistic virtuosity of the pieces themselves, but because this work gives testimony to his entrepreneurial abilities. The young Sienese architect recognized the cassoni market as an untapped sector for potential development and profit. The retail value of the chests, due to the amount of labor and material involved in their facture, was considerably higher than stock panel paintings or devotional pieces.

A custom-made cassone cost between fifty and seventy-five florins, not a small amount considering that Francesco received only fifty florins for the altar panel he executed for the monastery of Monte Oliveto Maggiore in 1475.8 The decorative chests also gave

5 For complete catalogue of works attributed to Francesco from the period 1464 – 1470 see, Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena (1993). 6 On the production and sale of cassoni in fifteenth-century Italy, and their artistic value, see M. Baxandall, Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988): 1; B. David, “Narrative in Context: The Cassoni of Francesco di Giorgio,” Renaissance Siena: art in context, ed. L. A. Jenkens (Kirksville, MO.: Truman State University Press, 2005): 109-110; and R. Goldthwaite, “The Painting Industry in Early Modern Italy,” Painting for Profit (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010): 285. 7 A. Iorio, Francesco di Giorgio’s Paintings: A Reassessment (PhD diss. University of Virginia, 1993): 81 – 82. 8 For the typical cost of a cassone see, C. Campbell, ed. Love and marriage in Renaissance Florence: the Courtauld wedding chests (London, Holberton, 2009): 14, 16. On Francesco di Giorgio’s fee for a panel painting for Monte Oliveto Maggiore, see document #48 (April 12, 1475).

170

Francesco a platform upon which to build his name and that of his workshop. Although they were not exemplary artistic works, the cassoni were purchased by members of

Siena’s cultivated, upper- and upper-middle classes who expected a certain level of refinement. Francesco figured out how to fulfill his clients’ expectations, while also producing chests in a quantity which would support the continued expansion of the workshop. The surviving chests display the architect’s ability to harness the symbolic character of the domestic pieces in a manner which showcased his skill and humanist erudition, forged social bonds, and elevated his standing within contemporary Sienese society. Such deliberate social maneuvering also served Francesco well in his role as building designer.

The great success Francesco di Giorgio experienced producing cassoni was inextricably tied to the artistic processes he employed in their facture. The cassoni were workshop productions, and on the basis of stylistic analysis and infra-red examination, it appears that the majority of chests produced within Francesco’s bottega were executed by collaborators and assistants.9 Sometime in the mid-1460s, Francesco joined in partnership with the younger, less experienced Neroccio de’Landi. As was customary among fifteenth-century artists, Francesco and Neroccio likely divided a work space, maintaining independent workshops but sharing costs and collaborating on a handful of projects.10 The production of cassoni seems to have been one of the primary aspects of their collaboration. While a handful of surviving chests traced to the workshop follow designs which are demonstrably Francesco di Giorgio autograph, the actual decoration

9 David 123 – 129; A. Angelini, “Francesco di Giorigo pittore e i suoi collaboratori,” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500, ed. L. Bellosi, F.P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1993): 284 – 290. 10 The division of workshops is also discussed by Thomas 43 – 44.

171

was realized by another hand. It thus appears that within the partnership, Francesco was responsible for providing designs and compositional schema, while Neroccio oversaw the execution of the cassoni. By following a standardized system based on the use of formulaic patterns and visual stereotypes, assistants within the bottega succeeded in the

“virtual mass-production” of cassoni while still maintaining a level of refinement which allowed the shop to dominate the Sienese market.11 The arrangement allowed Francesco to benefit financially from the workshop’s hold on the expanding market for the wedding chests, while at the same time granting him time to pursue other more prestigious and demanding projects.12

The catalogue of cassoni attributed to Francesco di Giorgio’s workshop from the period 1460 to 1475 features a range of secular and religious subjects, derived from ancient and modern literature.13 One exemplar among these is the securely dated 1464 cassone depicting the Triumph of Chastity, a chest commissioned to commemorate the marriage between two members of the prominent Gabbrielli and Luti families of Siena

(Fig. IV.1).14 The subject, the Triumph of Chastity, is taken from Petrarch’s immensely popular Trionfi, an allegorical series on the triumphs of Love, Chastity, Death, Fame,

Time and Eternity, which in the second-half of the Quattrocento, commonly appeared in manuscript illuminations, fresco cycles, façade decorations and household furnishings.15

The selection of the Trionfi for the Gabbrielli-Luti cassone, therefore, is not particularly

11 Kanter 319. 12 X. Salomon and L. Syson, “Cassone Paintings,” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City, ed. L. Syson (London: National Gallery, 2007): 213. 13 B. Fredericksen, The Cassone Paintings of Francesco di Giorgio (Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1969): 13 – 14. The catalogue of cassoni attributed to Francesco includes scenes taken from the Bible, Dante, Boccaccio, Petrarch, Plutarch and Livy. 14 David 110. 15 C. L. Baskins, “Triumph: an introduction,” The Triumph of Marriage: painted cassoni of the Renaissance, ed. C. L. Baskins (Boston: Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 2008): 6 – 13.

172

remarkable. However, the chest is distinguished by the ingenuity of its illustrative composition. In translating the poetic verse into an original, illustrated narrative,

Francesco followed Petrarch’s text, but also introduced elements inspired by ancient imagery and ornament to enrich and enliven the story.16 The imagery of the Gabbrielli-

Luti chest would have alerted a contemporary audience to its maker’s erudition – clearly an individual au courant with literary and cultural developments. The fact that the Luti or

Gabbrielli patron perceived Francesco as such an artist, and requested that he develop such a refined illustrative scheme, is thus telling of the degree to which Siena’s elite recognized his excellence and relied on him to execute important family commissions.

Closer analysis of the Triumph panel, along with the fifteen other surviving cassoni attributed to Francesco di Giorgio’s workshop, sheds light upon the highly systemized, formulaic production methods by which the chests were executed. Every one of these panels makes use of stock ornamental and figural types, and often the same compositions are repeated in multiple panels.17 The composition used in the Goddess of

Chaste Love (c. 1468 – 1475), for example, is repeated in at least five additional cassoni by the workshop.18 Francesco likely rendered the design for the Goddess of Chaste Love as a finished model (modello), leaving it in the workshop where it could be easily referenced by his assistants.19 His autograph parchment drawings of “Hippo” and “Two

Female Figures,” conserved today in the Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe at the

16 David 112. 17 Ibid 113, 120. The repetition of distinct stucco reliefs on numerous cassoni suggests that the workshop also relied on stock molds. 18 Ibid 113. Also Kanter 319. The six panels all repeat, with slight variations, the allegorical subject of “The Triumph of Chaste Love.” The panels Kanter cites are found in the following collections: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; the Carminati collection, Milan; a private collection in Crans-sur-Sierre, Milan; Museo Stiberrt, Florence (three panels). 19 Kanter 319.

173

Galleria Uffizi, are exemplars of such illustrative models (Fig. IV.2). These, together with the architect’s substantial corpus of drawings of machine prototypes – which he repeatedly copied in various formats – provide sound evidence of his reliance on models.20

Within his workshop, Francesco di Giorgio was artistic director. In addition to administrative tasks and promotional campaigns, he was responsible for formulating the designs which were often implemented by others within the shop. The great success of this formula cannot be over-emphasized. It has been proposed that Francesco’s productivity in the early 1470s was such that he readily invited other prominent artists to collaborate on selected commissions. Among others, those traced to his workshop in this period include Giacomo Cozzarelli, Lotto di Domenico and Liberale da Verona.21 These purported collaborations offer an explanation for the questions of attribution which monopolize much of the scholarship on Francesco di Giorgio’s painting, and why pieces now attributed to him have at other times been assigned to two or three different artists.22

The cassoni panels, like the fortifications, churches, machines and palaces Francesco would later devise, were collaborative projects, and much like the buildings, the chests

20 “Hippo” (folio U375E) and “Two Female Figures” (folio U396E), Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi, Florence. 21 L.B. Kanter, Italian Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, vol. 1 (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1994): 198 – 199. There is evidence that Liberale da Verona was an active member of Francesco di Giorgio’s bottega between 1470 and 1476 collaborating on cassoni panels and smaller devotional images. Because he was not a native of Siena, and would stay there only a decade, Liberale might have opted to collaborate with Francesco rather than starting his own workshop. See “Biografie degli artisti” in Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena (522 – 523). Also Iorio 85 – 86. 22 Panels which are now considered as productions of Francesco di Giorgio’s workshop have been previosuly attributed to Sano di Pietro, Matteo di Giovanni, Vecchietta, and Neroccio de’Landi. Attributions for the architectural projects traditionally credited to Francesco are also varied. His works in Urbino (the Palazzo Ducale and Duomo, Convent of Santa Chiara, and church of San Bernardino), for example, have been assigned to Leon Battista Alberti, Luciano Laurana, Baccio Pontelli, and Donato Bramante.

174

display no distinct, autograph style.23 Francesco’s success lay not in his use of signature forms, but in his artistic flexibility – his ability to vary and adapt his aesthetic language according to the project at hand. This, combined with his executive talents, allowed him to undertake an extensive corpus of projects. It was somewhat natural, therefore, that around 1475 Federico da Montefeltro appointed Francesco di Giorgio as his court’s chief architect, and “lord of all the other master craftsmen” in Urbino.24

Contracting for the bottini

Among the positions Francesco di Giorgio juggled during his early career in

Siena, his appointment as overseer of the city’s fountains and aqueducts – operaio dei bottini – is most closely related to his subsequent work in architecture. This position is also the most revealing in regards to his political standing in Siena, and his business- minded approach to major building commissions. As discussed previously, the importance of the city’s aqueducts, and the technical expertise required for their maintenance and expansion, meant that those individuals who filled the position of operaio were among a select group of highly reputable, local practitioners. This was not the position of a novice and was not granted to individuals with questionable civic loyalties. Moreover, the immense value of the bottini – both in monetary terms and in regards to urban security – further distinguished those operai charged with supervision and development of the system. To be appointed as operaio dei bottini was no small accomplishment, and the fact that Francesco di Giorgio succeeded at age thirty to win the post had enormous implications for his future.

23 Iorio v, 72. 24 Santi 418 – 419.

175

Before discussing Francesco’s position as operaio dei bottini, it is necessary to speak briefly on the administration of Siena’s water system and the terms by which operai were employed. Throughout the early modern period, the Sienese aqueducts – construction on which was substantially complete by the late-fourteenth-century – were the object of continual concern, expense and maintenance. Reports filed in the first decades of the fifteenth-century recount how, without vigilant oversight, the aqueducts rapidly deteriorated: channels became clogged and broke, vaulting collapsed, water was diverted outside of the system, and many of the city fountains ran dry. In August 1422, following a session of appeals before the Siena’s City Council (Consiglio Generale), the city established a new office dedicated solely to the supervision and repair of the channels.25 Every year, three men were named operai dei bottini, and given the imposing task of restoring comfort and honor to Siena by augmenting the city’s water supply. The annual term, however, did not allow the operai enough time to become familiar with the entirety of the bottini system, let alone to make substantial improvements – and thus while the yearly appointment of operai perpetuated the continual training of Sienese technicians and hydraulic experts, the aqueducts continued to deteriorate.

25 Comune di Siena 29; Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 344 – 345. The petition reads: “Having seen and considered how much our ancestors spent to bring water to the fountains of the Campo and Fontebranda, and what honor and use this had brought to our city, as well as comfort for all of our citizens and inhabitants, it would be truly a misfortune to allow this work to degrade with time. […..] From a time in the past, [the aqueducts] are lower and they have lost half of the water which should come to the said fountains [….] and this is due to the negligence of those who were responsible for the said fountains and also due to the lack of money, which is not as much as necessary.” (“Item, veduto e considerato quanto spendio gli antichi nostri ànno facto in fare venire l’acqua a la fonte del Campo e di Fontebranda, e quanto honore e utile ne segue alla nostra città e comodità a tutti e’ nostri cittadini e habitatori di quella, e veduto quanto di necessità è l’abondanzia dell’acqua delle fonti predecte, le quali da uno tempo in qua sono molto manchate e èssi perduta la metà dell’acqua, la quale soleva venire a le decte fonti, maximamente quella del Campo, e tutto questo è intervenuto quando per negligentia di chi è stato preposto al governo delle dette fonti e quando per difecto del denaio, al quale non è stato proveduto come richiede el bisogno…”)

176

In 1447 the terms of contract of the operai dei bottini were altered, giving the overseers more control over the aqueducts and greater investment in their proper functioning. It was decided that there would be just two operai – one for the Fonte

Branda and one of the Fonte del Campo – who would serve three years, rather than one.

Each operaio received a yearly salary of one-hundred lire – which would have placed its recipient comfortably within the middle class – and was assigned three counselors to assist in the daily operations of the bottini.26 In order to fund this augmented regimen of maintenance, the commune imposed a three-year tax which provided a total income of

4,800 lire. This amount was earmarked for the operai, who were allowed to request and spend the funds on projects directly involving the city’s fountains and bottini. Although the tax structure was subsequently altered throughout the fifteenth-century, the budget allotted to the operai remained 4,800 lire.27 The new position of operaio thus not only conferred a good deal of authority and prestige, but also presented an opportunity for significant profit, and as a result “impresarios” or competitive contractors were among those who most frequently submitted applications for the post.28 The rhetoric employed in the appeals for operaio contracts was formal, but boastful. The applicants were selling their expertise to the commune, and often made ambitious promises to dramatically improve the condition and function of the city’s water systems.29

26 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 97- 98. Regarding the salary of the operaio, it is important to also recognize that nowhere do the documents is it given that the operaio was committed to serving in only this post, and often times it appears that the operai filled multiple additional commissions. The one-hundred lire salary was maintained until 1480. On the relative value of this amount see Hollingsworth xi, and Hicks “Sources of Wealth” 40 – 41. 27 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 125, 128, 393. As given in the documents, a total of 3200 florins were allocated for the total operations of the operai dei bottini, with 1200 florins allocated to work on the Fonte del Campo, and 400 florins given to the Fonte Branda. 28 Ibid 100, 101. Repeatedly the operai are referred to as “impresarii.” 29 For example, on June 18, 1467 Stefano Meo Mini petitioned to clean and repair two Sienese channels and a fountain for a salary of twenty-seven soldi per canna, asserting that “no one has done more for the

177

A review of the surviving contracts of the operai shows that the terms of employment were open to negotiation. Salary rates and work agenda were never fixed, and one finds that the overseers had considerable autonomy when it came to the allocation and use of funds. They were responsible for the stewardship and salaries of the custodians who served under them, and were expected to keep an itemized record of all expenditures of their commissions. 30 Still, no operaio got the job without secure financial backing from an outside source. As the commune had neither the trust nor means to pay the operaio his entire salary upfront – tax money was collected piecemeal, and often was paid with monetary credits in the Monte (or the public debt) – the elected overseer was required to find a financier who would loan him funds on behalf of the commune. The financier would be repaid once the job was completed to satisfaction.31 By necessity, therefore, the operaio was not only on good terms with the commune, but had also established a strong social presence.

Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea’s petition for the position of operai dei bottini of the Fonte del Campo was singularly ambitious. Within a three year term beginning in May 1469, the pair promised to find new sources of water and to augment the amount of water in the Fonte del Campo by one-third.32 The Fonte del Campo – “the

advantage of the commune than the undersigned Stefano.” See Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 2, 417. One canna measured approximately two meters. 30 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 99 – 102. It is worth noting that the system of reporting kept by the operaio allowed for a certain degree of ambiguity. Reviewing the ledgers, one often finds large sums allocated for general “maintenance” – funds which may well have otherwise been used to augment the operaio’s salary. 31 Ibid 125. Bargagli-Petrucci points to a document of January 24, 1418, which explicitly states that the operiao “was required and had to be secured by the bank (“sia tenuto e debba, sopra un bancho, sicurare lui….”). See ibid 338. 32 See document #11 (April 28, 1469). It is imperative to note that Francesco di Giorgio’s and Paolo d’Andrea’s main assignment held them responsible for supervision and improvement of the Fonte del Campo, not the entire aqueduct system. There were other operai dei bottini who were charged with managing other sectors of the bottini network.

178

queen of Sienese fountains” – was located in the physical and spiritual heart of the city.

Providing water to the urban populace, it represented the benevolence and strength of the

Sienese government. Ample water supply was one of the most visible and appreciated functions of a “Good Government,” and thus was an essential element for political success. As noted in a document of 1406, when water was scarce, “harm and shame is brought upon the city of Siena.” Thus, it was appropriate that in 1408 the Sienese commissioned Jacopo della Quercia to expand and embellish the hallmark Fonte del

Campo, which subsequently came to be called the Fonte Gaia – “Fountain of Joy.”33

Francesco di Giorgio’s proposal to augment the glory of Siena’s “Joy,” was therefore, enormously appealing and was an offer the Sienese officials could not turn down.34 Still, as operaio dei bottini, he had to produce results. According to Francesco and Paolo’s original contract, the two received the typical salary of the operai – one- hundred lire per annum – but were obligated to return half of this if they did not realize their stated agenda.35 Subsequent documentation suggests that Paolo was given primary control over the cleaning and repair of the aqueducts, while Francesco, who had a greater reputation than his partner, managed the administrative and technical operations of the

Fonte del Campo.36 Records filed in the book of income and expenditures (“Entrate e

Uscite”) of the Biccherna specify that Francesco controlled the 3,200 lire allotted to the

33 See J. Beck, Jacopo della Quercia, vol. 1 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991): 81 – 94, 161 – 166. Also, L. Syson, “Study after figures of ‘Rhea Silvia’ and ‘Acca Laurentia’ by Jacopo della Quercia on the Fonte Gaia,” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City London: National Gallery, 2007): 248. 34 Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 300. 35 See document #42 (June 23, 1473), which summarizes the original terms of their contract. “Et perchè troviamo che il Conseglio li fece operai di detti buttini con questi patti che si obrigaro a dare a’detti buttini el terzo più aqua che non avevano quando li presero, et in caso che non la crescessero, come di sopra è detto, debano perdarsi el mezo del salario.” 36 See document #30 (October 8, 1471). As Bargagli-Petrucci notes, this document indicates that Paolo d’Andrea was the point-person for the aqueducts, presumably dealing with all administrative and organizational issues, while Francesco di Giorgio controlled the more technical operations.

179

pair for projects within the channels, an amount to which an additional 300 lire was added at some point during their tenure.37

While the success of Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea’s term as operai dei bottini is not readily apparent – there is no record, for example, that confirms that they increased water to the Fonte del Campo by one-third – it is clear that the two did make some notable improvements. According to their final assessment, Francesco and

Paolo oversaw the construction of approximately four-hundred seventy-eight meters of new channels, and cleaned one-hundred seventy-six meters of the existing aqueducts. The joint salary they received for this work amounted to 432 lire, about forty-five percent more than the original amount stipulated in their contract (100 lire pro annum). If divided equally, this meant that Francesco and Paolo each received a total of 216 lire (72 lire per year for three years) – an amount roughly equivalent to the wages paid to a solider.38 Thus, based on the work they completed and the pay they received, it seems

Francesco and Paolo had a successful tenure as operai. The only evidence to refute this would be the fact that, according to the final assessment, they slightly exceeded their budget. But their damages – two lire, one denari – were minimal, and in comparison with their predecessors, Francesco and Paolo’s use of 3,500 lire was within the standard range.39 Moreover, it is worth noting that the final assessments of the fifteenth-century

37 The final itemized report of Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea’s contract (see document #42, June 23, 1473) states that they spent a total of 3,500 lire during their term. The fact that the 3,200 lire is recorded in the books on at least three occasions, in 1469, 1471 and 1472 (documents #14, 33, and 34), is a reflection of the system of secured financing. Francesco and Andrea only received 3,200 lire, but as the funds were initially granted and insured by a third-party institution the sum transferred hands on several occasions. 38 See documents #11 and 42 (April 28, 1469 and June 23, 1473). On the relative value of Francesco and Paolo’s salary, see Hollingsworth xi. 39 Francesco del Guasta, who served as operaio of the Fonte del Campo from 1463 to1466, spent 3,882 lire during his tenure, and Castorio di Nanni, who served 1466 – 1469, spent 3,485 lire. See Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 237.

180

operai are filled with citations of “damages,” and it seems it was quite common for an operaio to end his term facing a municipal investigation in which the short-comings of his tenure were enumerated in detail. The very absence of gross fines and damages in the final assessment of Francesco and Paolo’s term, therefore, testifies to their success.40

Francesco’s favorable tenure as operaio dei bottini was a testament to his advanced knowledge of hydraulic systems – skills which are further affirmed by the fact that in the years following his initial contract, he continued to earn prestigious appointments involving Siena’s bottini and water systems. But beyond such practical measures, the three-year bottini contract also marked the architect’s transition from independent artist, who managed his own workshop and competed for private commissions on the local level, to a public figure of significant social repute. While the technical expertise he honed as operaio was important, the social authority bestowed upon him by the appointment was truly transformative. The salary and accolades were such that he could purchase properties within the affluent district of San Giovanni, and assume his first major public commissions within the Spedale di Santa Maria. Indeed, it may be argued that had he not petitioned and won the contract as operaio dei bottini,

Francesco likely would not have had the stature to be considered by Federico da

Montefeltro for the position of Urbino court architect.

40 On final itemized assessments of fifteenth-century operai, and the assessment completed followed Francesco and Paolo’s term, see D. Balestracci, D. Lamberini and M. Civai 72; and Bargagli-Petrucci, vol. 1, 98.

181

The Opusculum de’Architectura, self-promotion and indirect politicking

Francesco di Giorgio’s 1469 petition for the position of operaio dei bottini is the only record of the architect’s direct appeal for an artistic commission. However, it was certainly not the only time he appealed for a project or patronage. Records from the

1470s, ‘80s and ‘90s show that as Francesco became more experienced as an architect and increasingly confident in the value of his expertise, he leveraged his authority to gain favors and commissions. In both Urbino and Naples, he used his advantaged position in respect to his patrons as a means to earn political recommendations in Siena. His

Opusculum de’Architectura – an eighty-two folio, presentation-quality manuscript of machine designs – may also be viewed as a conspicuous example of the architect’s self- promotion. The luxurious manuscript, just as the letters of recommendation, allowed

Francesco di Giorgio to reposition himself – in relation to his employers, and within the social and intellectual hierarchies of Renaissance Italy. Although this social maneuvering was not directly related to building or building-design, it had substantial repercussions in regards to Francesco’s ascendance as an architect.

Dedicated to Duke Federico da Montefeltro in the mid-1470s, around the time

Francesco joined the Urbino court, the Opusculum de’Architectura was in effect a luxury brochure highlighting the architect’s manifold talents.41 Although the book’s contents are relatively mundane – models for construction tools, scaffolding systems and cranes, hydraulic works, boats and bridges, military machinery, and fortification designs – the figures are distinguished by the excellence of draftsmanship and ingenuity they display.

The Opusculum drawings were the means by which Francesco di Giorgio advertised his

41 Galluzzi, Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento 41; and Mussini viii.

182

many talents, and his suitability for the position of court architect. They showcase his technical knowledge, as well as his mastery of disegno – his ability to devise and render beautiful and complex constructions. On folios such as 25v, the drawing’s virtuoso display of draftsmanship overshadows the object represented (Fig. IV.3). The illustration of the four-wheel cart demonstrates the architect’s ability to conceive such a complicated, highly-technical device, and to present it as a three-dimensional mass in a clear and convincing manner.

It is drawings such as the foreshortened car on folio 25v which truly distinguish the Opusculum and its author. The machine drawings of the Opusculum, rendered with the same finesses as figural or compositional studies, are shown fully articulated in their complexity. They are the works not of a common carpenter or mason, but of a highly trained artist, and as presented by Francesco, are intended to be appreciated on par with painting or sculpture. The breadth of examples and variations Francesco included in the book further underscored the artistry of machine design, and his particular excellence in this field. In terms of its essential organization, the Opusculum displays no obvious thematic program. Although the recto and verso of the individual folios contain similar content, taken together, the ordering of the folios seems arbitrary: illustrations of underground aqueducts are paired with those of construction mechanisms, which in turn are followed by folios with mills, paddle boat designs and fortification plans (Figs. IV.4 –

6). Still, the composition of the Opusculum in no way appears confused or haphazard, and in effect, the juxtaposition of subjects underscores the fecundity of the author’s ingegno. Turning the pages, the reader is continuously surprised by Francesco’s innovative and diverse design solutions; the manuscript features not merely a series of

183

variations on the same themes, but a compilation of subjects, each teeming with fresh ideas.

The merit of these ideas, and the architect’s expertise more broadly, is explicitly relayed in the Opusculum’s eloquent Latin dedication, the only text included in the book.

Addressed directly to Federico da Montefeltro, the dedication lays out Francesco di

Giorgio’s project, and defines the relationship between the architect and patron. “To the renowned Prince Federico, Duke of Urbino, from Francesco di Giorgio of Siena, a little book of architecture, which he has drawn and conceived.” The composition of this line in the original Latin is remarkable, as here Francesco visually links his name to that of duke:

“Principem Federicum Urbinatum Ducem Francisi Georgii Senesis.”42

Although Francesco is subordinate to the duke, within this dedicatory line the two share the same platform, and in this respect, might be regarded as partners. In the section which follows, Francesco compares the duke to Alexander the Great of Macedonia, who was renowned for his patronage of art and architecture, and in particular for his great military feats, and expresses his belief that in the duke’s future building campaigns – for military works, palaces and castles – the Opusculum would be an enormous asset. The value of the manuscript’s designs, Francesco emphasizes, lay in the fact that they were his own creations – invented “with my own genius […] and unknown to others.” In underscoring his unique talents, Francesco again presents himself as a complement to the duke. The

Opusculum is not an appeal for patronage – Francesco was likely already employed with the Urbino court – but rather a gift of the loyal architect to his revered employer. The

42 For the full transcription of the Latin dedication see A. Popham and P. Pouncey, Italian drawings in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, vol 1. (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1950): 32 – 38. The translation use here is that given by R. Betts, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio 134 – 137.

184

architect’s superlative ingenuity and technical expertise is further highlighted in the final passage of the dedication. “You must realize that not everything which is contained in this book can be explained accurately by means of drawing; to the contrary indeed, many more things reside in the mind and genius of the architect than can be described in pictures and sketches.”43

In these final lines, Francesco bestows upon Opusculum images a type of secret meaning which could only be fully deciphered by the expert architect. There is also the implication that the book’s designs are merely a preview of Francesco’s genius, and that there are greater inventions, still nascent in the architect’s imagination, which will come to belong to the duke and will allow him, like Alexander, to dominate his rivals. While

Francesco realized numerous building projects related to the Opusculum models in service to the Montefeltro, the impact of the book extended beyond Urbino’s borders. In the final decades of the fifteenth-century and well into the sixteenth-century, the

Opusculum de’Architectura experienced unprecedented popularity among practicing architects. Copied by the dozens and used by the period’s most celebrated architects – among others, Giuliano and Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Fra Giocondo, and

Bartolommeo Ammannati – the Opusculum became the canonical reference book of mechanical illustrations.44 Still, reproductions of the Opusculum drawings were never exact replicas of Francesco’s originals, and with few exceptions, display an inferior level of draftsmanship. In contrast to Francesco’s autograph figures, the copies appear flat and

43 Betts, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio 134 – 137. 44 Giuliano da Sangallo included Opusculum copy-drawings in his codex S.IV.8 (Biblioteca Comunale, Siena) and Codex Barberiniano 4424 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana). Bartolomeo Ammannati’s copy- drawings after Francesco di Giorgio are held in the Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi, as are those of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and Fra Giocondo. See Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist.

185

unrefined, and in overall form are often simplified in respect to the model (compare Figs.

IV.3 & IV.7 and IV.5 & IV.8).

The widespread diffusion of the Opusculum de’Architectura, and the discrepancies presented in comparing the autograph version with the copies, have multiple implications in regards to the author’s intentions for the book, and the function it came to fill. Although it is unclear where, how or by whom the majority of the

Opusculum copies were produced, is almost certain the Francesco di Giorgio initiated the reproduction of the book, most likely while Federico da Montefeltro was still alive.45

How else would a luxury manuscript dedicated to the Duke of Urbino come to be reproduced by hundreds of architects spread across the entire Italian peninsula? The

Opusculum, it seems, was composed by the Sienese architect for the purposes of self- promotion. Explicitly linking himself to Federico da Montefeltro and his celebrated court,

Francesco elevated his own status and in turn, also that of his machine models. As alluded to in the book’s dedication, the extraordinary power of the Opusculum designs lay in their suggestion of hidden secrets and promise to win over big patrons. This authority which was further augmented in the extensive reproduction and circulation of the images, and somewhat counterintuitively, remained intact even after the figures were copied to the extent that they became generic models. In composing the Opusculum and allowing for its copy, therefore, Francesco not only enforced his singular architectural talents – emerging as learned author and confidant of Federico da Montefeltro – but also

45 Scaglia suggests that copies of the Trattato were executed in the scriptorium of Monte Oliveto Maggiore, but as Mussini emphasizes, there is no definitive proof of this. The copies might have been executed in smaller scriptoria, or by individuals within Francesco’s workshop. See Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 15 – 16; and Mussini viii. On the copy and distribution of manuscripts in the Italian Renaissance, see B. Richardson, Manuscript Culture in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

186

bestowed unprecedented authority upon the practitioner’s model-book. The Opusculum de’Architectura was a formal, dedicated architectural volume, but unlike those of Konrad

Kyeser, Giovanni Fontana, Roberto Valturio or Leon Battista Alberti, Francesco’s book contained no text. Here, the architect’s principal and primary tool – disegno – was the center of attention.46

Just as Francesco harnessed Federico da Montefeltro’s reputation in promoting his signature model-drawings, so he appealed to the duke’s authority in augmenting his position in Siena. Shortly after the Tuscan War (1478 – 1479), during which Francesco routinely transmitted messages between the lords of his native city and his courtly patron, the architect had Federico da Montefeltro recommend him for a position within Siena’s

Consiglio del Popolo, the commune’s main legislative assembly. The duke’s letter of July

26, 1480 speaks with the commander’s laconic authority. “I have here in my services

Francesco di Giorgio, your citizen and my most beloved architect, who desires to be placed in that magnificent regiment, because of his great ingenuity, goodness, prudence and virtue. Therefore, I ask your Lordships that you elect him to that [office].”47

Francesco’s ambition to join the Consiglio del Popolo was no small matter, as even individuals with papal sponsorship were known to have been denied admittance. Most of the seats were occupied by the Sienese elite, including several hundred “riseduti” who

46 The Opusculum was distinctly different from contemporary architectural tracts dedicated to prominent patrons, which were primarily literary works, and in which images took a secondary role. Examples cited here include Alberti’s De re aedificatoria (c. 1450) dedicated to Pope Nicholas V; Konrad Kyeser’s Bellifortis (c. 1405) dedicated to the King of Germany; Giovanni Fontana’s Bellicorum Instrumentorum Liber (c.1430) dedicated to the Doge of Venice; and Roberto Valturio’s De re militari (1466) dedicated to Sigismondo Malatesta. 47 See document #78 (July 26, 1480).

187

were members for life.48 In the months following the Tuscan War, political tensions had mounted in Siena, with Alfonso II of Calabria supporting the return of exiled Nove families and the restructuring of the Sienese government.49 We might well conclude, therefore, that at this pivotal juncture, Francesco was angling for an augmented role in local politics. Certainly, Federico da Montefeltro had no significant reason for wanting

Francesco to join the Consiglio del Popolo. He was motived by the desires of his architect. As he stated in his appeal, Francesco’s appointment “would bring me singular pleasure as he most munificently serves your Lordships as ambassador on my behalf.”

Francesco was already held in good repute by the duke, and did not need to join the

Consiglio del Popolo. His appointment, as indicated by Federico da Montefeltro, would be a diplomatic favor.50

Francesco di Giorgio had a similar letter written on his behalf by Guidobaldo da

Montefeltro seven years later, when he was still living in Urbino. However, on this occasion, somewhat ironically, the noble sponsor requests that the architect be allowed to decline an appointment in Siena. Addressing the signoria as “my beloved brothers,”

Guidobaldo relays: “Master Francesco di Giorgio… my architect, has told me that he has been elected as podestà di Porto Ercole, and is wanted to fill this office.” He then requests that signoria find a substitute for the architect, as he was currently occupied in

Urbino and his absence would be “very harmful.”51 The signoria’s appointment of

Francesco as the chief magistrate (podestà) of Porto Ercole – a strategically important

48 C. Shaw, “Memory and Tradition in Sienese Political Life in the Fifteenth Century” 226; and “Peace- making rituals in fifteenth-century Siena,” Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena, ed. P. Jackson and F. Nevola (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006): 91. 49 C. Shaw, Popular Government and Oligarchy in Renaissance Italy 57 – 61. 50 See document #78 (July 26, 1480). 51 See document #111 (May 10, 1487).

188

port on the Mediterranean Sea – was one in a series of attempts put forth in this period to encourage his repatriation, as the position carried with it considerable stature and remuneration.52 While Francesco di Giorgio’s motive in renouncing the Sienese offer is a subject for greater inquiry and speculation, what is noteworthy here is the intervention of

Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, an authoritative third-party figure. Because Urbino was a longtime ally and supporter of Siena, Guidobaldo’s intervention easily swayed the situation in Francesco’s favor, while also protecting the architect from further unwanted communal appeals.

Thus, as demonstrated in the letters of both Federico and Guidobaldo da

Montefeltro, Francesco’s position in Urbino ranked beyond that of courtly advisor and diplomat. His authority was such that he could ask personal, politically charged favors of his patrons. A third example of a patron’s intercession on Francesco di Giorgio’s behalf occurred in November 1492, when Duke Alfonso II of Calabria asked the signoria to re- instate him as operaio dei bottini in Siena. Francesco’s appointment had been revoked in

September of that year, due to his prolonged stay in Naples.53 In tone, Alfonso’s letter is considerably more aggressive than that of the Montefeltro. He begins with the assertion that Francesco’s delayed return was Siena’s own fault – they had waited too long to send him to Naples – and expresses his dismay that the signoria would punish an individual who’s service in the Neapolitan Kingdom was so essential. The duke then tactfully shifts his focus to Francesco’s position in Siena, instructing the signoria not only to restore him to his previously held office, but to augment his pay (provisione). As in the Montefeltro letters, Alfonso’s makes clear that his support of the Sienese depended on their fulfilment

52 See Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City 176; and documents #99 – 102 and #108. 53 See document #201 (November 23, 1492).

189

of his request for Francesco. Yet, the duke was not entirely directing the negotiations. If the Aragonese wanted Francesco’s service in the future, Alfonso II had no choice but to advocate on the architect’s behalf. Francesco di Giorgio, then, although still technically

“servant” to both states, held significantly more power than his patrons were willing to admit.

The Fonte di Follonica and the Camera del Commune

The stature Francesco di Giorgio achieved in Siena, and the economic and political ramifications of his rank, are fully evident in his commercial undertakings in the late-1480s and early-1490s. In January 1489, after repeated appeals made by the signoria, Francesco finally agreed to return to Siena to serve as communal architect. But he had several stipulations. In addition to the management and development of a handful of unspecified public works, he was to receive a yearly salary of two-hundred florins, a one-time bonus of one-thousand florins, and full rights to the control and resources of the

Fonte di Follonica.54 The Fonte di Follonica was among Siena’s oldest urban fountains and according to documents filed within the Balìa, Francesco intended to refurbish and develop the property as a production center. The city’s concession of Fonte di Follonica to Francesco was an overt display of munificence toward their architect. Yet even more telling was the list of Francesco’s named collaborators: Paolo Salvetti, Pandolfo Petrucci and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio. The three men were closely involved in the Sienese government, and Francesco’s partnership with them – on the Fonte di Follonica project, as well as on the development of an armaments foundry and other prominent communal

54 On the conditions of Francesco di Giorgio’s repatriation to Siena, see documents #132, 137, 138 (November 18, 1488; January 23 and 28, 1489). His salary as Communal architect is cited in document #198 (September 24, 1492).

190

projects – reflects his immense cultural and political authority, and also his ability to utilize this power to further his artistic career. It is in this activity, moreover, that

Francesco’s knowledge pertaining to financial, logistical, and political management – key components of early-modern architectural practice – is most evident.55

Constructed in the first-quarter of the thirteenth-century, the Fonte di Follonica was originally one of Siena’s most important repositories of fresh water. The covered, multi-trough fountain included a lavatoio, or laundry tank, and had successfully served as an arsenal and fort during the 1269 attacks of Charles of Anjou.56 But due to its peripheral location – east of Siena and outside the city walls – the fountain gradually fell into disuse and by the late-fifteenth-century, was largely ruined. Francesco di Giorgio’s

January 28, 1489 appeal to develop the fountain, therefore, was not entirely unlike the one he had made twenty-years prior for the position of operaio dei bottini. But in contrast to his proposal for the bottini, whereby the city would benefit from the augmented water in the Fonte di Campo, Francesco’s contract for the Fonte di Follonica was proposed for his own profit. As given in the document of concession: “the Fonte di Follonica and the site of the said fountain, with all its rights and appurtenances, […] is given and conceded in full rights to Francesco di Giorgio, and [it is understood that] here he may do with it and build whatever he desires according to his own will.”57 What Francesco sought to do with the fountain is not specified, but according to subsequent contract of February 11, his rights were extended to other waterways within the contado. Along with his named associates – Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo Salvetti and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio –

55 See forthcoming article by Lefèvre, “Architectural Knowledge,” op. cit. 56 C. Tronti and M. Valenti, eds. La Fonte di Follonica e le fonti medievali di Siena (Florence: All’insegna del Giglio, 2004). 57 See document #139 (January 28, 1489).

191

Francesco received authorization “to build mills and various other structures on the rivers and waters of Siena and its commune.” The documents stipulate that Francesco was responsible for the organization of all building activities, which were to be funded by

Petrucci, Salvetti and Biringuccio, but that “all gains and revenues from the said buildings” were to be divided equally among the four partners.58 In effect, the four- member team was granted a monopoly for the exploitation and use of hydraulic energy in the Commune of Siena.59

While the February 11, 1489 contract does not offer further indication of the group’s endeavors, subsequent documentation and circumstantial evidence confirms that the “mills and various other structures” they planned to develop were to be iron- foundries. An abundant source of moving water was essential for the manufacture of metalwork, as the foundry bellows and hammer mills used in the fining process were water-powered, and the smelters also relied on water to cool the molten metals. Since the thirteenth-century, Siena led the ironwork industry – not only in Tuscany, the “cradle” of ironwork, but in all of Italy. However, much of this production was decorative in nature, and although Sienese metalworkers manufactured armaments and artillery, within the commune demand for such pieces was relatively limited.60 The new factories founded by

Francesco di Giorgio and his Nove associates were to further develop the Sienese armament industry, which would in turn help strengthen the commune’s notoriously weak military, freeing the new governors from the city’s habitual reliance on Naples and

58 See document #140 (February 11, 1489). 59 Chironi, “Fonti e Documenti” 380. 60 A. M. Adorisio, Per uso e per decoro. L’arte del ferro a Firenze e in Toscana dall’età gotica al XX secolo; l’eclettismo ottocentesco, arti industriali e tradizione artigiana (Florence: Marie Cristina de Montemayor Editore, 1996): 11.

192

Urbino for arms and troops.61 The newly emergent Nove oligarchs were of course also moved to amplify the military for reasons of self-defense. Lacking critical superiority in numbers, wealth, ability or popular support, they needed the military as much for their own protection as for that of the commune.62

The first step in this direction was the augmentation and enrichment of the

Camera del Comune, Siena’s central office of military organization. Established in the early-fourteenth-century, the Camera was responsible for overseeing the furnishing and arms of the Palazzo Pubblico. Over the course of the Trecento, however, it came to fill a bigger role, overseeing various activities involving the Sienese military – from the recruitment of soldiers, to the manufacture of arms, and the production of military architecture.63 Records from the mid-fifteenth-century attest to the Camera’s production facility in the basement of the Palazzo Pubblico, and to the office’s continual efforts to acquire sufficient minerals and metals to supply the manufacture of arms and ammunition. Debates concerning the relatively small size of the commune’s armory also feature in the documents, and in 1454 and again in 1468, initiatives were passed to raise capital for armament production.64 Little is known of the Camera’s activities in the

1470s and 1480s, and it seems likely that operations were minimal, as in 1487, shortly after the Nove coup, the new Balìa made the expansion of the Camera del Comune a top priority. Pandolfo Petrucci was placed at the institute’s helm, responsible for

61 G. Chironi, “Cultura tecnica e gruppo dirigente: la famiglia Vannocci Biringucci,” Una tradizione senese: dalla Pirotechnia di Vannoccio Biringucci al Museo del Mercurio (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche, 2000): 100. 62 Hicks, “The Education of a Prince: Lodovico il Moro and the Rise of Pandolfo Petrucci” 89. 63 Chironi, “Fonti e Documenti” 375. 64 G. Ermini, “Campane e cannoni. Agostino da Piacenza e Giovanni da Zagabria: un fonditore padano ed uno schiavone nella Siena del Quattrocento,” L'industria artistica del bronzo del Rinascimento a Venezia e nell'Italia settentrionale: atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia, Fondazione Giorgio Cini, 23 e 24 ottobre 2007, ed. M. Ceriana and V. Avery (Verona: Scripta, 2008): 392 – 395, 401.

193

conscripting, financing and outfitting a new infantry, as well as overseeing a nine-person commission to monitor the defenses of the city and commune.65

Although Pandolfo Petrucci’s position as overseer (provveditore) of the Camera was significantly less prestigious than those held by the four principals of the Balìa, it granted him numerous rewards and concessions, and gave him opportunity to exploit communal resources for personal profit. The economic relevance of the position was furthered by the fact that the productive endeavors he initiated on communal lands were entirely under his purview. Pandolfo and his associates invested their own capital in the development of mines and foundries within the commune, and received all profits from their production.66 In the late-1480s and 1490s, Pandolfo established mines in Massa

Marittima and constructed a series of iron kilns in the Boccheggiano valley near Siena, accruing power and wealth which enabled his political ascension (Map I).67 As opined by a Milanese official in 1497: “Pandolfo possesses greater authority than all others, and the principal reason is that years ago he was given responsibility for finding money and paying the infantry of the guard. [... ] and those who would like to depose him are not able […] especially because he has the infantry of the guard at his command.”68

Balìa records from the period show that along with Pandolfo Petrucci, principal positions within the Camera di Comune were occupied by Paolo Salvetti, Antonio Bichi,

Angelo Benassai, Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio and Francesco di Giorgio.69 Like

Pandolfo, Salvetti, Bichi, and Benassai came from well-established Nove families, and

65 Chironi, “Fonti e Documenti” 375; C. Shaw, Ascesa al potere di Pandolfo Petrucci 46- 47. 66 Chironi,“Fonti e Documenti” 379. 67 E. Lombardi, Massa Marittima e il suo territorio nella storia e nell’arte (Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 1985): 178. 68 Hicks, “The Education of a Prince” 91 – 92. 69 Chironi,“Fonti e Documenti” 376.

194

were among those exiled from Siena in 1482. Salvetti, who had played a key role in the

1487 coup, occupied a seat in the supreme magistrate of the new government and was one of the individuals who negotiated with Florence’s Otto di Guardia (Eight of

Security) on behalf of the new government.70 Antonio Bichi held a similarly important position within the new Balìa, and his influence was such that in 1497 he was counted along with Pandolfo Petrucci and Niccolò Borghesi as having the “rule and management” of Siena in his hands.71 The roles filled by Salvetti and Bichi, however, extended beyond government administration. Both individuals invested in mining and metallurgy, and both were directly involved developing the Camera’s supply of armaments and ammunition.

As shown in the records, Salvetti was an accomplished military engineer and mineralogist – often referred to as “ingegnere” due to his as abilities in these fields – and in the final decade of the fifteenth-century was twice granted exclusive rights to search for and mine silver, gold, iron, bronze and all other types of metal within the commune.72

His investments were largely focused along the Merse River at Chianciano Terme where he developed a center for the mining sulfur – a key ingredient in gunpowder.73

Paolo Salvetti’s investments in Chianciano Terme were significant not only in regards to the related material production of gunpowder, but also because from autumn

1487 through the 1490s, Chianciano Terme, and in particular the municipalities of

70 Chironi,“Fonti e Documenti” 377. 71 For notes on Antonio Bichi’s biography, see: M. Seidel, “Die Fresken des Francesco di Giorgio in S. Agostino in Siena,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 23 (1979): 23. On his authority in 1497, see Hicks, “The Education of a Prince” 91. 72 In November 1487 Paolo Salvetti surveyed the Sienese coastal fortifications with Francesco di Giorgio, and the next year was recorded in Porto Ercole, consulting on the defenses there. Salvetti’s success in mining was such that on more than one occasion, he was asked to serve as superintendent of mining for the Kingdom Portugal. 73 See E. Romagnoli, “Paolo di Salvetto Salvetti. Ingegner militare, minerologista, etc.,” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800, vol. V (Florence: Edizioni S.P.E.S, 1976): 355 – 389.

195

Chianciano and Montepulciano, were the subject of ongoing territorial disputes between

Siena and Florence (Map I).74 These territorial disputes, moreover, closely involved the core members of the Camera. Between October 1487 and April 1488 Francesco di

Giorgio consulted on the defense of the region, and appears to have been on-site when tensions broke in armed combat in spring 1488.75 Antonio Bichi was active in

Montepulciano slightly later, serving as commissioner (commissario) and lieutenant

(luogotenente) there in 1495 and 1496, at which time he oversaw the construction of fortifications and commissioned the production of bronze artillery.76 Although Antonio

Bichi was not an expert in mining or artillery, he was equally invested in this sector of

Sienese production, and gave at least 10,000 lire of his own money to Pandolfo Petrucci’s mining company.77 The fact that Francesco di Giorgio died with outstanding loans owed to Antonio Bichi suggests that he too may have directly invested in the Petrucci-Bichi endeavors.78

Angelo Benassai’s role in the Camera, and specifically in the defense of the

Montepulciano-Chianciano region, was similar to that of Antonio Bichi as “depositor” or financer of operations.79 In 1490 and 1491, Benassai was named along with Francesco di

Giorgio and Paolo Vannoccio as operaio of the Sienese fortifications at Cerreto, Sesta

74 The disputes between Florence and Siena over Montepulciano stemmed from the Tuscan War. Allied with Urbino and Naples, Siena sought to recapture Montepulciano, and in the end, won control of the municipality in the February 1480 peace settlement. But the territory fell back under Florentine dominion when Alfonso II withdrew to Naples, and it was not until the Nove take-over of 1487 that the Sienese officials began to aggressively push to reclaim the territory. 75 See documents #117 – 122, 124, 125, 130 and 131 (October 1487; February, 1488; and April, 1488). 76 E. Romagnoli, “Jacomo di Benedetto di Nanni di Cozzarello, architetto, scultore,” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800, vol. V (Florence: Edizioni S.P.E.S, 1976): 217 – 221. 77 As attested to in denunzie dei beni filed by the Bichi family in 1509, Antonio had invested with Pandolfo in the extraction of ore and alum, and owed his associate 10,000 lire. See Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City 182. 78 Nevola, “Lots of Napkins and a few surprises” 74, 77. 79 See document #181 (August 17, 1491).

196

and Castelnuovo Berardegna – all three key outposts on the Sienese-Florentine border.80

Although little of these fortifications remain, there is evidence that the commune sought to construct casseri, or formworks, above the fortifications’ portals, which would support armed garrisons.81 Thus again, one finds a link between the defenses the Camera developed, the production of firearms, and the activities of Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo

Salvetti, Antonio Bichi, Angelo Benassai, Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio and Francesco di

Giorgio.

The members of this six-man association complemented one another in their relative technical expertise, political economic authority, and administrative abilities.

While Salvetti, Bichi, and Benassai were largely involved in the financing and management of the Camera’s endeavors, Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo Vannoccio, the former often denoted as “architector” in the documents, were responsible for the association’s productive operations. For Francesco the position was in many respects the logical extension of his prior service in Siena. When Francesco joined the provveditori of the Camera he was already familiar with many of the commune’s fortifications, as well as the bottini network, and was regarded as the foremost expert on defensive architecture.82

80 See documents #155, 179, 181, and 184 (May 21, 1490; July 30, August 17, and October 21, 1491). Antonio Bichi’s relationship with Francesco di Giorgio outside of the Camera is also noteworthy. In late- 1480s and 1490s, Antonio Bichi commissioned Francesco and Luca Signorelli to complete the altar piece for his family chapel in Sant’Agostino. It is possible that Francesco was also involved in the design of the massive Bichi family palace, located on the via Capitano, adjacent to that of Giacoppo Petrucci. See Nevola, Siena: Constructing the Renaissance City 182. 81 On the Communal defenses in the region of Castelnuovo Berardegna, including Sesta and Cerreto, see R. Farinelli, “Le Fortificazione nel Comprensorio Comunale di Castelnuovo Berardenga,” Architettura nel Chianti Senese. Catalogo di Castelnuovo Berardenga (Arezzo: Editrice grafica L’Etruria Cortona, 1996): 48 – 61; also S. C. Cusmano, Castelnuovo Berardegna: il Castello, la Fattoria, il Paese (Poggibonsi: Arti Grafiche Nencini: 2003): 21. 82 Francesco likely assisted Vecchietta in the late-1460s on the fortifications at Sarteano, Monte Acuto and Orbetello, and is known to have consulted on the defenses of Cerreto, Berardegna, Chiusi, Casole d’Elsa, Sesta and Montepulciano, among others, in the 1480s. See B. Gille, The Renaissance Engineers (London: Lund Humphries, 1966):102; A. Natali, “La chiesa di Villa a Castiglione Olona e gli inizi del Vecchietta,”

197

Moreover, and of primary importance for anyone involved with the Camera, he was an entrepreneur. Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio appears to have also been a risk-taker, and as a specialist in minerals and metallurgy, served as a complement to Francesco in the technical and productive operations of the Camera.83 Whereas Francesco knew how to design water mills, build foundry ovens and cast bronze, copper and lead, Biringuccio had significantly more experience in mining. His expertise in mineralogy is attested to in his enormous productivity and eminence within this field, as well as his established legacy.84 In 1492 Biringuccio received permission to construct ironworks at

Piancastagnaio, near Mount Amiata, and directed the production of several of Petrucci’s iron kilns in Biccheggiano (Map I). Three years later in 1495, he was granted a monopoly license to search for metals within the contado, a successful project which was later renewed in 1497.85 Paolo’s son, Vannoccio Biringuccio (1480 – 1538) appears to have collaborated with his father from an early age, and by 1510 was managing several

Petrucci foundries. Much of what he laid out in his De la pirotechnica – the first printed book dealing with metallurgy and the applied metal arts – was likely an extension of what he had learned from his father.86

The fact that the all of principal members of the Camera were invested in the exploitation of mineral resources within the commune, and in particular of iron, is highly

Paragone 35 (1984): 6; and Vigni 66. On Francesco di Giorgio at Casole d’Elsa, see documents: #82, 86 and 116 (June 25, 1481; undated 1481; and July 30, 1487). 83 Chironi, “Fonti e Documenti” 377 – 378. Little is known of Biringuccio’s background. He first appears in the records on July 14, 1487 when he was named as Francesco di Giorgio’s legal representative (see document #114). The two remained close associates through the 1490s. 84 Ibid 382. 85 Ibid 381. Also, E. Lombardi, Massa Marittima e il suo territorio nella storia e nell’arte (Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 1985): 178. 86 See “Introduction” in Vannoccio Biringuccio, De la pirotechnica, ed. A. Carugo (Milan: Edizioni il Poliflio, 1977): XXXV – LIII.

198

significant, as this activity constituted the core of the Nove’s military development. In the fifteenth-century, cast-iron guns were the predominant type of weaponry, and were produced in far greater number than bronze cannons.87 The Camera, however, had habitually struggled to obtain a sufficient supply of raw iron, and as given in the documents, often resorted to purchasing metals in various quantities and prices through multiple independent contractors.88 It was Pandolfo Petrucci’s aim to secure for the

Camera a guaranteed, internal supply of metals, so that Siena could develop a sustained armaments industry without falling hostage to political vicissitudes and market fluctuations. The production network which resulted was cohesive: minerals mined with the commune were taken to local smelting fineries and foundries, whereby the semi- finished product was used to make muskets, gunner’s tools, and other firearms.89 It is likely that much of the casting took place within the Camera’s workshop in the basement of the Palazzo Pubblico. However, as the Camera’s production of armaments was politically sensitive, and also highly costly, its documentation is limited. Pandolfo

Petrucci maintained extraordinary caution regarding the disclosure of any information about the mining and foundry operations he sponsored, and when the documents do reference these activities, the information given is deliberately ambiguous. A Balìa account of October 15, 1492, for example, notes that following the discoveries made by a

“secret friend,” Pandolfo was given authorization to mine and to assume all material profits.90

87 Adams and Pepper 10 – 11. 88 Ermini 402. 89 Chironi, “Fonti e Documenti” 379. 90 See Shaw, Ascesa al potere di Pandolfo Petrucci 46.

199

In regards to Francesco di Giorgio, aside from his recorded collaboration with

Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo Salvetti, Antonio Bichi, Angelo Benassai, and Paolo Vannoccio

Biringuccio, there is little direct evidence of his production of armaments. However, as shown here, a close reading of what records do exist, along with the circumstantial evidence pertaining to Francesco’s career and the activities of Camera del Comune in the mid-1490s, affirms his involvement in this industry. As communal architect to Siena,

Francesco’s position was inherently political. He worked to augment the strength, health and security of the state through the repair of water-conduits, construction of fortifications, and production of weaponry.

Francesco di Giorgio as bombardier

The broad foundation for Francesco di Giorgio’s career, generally speaking, lay in his expertise in military and defensive design. Although documentation from his early career is limited, it is likely that he first served the court of Urbino as an artillery specialist – a field in which he could have trained in the second-half of the 1460s and early-1470s in Siena.91 As noted previously, in 1468 Siena’s Consiglio Generale passed a major initiative to augment the commune’s arms supply. After a prolonged process of material procurement, the Camera began work in 1470, and in the months that followed, produced twenty-two cannons. Upon completion, the firearms were displayed in front of the Palazzo Pubblico and inaugurated into service with an extravagant parade.92 While there is no record of Francesco’s activity with the Camera at this time – the documents indicate only that Giovanni da Zagabria was “master of bombards” – considering the

91 See Weller 10 – 11; Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 32. 92 Ermini 402 – 403.

200

young architect’s contemporary involvement with Siena’s civic infrastructure (the

Spedale di Santa Maria, the bottini, the Bruna River dam and the fortifications of the contado), it is almost certain that he was aware of the Camera’s activities. Moreover, considering his subsequent documented activity developing firearms and bombs, it is not remiss to think that by the 1470s he was already involved in armament production. His pocket-sized Codicetto (c. 1460 – 1475) includes numerous pages with studies of firearms and cannons, and many of artillery designs recorded here are repeated in the

Opusculum, representing an important component of the technical repertory Francesco sought to advertise (Figs. IV.9 & IV.10). We might recall that in the book’s dedication,

Francesco emphasized Federico da Montefeltro’s military exploits, likening him

Alexander of Macedonia, who was known first and foremost for his military achievements. In presenting himself to the duke as an artillerist, Francesco joined the ranks of handful of Sienese specialists who had served the duke in this capacity in the

1470s, including Giovanni di Stefano and an otherwise unknown bombardier named

Montonina.93

Even if Francesco did not enter the service of Federico da Montefeltro as a military advisor, it is certain that from the mid-1470s, a large portion of his work related to matters of warfare and defense, and it was in this regard that he substantially distinguished himself as an architect. As Giovanni Santi affirms, “Of his great inventiveness for war engines I shall not speak; but know that he won more praise in this than any other [person].”94 In regards to the role of the early-modern architect, this work is significant for multiple reasons. The architect’s involvement in defense design and

93 Ermini 409. 94 Santi, vol. 2, 419.

201

armaments production has implications regarding his training and the way in which he conceived building projects. It brings us to question the social motives for training building designers in the early-modern period, and what offices, public or private, were substantially responsible for funding the development of architecture. The political and social importance of the architect’s work as fortification designer and bombardier cannot be overemphasized, nor can one stress enough the significance of this work in regards to the broader, more complex role he played.

Francesco di Giorgio’s expertise in fortification design has been traditionally tied to the on-site training he received as aide-de-campe to Federico da Montefeltro and

Alfonso II in the late-1470s and early-1480s, and certainly, it was knowledge and experiences he gained in this period that he highlighted in his Trattato di Architettura.

Within Trattato II, the discussion of fortifications – which includes original explications relating to the facture of firearms, and recipes for ammunition and gunpowder – comprises what is by far the longest section of the treatise.95 Here, Francesco underscores the important role Federico da Montefeltro played in his achievements in military design, noting that it was alongside the duke, on the battlefield, that he learned how to structure fortifications that would withstand the impact of firearms.96 Technical advancements in firearms, and the increased presence of muskets, gunners and cannons in the final decades of the fifteenth-century significantly altered the speed and precision of battle, how campaigns were waged, and the means by which those being attacked sought to

95 In the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141, chapter five on fortresses extends seventy-nine pages, while chapter two on houses is only thirty-four pages, and chapter four on temples is just thirty-one. Noteworthy also is the fact that this material is foregrounded in Trattato I, filling chapters one and two. Portions of Francesco di Giorgio’s discussion on metals, gunpowder and artillery material in Trattato I were included in the late-fifteenth-century codex of the Anonymous Sienese Engineer, and subsequently adopted by Vannoccio Biringucci in Pirotechnia. See Scaglia, “Autore” 65. 96 Martini, Trattato 424.

202

defend themselves. The squat, polygonal fortresses Francesco di Giorgio designed in

Urbino and Naples were intended not only to reduce the impact of enemy cannon fire, but also to support gun platforms. Installed within the angled bastions, often semi-circular or almond in form, the gun platforms both withheld the weight of several ton cannons and provided sufficient space for their rotation.97

Francesco di Giorgio enumerates the design principles, measurements, and material for the development of such fortifications in the seventy-nine pages of Trattato

II. This material is complemented by that dealing with firearms. Francesco characterizes ten types of “bombarde” – the general term used for firearms, which up until this point were undifferentiated – and explains the key elements which pertain to the facture of each. The ten firearms he describes are distinguished by the length and diameter of the barrel, and the weight of the ball (palla) they throw.98 Speaking as an authority, he describes the “incredible force of the cannon,” characterizing it as “the most diabolical invention of human kind.” These instruments have such power, he continues, that

“neither weapons, nor shields, nor fortification walls” could impede their ability to slaughter men and to destroy, “conquer and eradicate every province and region.”99

But this “diabolical invention” was also the reason for Francesco’s enormous success. Archival records confirm that in the final decades of the Quattrocentro, the

Sienese architect’s counsel was sought not only by the Montefeltro and Aragonese, but also by Gentile Virginio Orsini, Giovanni della Rovere, the Elders of Lucca, and Cesare

97 With carriage, a sixteenth-century cannon weighed over 8,000 pounds or four tons. See Adams and Pepper 11. 98 See entry of L.G. Boccia, “III.c. 19,” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena nel Rinascimento, ed. P. Galluzzi (Milan: Electa, 1991): 374. 99 Martini, Trattato 418 – 419.

203

Borgia. Yet, it is only in regards to his service in Naples that we find explicit reference to his production of bombards. A payment receipt of September 1495, confirms that

Francesco received reimbursment for the materials he purchased to construct firearms

(“certo foco artificiali”) for the Aragonese.100 Just several months later, several chronicles affirm that he oversaw the denotation of the ingenious underground mine below the Castel Nuovo in Naples, which substantially destroyed the walls and foundations of the robust stronghold. That Francesco had extensive knowledge in design, function and implementation explosive devices, is thus unquestionable. Still, it remains to be shown how this expertise was employed in the making of firearms in the Camera del

Comune in Siena.

Significant archival and material documentation affirms that Francesco di Giorgio was skilled in decorative, or artistic, metal-work, and his activity in this field significantly expanded in the late-Quattrocento. It was in these years that he received the major commission for the two bronze angels for the high altar of the Duomo, produced bronze relief panels, and portrait medals for influential figures like Jacopo Petrucci.101 It is important to note, however, that these items would not have been forged and cast by

Francesco di Giorgio in his private workshop. The facture of metalwork required not only large quantities of raw metals, but also blast furnaces, specialized tools, and a space with ample water supply and good ventilation. The communal space for such production was, as noted, in the lower room of the Palazzo Pubblico, where for decades, the Camera

100 See document #223 (September 17, 1495). 101 On Francesco di Giorgio late-career metalworks, see catalog entries, Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. On the bronze apostles, see documents #270 and 271 (July 24 and October 11, 1505). See document #150 (April 15, 1490) regarding the construction of a foundry oven for Francesco di Giorgio’s use.

204

workshop has also been located. It was here that the city produced its firearms and where the cannon molds developed by previous generations were stored and re-used.102

Evidence for Francesco’s involvement in the Camera workshop in the final decade of the fifteenth-century is thus proven by his documented record of metalwork production. It is also supported by the activities of his known-collaborators in these years.

Francesco di Giorgio’s closest and longest associate was Giacomo Cozzarelli, who assisted the architect as early as 1471, following him to Urbino around 1475, and repatriating shortly after he did in the late-1480s.103 In the final decade of the

Quattrocento, Cozzarelli was one of Siena’s leading architects and metalworkers. He was critically involved in the facture of the two bronze angels Francesco designed for the

Duomo, and is known to have realized bronze reliefs and a bell for Pandolfo Petrucci’s new city palace, the design for which was possibly provided by Francesco.104 Ample documentation shows that Cozzarelli was also highly active within the Camera del

Comune and was a central figure within the commune’s firearms production. In February

1489, upon Francesco’s request, the younger architect was invited to join the company of

Petrucci, Salvetti, and Biringuccio to develop the Fonte di Follonica and the commune’s waterways.105

102 Ermini 403. 103 See document #31 (October 30, 1471). 104 It is worth noting that upon Francesco’s death, Cozzarelli assumed many of the commissions previously assigned to him. See documents #270 and 271 (July 24 and October 11, 1505). For a biography on Cozzarelli, see C. Sisi, “Giacomo Cozzarelli (Siena, 1435 – 1515),” Domenico Beccafumi e il suo tempo (Milan: Electa, 1990): 540 – 547; and “Giacomo Cozzarelli” in the “Biografie degli artisti,” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena, 1450 – 1500, ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1993): 519. 105 See document #141 (February 21, 1489). The document specifies that Francesco explicitly nominated Cozzarelli to join the company.

205

Cozzarelli’s involvement in Siena’s regional defenses and the manufacture of firearms is well documented in the following years – the period in which Francesco di

Giorgio served the Kingdom of Naples. During these years, Cozzarelli assumed

Francesco’s duties in Montepulciano. A payment receipt of 1494 notes that “Mo Jacomo

Cozzarello, maestro di Bombarde” was given one-hundred thirty lire to travel to

Montepulciano to execute iron cannon balls (pallavolanti). Documentation from the following January (1495) indicates that he received an additional one-hundred lire from

Petrucci for this work.106 Other documents speak directly to Cozzarelli’s activities in artillery production and involvement with the Montepulciano defenses. A letter sent by

Antonio Bichi to the commune on May 5, 1495 notes: “these citizens who have commissioned the artillery made by Cozzarelli have said that Cozzarelli asked to be paid, and I write to Your Lordships asking that you please pay him.”107 Throughout 1495 and into 1496 Bichi insisted that Cozzarelli’s presence on-site was necessary for the defense construction to proceed. Significantly, however, shortly after Francesco returned from

Naples in late-1496 the situation changed. In February 1497, the Balìa decreed that

Francesco was to go to Montepulciano, “to oversee the fortress and camp of the region in order to secure it.”108 We may assume that the works Francesco undertook in

Montepulciano were in line with those executed by Cozzarelli in the previous years, involving the manufacture of armaments and supervision of fortification construction.

Moreover, the fact that Francesco was asked to replace his long-time colleague almost

106 E. Romagnoli, “Jacomo di Benedetto di Nanni di Cozzarello, architetto, scultore,” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800, vol. V (Florence: Edizioni S.P.E.S, 1976): 216. 107 Ibid 218. Romagnoli transcribes the passage: “questi cittadini che hanno commissione dell’artiglieria che fa il Cozzarello anno deto che il Cozzarello chiadeva denaro e che io scrivessi a V.S. che li piacesse pagarlo.” 108 See ibid 219 – 221 for the documents quoted. Document #230 (February 24, 1497) references Francesco di Giorgio’s appointment in Montepulciano.

206

immediately upon his return to Siena suggests that his expertise was valued over that of the “maestro di Bombarde.”

Other key figures who collaborated with Francesco di Giorgio in the 1490s were

Giovanni di Stefano and Giovanni delle Bombarde, whose biographies are often confused due to their similar names, occupations, and lifespans. Giovanni di Stefano was one of the Siena’s leading artists in the second half the Quattrocentro. As noted previously, he served Federico da Montefeltro as artillery specialist, assisting in the siege of Montone in

1477, and earned the title of “Johanni magistri Stefani bombarderio” in 1479 during the

Pazzi War.109 In 1481 he was named capomaestro of the Duomo in Siena. At the end of the century (1488 – 1500), Siena’s most prestigious commissions went to either Giovanni di Stefano or Francesco di Giorgio, and significantly it was Giovanni who completed the two bronze angels for the Duomo altar which were to be paired with those by

Francesco.110 Giovanni delle Bombarde was the son of the Hungarian bronze worker and bombardier Giovanni da Zagabria, and like his father, was known for his expertise in casting artillery.111 His name appears repeatedly in the documents of the 1480s, where he is given the appellation “di Francesco” – a title which suggests his affiliation with the celebrated architect. Significantly, around the same time Francesco was sent to consult on

109 Ermini 408 – 409. 110 On Giovanni di Stefano’s service to Federico da Montefeltro see document #58 (September 28, 1477). See also A. Bagnoli, “Gli Angeli dell’altare del Duomo e la scultura a Siena alla fine del secolo,” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500, ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1993): 382 – 386; and Borghesi and Banchi, Nuovi Documenti per la Storia dell’Arte Senese 345. 111 Galluzzi, Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento 38; and R. Hovarth, “Siena e il primo Rinascimento ungherese,” Corvina: rassegna italo-ungherese 5 (1925): 67 – 69. In the 1470s, the elder Giovanni da Zagabria found patronage with Lorenzo de’ Medici. In a letter to the Florentine statesman, Giovanni boasted of having equipped fifty-five men with muskets, swords and daggers – at least fifteen more than Lorenzo had originally requested.

207

the fortifications of Lucca, the Signoria of Siena wrote to the Elders of Lucca recommending the services of Giovanni di Francesco.112

While no armaments produced by these individuals are known to survive, drawings from Francesco di Giorgio’s Raccolta of machine designs (c.1495), as well as those included in several late-Quattrocento Sienese copybooks, offer evidence regarding the firearms executed within the Camera workshop. As noted previously, the Raccolta drawings were bound together with the final version of Trattato II and Francesco’s autograph translation of Vitruvius in the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141, and thus may be traced directly to his inner-circle. Francesco Paolo Fiore has suggested that the celebrated

Sienese architect may have composed the Raccolta as a supplement to the Trattato – a

“Book Eight” dedicated almost entirely to artillery and military machinery.113 The illustrations here, although they lack dimensions and give no indication regarding weight or material of the devices, contain a significant amount of visual information which would have been legible to the practitioner. The drawings of folio 194r, for example, illustrate principal components of a bronze, beech-loading cannon (Fig. IV.11). The image at the top shows the cannon in full, placed within an appropriate carriage frame, while that below describes the two parts of the cannon – the main barrel and the inner chamber – and how they fit together. Similarly, the illustration of a multiple-projectile cannon on folio 196r gives a detail of the special type of bore required, labeled R (Fig.

IV.12). These drawings, along with the others included in the volume, reveal Francesco’s investigations into the design and composition of firearms. With each design he shows

112 See E. Romagnoli, “Giovanni delle Bombarde, Bronzetta e Scultore,” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800, vol V (Florence: Edizioni S.P.E.S, 1976): 136 – 137. Also Hovarth 69. 113 Fiore, Citta e Macchine del ‘400 nei Disegni di Francesco di Giorgio Martini 76.

208

how in alternating the parts and positioning of the device, the bombardier could maximize its power and efficacy depending on the conditions in which he worked.114

A handful of other drawing-books – in particular the codex Palatina 767

(Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence) and the codex Additional 43113 (British

Library, London) – offer additional clues on cannons produced within Francesco di

Giorgio’s bottega.115 The codex Palatina 767 combines models from Francesco’s

Opusculum and Jacopo Mariano Taccola’s De Ingeneis, and while its author is unknown, the manuscript was unquestionably completed by one of Francesco’s collaborators and has even been attributed to Cozzarelli. Notable here are two adjacent folios – 162 and 163

– with designs for lavishly ornamented cannons and muskets. One of these bears the inscription: “Opus Dio. Vit” – which refers to Dionisio da Viterbo – a prominent mechanic and clock-maker active in Siena 1467-1477 – while another shows the Orsini coat of arms and includes the inscription “Opus Francis[ci]” (Figs. IV.13 & IV.14).

While the evidence is not definitive, the latter design appears to reference a cannon produced by Francesco di Giorgio when he advised Virginio Orsini in 1490.116 Moreover, that the two images are featured together suggests that author of the codex Palatina worked with both Francesco and Dionisio, likely within the Camera. This link between

Francesco di Giorgio and Dionisio da Viterbo is highly significant due to the latter’s stature and known expertise in machine design, and careful reconstruction of the history

114 Ibid 92 – 93. It is worth noting that some of solutions Francesco presents in the Raccolta are new, unproven inventions – such as the cannon which fires bundled darts (199v) or the three-channel apparatus which would allow the bombardier to fire twelve cannon-balls at once (222v). 115 The codex S.IV.5, completed by an anonymous individual c. 1490, contains drawings which evidence the artillery industry in Siena and has been linked to Francesco di Giorgio’s workshop. See Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 141 – 142; and D. Lamberini, ed. “Le armi da fuoco,” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena nel Rinascimento, ed. P. Galluzzi (Milan: Electa, 1991): 360. 116 Galluzzi, Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento 38. See documents #169 – 171 (November, 1490).

209

confirms that the two were in fact in close contact in the early-1470s.117 Between 1470 and 1471, both men were involved in the restoration of the Spedale church S.S.

Annunziata, where, under the direction of Guidoccio d’Andrea, Francesco worked on the church’s coffered ceiling, and Dionisio executed metal book-mounts for the choir.118

That they shared ideas on their common interests – cannons, hydraulic works, machine designs, and instruments for keeping time – is evidenced in Francesco’s repetition of several of Dionisio’s designs in his model-books.119 The relationship between Francesco and Dionisio even appears to have had a personal dimension, as in 1473, Dionisio was one of two witnesses present at the baptism of the architect’s daughter.120 The best evidence of Francesco’s collaboration with Dionisio in the development of arms, however, is found in a passage of the codex Additional 43113 – a large, workshop model- book compiled by multiple hands, and attributed to the so-called “Anonymous Sienese

Engineer” – in which the two are named together in a recipe for gunpowder.121

Like the codex Palatina, the codex Additional has been linked to Francesco’s workshop due to the hundreds of illustrations it contains taken from the Codicetto and

Opusculum volumes, as well as De Ingeneis.122 But more so than the codex Palatina, the

117 It is quite possible that it was upon the request of the wealthy banker Ambrogio Spannocchi that Dionisio first came to Siena in 1467. In June 1477, Spannocchi recommended Dionisio to Lorenzo de’Medici, and there is evidence of Dionisio’s continued relationship with Lorenzo through 1470. See Ermini 413 – 420. 118 Francesco di Giorgio’s work in Santa Maria della Scala is also referenced in numerous payment receipts of 1470 and 1471, discussed in chapter II of this thesis. For Dionisio da Viterbo’s involvement in the Opera del Duomo and the church of Santa Maria della Scala, see Ermini 420 – 421. 119 Machines developed by Dionisio – such as the bell mechanism illustrated on folio 43 of the codex Palatina labeled “DIONISIO” – also appear in Francesco’s model books. Ermini also relates Francesco’s drawing of Atlante to his relationship with Dionisio. See Ermini 420 – 423. 120 For Cornelia’s baptism, see document #39 (March 9, 1473). 121 Ermini 422 – 423. 122 Galluzzi “Le macchine senesi” 34. In addition to material of Francesco di Giorgio and Taccola, the Anonymous Sienese Engineer also includes material derived from Italian translations of Roberto Valturio’s De Militari and the Pneumatica of the Greek engineer Philo of Byzantium.

210

Anonymous Engineer shows a definite interest and expertise in artillery and metallurgy, and on several occasions cites his debt to “Master Francesco of Siena.” In addition to recipes for gunpowder, one also finds on numerous pages expositions dedicated to smelting techniques and the casting of pallavolante. Notable textual additions also appear alongside illustrations of cannons, such as on folio 199r, where the author details the screw joint which holds together the chamber piece (or bore) with the outer barrel (Fig.

IV.15).123 The fact that the Anonymous Engineer was an artillery specialist, and was admittedly reliant on Francesco di Giorgio, is quite suggestive of the latter’s accomplishments within this field.

It is safe to conclude, therefore, that the Anonymous Engineer, along with

Giacomo Cozzarelli, Giovanni di Stefano, Giovanni di Francesco, and Dionisio da

Viterbo, was among Francesco di Giorgio’s affiliates within the workshop of the Camera.

Although there is not enough information to assign to any one of these individuals a specific set of firearms, it is clear that they were all active within the relatively contained group of Sienese artillery specialists. Francesco’s established presence within this circle, previously only gestured at in the scholarship, confirms his contribution to the development of the local armaments industry. For the Sienese architect, the manufacture of firearms and cannons was a natural extension of his work in fortification design, and complemented the fundamentally political nature of such employment.

Social and political valences of architecture in the Trattato

From what has been said so far, it is clear that Francesco di Giorgio was highly attuned to the social and political forces which shaped the environment in which he lived,

123 Other folios in which the author elaborates specifically on cannons or firearms: 130v/131r

211

and which ultimately directed the nature of his work. Francesco’s Trattato di

Architettura, just as his Opusculum, alliance with the Camera del Comune, and participation in Siena’s armament production industry, may be examined in relation to the political influences which promoted its development. As will be discussed in the following chapter, the Trattato di Architettura was, at least in part, the product of

Francesco’s desire to structure and define the emerging architectural profession. One might also consider the Trattato, like the Opusculum, as a vehicle of self-promotion. The discussion here, however, takes an alternative focus, examining Francesco’s theory within the context of contemporary social and political forces. His recognition of architecture as a socially-driven art is reflected in his development of Trattato II according to an Aristotelian model of “causes” or “first principles.” Throughout the tract he cites Aristotle extensively, employing the ancient philosophical principles as a means to better understand the natural laws of the universe and human society, and how these relate to building and the work of the architect. It is within this broad framework that the

Trattato addresses issues pertinent to architecture and its social context. The following discussion explores the social, economic and political valences of Francesco’s theory, particularly in regards to the issues of building decorum, productive architecture, design economy and the architect’s role as civil servant.

Book two of the Trattato di Architettura, on the parts of houses, opens with a review of Quattrocento debates concerning decorum in architecture. Francesco first introduces the moralists’ stance: that architecture should fulfill utilitarian needs, and

“should not involve extensive time or resources.”124 He then presents the counter-

124 Martini, Trattato 325.

212

augment – that guided by Epicurean theory – which views excess in building as an expression of delight and glory. Francesco, however, accepts neither position. Instead, following Aristotelian logic, he posits that good architecture finds its mean between deficiency and excess. The building’s primary function, he asserts, is to provide comfort and accommodation for its user, and thus expense should remain a secondary concern.

“Presupposing all human laws, legislated and divine, I first say that houses should be proportionate and delightfully built, so that all things one naturally seeks in a place are convenient. [….] And thus, the riches spent on building are not in vain, if commodity is provided.” Continuing on, he notes that well-designed architecture should be understood as an investment, “for if we are reasonable, we understand that we build not only for ourselves, but also for our descendants.”125

Thus for Francesco di Giorgio, decorum in architecture was more complicated than simply what was or was not socially appropriate. The form a building took was largely dependent on economics, and thus depending on the owner’s means and aspirations, it might be entirely appropriate for him to invest in the construction of a distinguished residence. As Francesco develops his argument, he becomes increasingly insistent in his justification for the expense of architecture, and although his assertions directly concern physical buildings, they have implications for the designers as well.

And ultimately, I say that all things magnificent, all things made fashionable and constructed in praise and glory of he who has given it his knowledge and power, are an act of great merit. We are therefore able to conclude without any vice, that one is able to build according to his natural inclinations, and make a home as he wishes […] and to make it with a pleasant and lasting appearance according to

125 Martini, Trattato 326. “[...] ma presupponendo tutte [le] leggi umane approvate e divine, in prima dico che le case si dieno proporzionate e dilettevoli edificare, però che ogni cosa naturalmente cerca el luogo a sé conveniente, et in quello si quieta [....] Né ancora le divizie che in quelli edifici si spendano sono invano, sì per la comodità che ne segue dello abitare sì eziandio perché di quelle molti bisognosi participano. Né [ezinadio] la breve et incerta vita nostra ci costrenge a non edificare, se noi con ragione vera vorremo considerare, peroché non solo per le persone proprie si edifica, ma per li posteri ancora.”

213

rule of architecture, yet at the same time regulating the expenditure so as to make the home agreeable, commodious and durable, as without norms of architecture the opposite is achieved.126

Without directly citing the architect, Francesco implies that only he has the “knowledge and power” to create the “agreeable, commodious and durable” structures worthy of social beings. In this, Francesco also makes a differentiation between architecture and building. Echoing Vitruvius, he defines proper architecture as “agreeable, commodious and durable,” differentiating it from the building of the non-architect, which follows no norms or rules, and is just the opposite – unattractive, uncomfortable and poorly constructed.

The remainder of book two outlines the essential rules for realizing “agreeable, commodious and durable” residential architecture, defining decorum in terms of distinct forms, layouts, and spaces. Francesco di Giorgio distinguishes between five principal types of private residences, which correspond to the five classes of citizens – the working villa, the house of the artisan, the house of the merchant, the house of the educated professional, and the noble’s palace – and notes the primary building components within each of these – doors, windows, triclinia, cellars, stalls, granaries, fireplaces, stairs, bathrooms and communal rooms. While Francesco dedicates considerably more attention to the arrangement of the noble palace than to the merchant’s house – as he explains, the noblemen, in accordance with their lifestyle, require many more rooms than ordinary citizens – with each residential type he emphasizes the importance of a primary

126 Ibid 327. “Et ultimamente dico che ogni magnificenzia, ogni opera e pompa mondana fatta in laude e gloria di chi ne ha dato el sparer e poter, è atto meritorio. Adonque concludendo possiamo dire che senza vizio alcuno vizio si può edificare secondo che la natura inclina ciascuno farsi uno domocilio secondo la intenzione sua, [...] e quello fare con amena apparenzia et esistenzia secondo la ragione della architettura, però che el medesmo dispendio regulato rende l’edifizio congruo, comodo [e] durabile, che senza norma di architettura produce in tutto contrari effetti.”

214

underlying order. Decorum in building design, as given by Francesco, was the presence of rules which defined the forms, proportions and arrangement of spaces, and distinguished architecture from mere construction. The ornamental details, type and color of materials were not irrelevant, but were determined on a case by case basis and thus followed no uniform rule.

The rules that structured decorous architecture meant that it was not only properly proportioned, attractive and ordered, but that it was also functional. That a building fulfilled a utilitarian, productive function was of utmost importance to Francesco, relevant not only to residential structures, but to a wide variety of architectural types. As he states in the opening lines of book one: “It is necessary that the architect is moved to build or work only for that which results in some utility or glory to man.”127 Many of the structures featured in the Trattato might be considered “utilitarian,” in that they serve pragmatic, workaday functions, which extend beyond the fulfillment of aesthetic ideals or the user’s comfort. Structures of this type include villas and farms, storage facilities, fortifications, military machinery, harbors, mills, and construction devices. Although these buildings fulfill very different functions, each contributes to a broader social framework, and thus has importance beyond its individual user.

It is in regards to the home that Francesco di Giorgio first calls attention to utilitarian, productive components of architecture. The discussion here incorporates sections on the individual working components of residences – chimneys, stairs, kitchens, latrines, stables and storage rooms – as well as to the structures’ greater productive

127 Martini, Trattato 301: “Similmente è necessario che lo architettore si mova ad edificare overo operare solo per qualche utilità o gloria all’omo conseguire. Ladonde se questa utilità maggiore al mondo si consegue quanto essa opera è più durabile e felice, non solo debba lo architetto nella intenzione e mente sua avere lo edificio, ma eziando le ragioni [produttive] della sua felice durazione, e secondo quelle operare.”

215

functions.128 Beginning with the villa – “because houses for agriculture existed before those of the city dwellers, and also because for human life they are more important” –

Francesco reveals his awareness of the many productive elements which comprise an efficient villa. The woodworking shop, mills, animal stalls (for horses, oxen, pigs, and asses), storage rooms, granaries, hay lofts and furnaces all contribute to the well-being and life of the individual and his community.129 Similarly, Francesco’s explication on the merchant’s house contextualizes its function within the larger society. In addition to the customary amenities of any commercial establishment – an attractive and spacious shop and ample storage space – Francesco notes that there should also be private spaces for meeting. “There should be at least one room where guests are received […] on the same level as the shop, but separate and private, as the merchant has many friendships and relationships with men worthy of honor, and it is thus convenient for both parties if they can have a private space to meet.”130 Here, it seems that Francesco speaks from experience. As shown in the documents, it was customary to negotiate deals – commercial or political – within a private business establishment, and in fact, the

February 1489 partnership agreement Francesco signed with Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo

Salvetti and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio was negotiated in the Biringuccio

“apotheca.”131

128 In discussing the elements of the house, Francesco di Giorgio repeatedly cites that which is “useful and necessary for the life of men,” as for example, a proper storage place for olive oil and wine. See ibid 338. 129 Martini, Trattato 342: “Prima dirò delle case di villa perché prima furono le case delli agricoli che delli cittadini. Et ancora perché al vitto umano sono più necessarie.” 130 Ibid 344: “Et oltre a questo debba avere una stanzia o più per li forestieri da riceversi, similmente ornata, a piano, separata e libera peroché li mercanti hanno più pratiche amicizie e cognoscenzie di omini degni di onore a cui per comodità dell’una e dell’altra parte si aspettano le stanzie libere.” 131 See document #140 (February 11, 1489).

216

Fortifications were another type of architecture for which functional utility was of utmost importance. Francesco di Giorgio opens his chapter on fortifications adhering to the Aristotelian model of “first principles,” explaining how by nature, humans are compelled to form communities, and how within these, the strongest and wisest naturally come to rule. Fortifications and cities, he concludes, are the physical manifestations of these larger social orders and fill various functions as such. For the ruler, a fort was a form of self-representation, as well as a necessary means of defense, offering protection from his subjects as well as from foreign enemies. Castles and walled defenses were also a means by which societies could coalesce and define themselves in relation to other groups.132 The majority of Francesco di Giorgio’s explication on defenses, however, is less abstract and deals instead with the practicalities of design and construction processes.

Over the course of forty folios, he sets out the principal elements of good fortification design, systematically explaining how each of these should be adjusted depending on the site topography, the types of armaments used, and available resources.

Among the underlying themes present in Francesco di Giorgio’s explication on fortification design, the issue of construction expense – which for defenses was notoriously high and posed a significant financial burden for many Italian states – underscores his awareness of the actual social forces that shaped building.133 The primary economic justification for the construction of fortifications was that they provided defense in a form which was ultimately far cheaper than supplying and maintaining a standing field army. A small garrison positioned within a well-designed fort could

132 Francesco di Giorgio elaborates on this aspect of the fortification, or castle’s function, in book three on castles and cities. See Martini, Trattato 360 – 361. 133 See Adams and Pepper 30 – 31.

217

successfully defend itself against much larger forces, using fewer resources and expending fewer lives.134 Thus, even if the initial costs were high, money spent on fortifications – just like that given to a well-designed residence – was a good investment.

Still, Francesco approached defense design with an eye toward maximizing efficiency and cutting expenses, repeatedly advising the architect to consider what was absolutely necessary when building. On the subject of towers, for example, he asserts: “The architect must consider the smallest number of towers that may defend the fortress and build that number, cutting out superfluous things and building one wall where two would have been built, to save both garrison and expense.”135 But beyond instructing the architect to be cost-conscious, the Trattato author provides suggestions as to how expenses may be reduced or avoided. He was a strong proponent of capannati – simple bomb-proof shelters which were placed within ditches – and believed that if appropriately placed, they would “achieve the same effect of the towers, but with less cost.”136

Likewise, in his explication on circuit walls, he offers suggestions as how to cut costs

(“per evitare spesa”) and to avoid the expense of towers (“senza spesa di torri”).137

Francesco’s theory on fortification design, therefore, was in no way divorced from the realities of contemporary practice, even if it was based on hypothetical scenarios and building models. As fortification designer in Naples, he would have faced the need for economical building solutions and it is likely that his suggestions for earthwork defenses

134 S. Pepper and Q. Hughes, “Fortification in late 15th century Italy: the treatise of Francesco di Giorgio Martini,” Papers in Italian archaeology 1: the Lancaster seminar: recent research in prehistoric, classical, and medieval archaeology, ed. H. M. Blake, T. W. Potter, D. B. Whitehouse (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1978): 552. 135 Martini, Trattato 487. 136 Ibid 458: “[…] Dopo questo faccinsi le mura angulari, [et] in li anguli sieno locate li capannati o piramidi o torricini come sempre è necessario con li fossi e cigli, li quali perviranno al medesmo effetto che li torroni, con minore spesa.” On the economy of capannati, see also ibid 453. 137 Ibid 446 and 451.

218

– the materials for which could be locally sourced, and were considerably cheaper and more readily available than the stone, bricks and iron required in more permanent constructions – derived from his practice on the front.138

Ultimately, it was the architect’s ability to develop custom designs – for fortifications, private residences, machinery or any number of building types – that distinguished him from the common builder. At several points in Trattato II, Francesco di

Giorgio distinguishes true practitioners from those “so-called architects” (“architetti nominati”), citing exemplars of classical antiquity to describe the defining traits of the professional.139 The great architects of Greek and Roman antiquity – Vitruvius,

Dinocrates of Macedonia, and Diognetus of Rhodes – were inventive, well trained, and diligent, but perhaps most significantly, they established legacies for themselves through their loyal service to a great patron or state. As told by Francesco, the story of the military engineer Diognetus of Rhodes served as the perfect example of this. After years of exemplary service, Diognetus, who had always remained loyal to Rhodes despite his inadequate pay, was suddenly replaced by a more brash, yet far less skilled, architect named Callias. Yet, when the city was sieged and Callias was unable to realize the defenses, the inhabitants quickly called Diognetus back. Finally appreciating his value, they extolled his genius and doubled his salary. For Francesco, the story demonstrated his conviction that the value of an architect lay in the quality of his work. It also showed that remuneration and merits came to only those “virtuous and moral men who search to please.”140

138 On the economy of earthwork defenses, see Adams and Pepper 163. 139 Martini, Trattato 493. 140 Ibid 495.

219

As a politically engaged figure, who loyally served his state as well as those of

Naples and Urbino, Francesco di Giorgio also fit the model of the virtuous and skilled architect who sought to please. It was thus natural that he apply this standard to his theoretical conception of the architect, underscoring the architect’s role as civil servant by citing his own allegiances with Urbino and Siena. In the prologue of book seven, following a diatribe against those “so-called architects” who often claim the inventions of others, Francesco comments that he would name these individuals, if it were not for his desire to protect dignity of his state. He then goes on to relay the struggles many architects often face to receive proper credit for their work, but notes: “still, my compatriots have not entered into this habit of ingratitude. Although I am both unskilled and insufficient, they seek to honor me and wish greatly to reward me, and whence for this I must extol them.”141 False modesty aside, Francesco di Giorgio was extraordinarily proud of his patria and went out of his way to show that many of his greatest inventions were completed for Siena. This same sense of loyalty and validation is evident in

Francesco’s comments concerning his service to Federico da Montefeltro. Under the patronage of this “incredibly prudent and knowledgeable man,” Francesco tells us, he gained the courage and confidence to experiment, and ultimately to design the fortifications which would substantially redefine the future of military architecture.142

141 Martini, Trattato 493: “[...], perché nissuno profeta è accetto in la patria, non ostante che in questo vizio d’ingratitudine non sono incorsi i miei compatrioti: quantunque imperito et insuffiziente sia, hanno ricerco onorarmi e volermi grandemente premiare, unde per questo debbo quello lodando esaltare.” 142 Ibid 424 – 425.

220

Chapter V: Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato as “Textbook” & Its Legacy the

Development of the Architectural Profession

Francesco di Giorgio introduces book seven of his Trattato di Architettura, on

“Machines to move weights and draw water, mills and water wheels” writing in a unexpectedly bitter tone. Calling to task those many “ignorant and inexpert men”

(“ignoranti et inesperti”) who steal the inventions of others, the Sienese architect accuses them not only of claiming undue rewards, but also of presumptuously assuming the title

“architect.”1 The machine designs of book seven, he explains, are of utmost necessity for the architect, whether he builds palaces, fortresses, plans new cities, or engineers mills and hydraulic systems, and the architect’s ability to develop these mechanisms is what ultimately distinguishes him from the common artist, craftsman or dilettante inventor.

For his own part, Francesco claims to have acquired his knowledge of machines “with great personal investment and discomfort, and at the sacrifice of my means of livelihood.” Yet there are many, he explains – “whose own work is so easily understood”

– who avoid such labors by simply taking the inventions of others, and in doing so, assume knowledge, experience and a professional stature which they have not in fact earned. But despite his anger, and sincere dissatisfaction with the state of architecture –

“time and time again I decided not to disclose any of my machines [….] as I have seen by experience that the reward which I have received is essentially ingratitude” – Francesco still shares his inventions. 2 Here, as elsewhere, Francesco does not explicitly relate his

1 Martini, Trattato 492 – 493. 2 Ibid 492. The passage quoted here reads: “benchè più e più volte abbi fatto deliberazione di non volere manifestare alcuna mia macchina, peroché avendo io acquistata la notizia di quelle con grande mia spesa di esperienza e grave incomodo, lassando da parte le cose al mio vitto necessarie, ho visto per esperienzia che el premio che io ne ho ricevuto è stato uno effetto di ingratitudine.”

221

reasons for including the material that he does – extensive knowledge and innovative designs which might be readily appropriated by others, or possibly used against him in competition for prestigious commissions. Yet, through a careful reading of the text, with particular attention given to the architect’s personal anecdotes and editorial asides, one comes to understand his purpose for the treatise. The Trattato di Architettura was not merely a display of erudition, or record of the architect’s many achievements – although undoubtedly he hoped that the learned tract would help to cement his legacy in posterity

– but a carefully conceived proposal for the nascent profession of architecture.

This final chapter examines the Trattato di Architettura as a type of architectural textbook, a fully illustrated, vernacular manual in which practical information was seamlessly combined with relevant historical and theoretical material, and the circumstances which gave rise to its development, use and legacy. Building upon the discussions on Francesco di Giorgio’s theory from the previous chapters – his conception of disegno, emphasis on on-site training and site-specific design, and understanding of the architect’s role within society and as a civil servant – the focus here is not so much on architectural theory per se, as it is on the relationship between architectural theory and the broader social and cultural context of early-modern building design. As argued here,

Francesco, like a handful of fifteenth-century architects, wrote his treatise in an effort to structure the then-poorly defined profession. He wanted to provide architecture with a theoretical framework, which would outline the principles of good practice, and give architects the means to differentiate themselves from other artistic disciplines and claim a distinguished position among the artes liberales. He also wanted to revise what he considered to be flawed doctrines, in particular that of Leon Battista Alberti. It was the

222

printing of Alberti’s elitist De re aedificatoria (1485) which promoted Francesco to substantially revise and redevelop the Trattato in version two.

While Francesco di Giorgio’s vision for architecture was in no way definitive, the widely accessible format of his treatise, combined with its focus on building and design processes, found a ready audience among practicing architects. The use and popularity of the Trattato di Architettura may be adduced from the hundreds of surviving manuscript copies. Careful examination of these copies reveals not only the modes by which the manuscripts were “mass-produced,” but also sheds light on the tract’s function. In the late-fifteenth and sixteenth-centuries, the Trattato di Architettura was a standard reference manual among practicing architects, and within schools of technical design, there is evidence to suggest that it even was used as a type of course manual, or textbook.

However, because it was never printed, the Trattato di Architettura was vulnerable to fragmentation, and, increasingly throughout the sixteenth-century, individual sections of the tract were excised and re-used, guiding and providing inspiration for a series of new architectural treatises, model-books and theatre of machine volumes. Somewhat counter-intuitively, the great popularity of the Trattato, and the consequent reproduction, fragmentation, and uncontrolled appropriation of its contents, ultimately led to the eclipse of Francesco di Giorgio. Among the many authors and theorists who consulted the Trattato – including Leonardo da Vinci, Pietro Cataneo,

Sebastiano Serlio, Andrea Palladio, Philibert del’Orme, Daniele Barbaro, Jacopo da

Vignola, Vincenzo Scamozzi, Galeazzo Alessi, Agostino Ramelli, Vittorio Zonca,

Giovan Battista Belluzzi, Bernardo Puccini, and Buonaiuto Lorini – only three cited

Francesco. The most telling indication of Francesco di Giorgio’s legacy, however, lies

223

not in how often he was cited, but in the degree to which the his ideas became part of a common architectural discourse. In the sixteenth-century – a period which saw the proliferation of architectural treatises and commentaries – Francesco’s Trattato di

Architettura was among the most resonant theories, and aspects of his theory, such as the paramouncy of disegno and his promotion of architectural invention, came to be widely accepted as intrinsic to the discipline.

The Genesis of the Trattato di Architettura

The Trattato di Architettura was born out of Francesco di Giorgio’s early years of architectural training in Siena. His pocket-sized Codicetto of mechanical copy-drawings and design prototypes reflects his early proclivity to compile exempla.3 As Francesco matured as an architect, and continued to expand his knowledge of building practice and theory, he became increasingly aware of the need to systematize what amounted to an overwhelming amount of information. The Trattato was his solution. Originally conceived in eighteen-books, the treatise provided a comprehensive, theoretical framework for architecture, while at the same time addressing all of its principal components, from materials to building types, construction methods, and planning systems.4 By framing architecture in terms of a set of clearly delineated components, the

Trattato also offered structure to the discipline where it was lacking. In setting down distinct principles, rules and goals, Francesco argued, his treatise would allow architects

3 Codicetto Vaticano Ms. Lat. Urbinate 1757. 4 Following Aristotle, Francesco di Giorgio explains his approach to architecture in terms of its principle parts. “Approvata sentenzia è di tutti li platonici filosofi e peripatetici la divisione di qualunque tutto in le sue parti essere una delle principali vie per le quali a notizia della cosa ignota si perviene. [Onde] non deviando da la predetta verità affermo l’arte e scienzia della architettura, della quale secondo le forze del mio debile ingegno intendo trattare, sufficientemente dividersi in sette trattati principalli, delli quali questi debba essere l’ordine preso dalle materie e principali subietti d’essi.” See Martini, Trattato 298 – 299.

224

to remedy the “multitude of errors and deficiencies” which then characterized their practice.5

Francesco di Giorgio’s commitment to this project, and his conviction of its importance, is evidenced in the enormous time and energy he dedicated to writing, editing and re-writing his treatise in the twenty-year period between 1475 and 1495. As a result, there is no single, authoritative version of the Trattato di Architettura. Francesco composed at least four drafts of the text, which correspond to two principle versions.

Although he may well have conceived of the Trattato prior to his arrival in Urbino, both versions appear to have been developed using the court library. The first (Trattato I) – that of eighteen-parts – was completed between 1478 and 1481 and is best preserved in the copies of the codex Ashburnham 361 (Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana) and codex

Saluzziano 148 (Biblioteca Reale, Turin). The second (Trattato II), which displays substantial advancements in its prose and erudition, is conserved in the codex S.IV.4

(Biblioteca Comunale, Siena) and the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141 (Biblioteca

Nazionale Centrale, Florence) and it is in this final, carefully edited and researched form, that Francesco most clearly relays his vision for the treatise, as well as for Renaissance architect.6

Francesco di Giorgio was not alone in his perception of architecture as a poorly defined discipline, which suffered from its lack of a clear system of training. Jacopo

5 Martini, Trattato 297. “Onde avvenga che a molti paia da qualche breve tempo in qua si sia ritrovata la architettura, intesi li fondamenti, regule, e conclusioni d’essa, [peroché] senza arroganzia e suspezione di debita represione si può dire che tutti li edifice moderni sieno pieni di errori e di parti senza la debita proporzione e simmetria.” 6 The dating and development of the Trattato has received critical attention from Betts (“On the Chronology of Francesco di Giorgio’s Treatises”); Maltese (“Intoduzione,” Trattati di Architettura of Francesco di Giorgio, xi – xlviii); Scaglia (“Francesco di Giorgio, autore”), and Mussini (op. cit.). Mussini’s assessment of the chronological development of the Trattato remains authoritative.

225

Mariano Taccola, whose De Ingeneis Francesco had so scrupulously studied in his own self-directed course of architectural education, was among the first to address the issue, quoting Filippo Brunelleschi’s expostulation on the architect’s lowly status and frequent mistreatment.7 The Florentine goldsmith Lorenzo Ghiberti also saw architecture’s need of a grounding theory, and in his Commentarii he set out to create a treatise which would explicate the principles of superior all’antica architecture and provide practicing artists with a humanist education.8 Ghiberti, however, never completed the Commentarii, and in the following generation, Leon Battista Alberti and Antonio Averlino Filarete took up the cause, each composing his own treatise. Although distinct from one another in form and content, both address the architect’s lack of authority and advocate for the re-structuring of the building profession whereby the architect is categorically distinguished from the builder. Still, the two authors, just as Taccola and Ghiberti before them, adopted distinctly individual conceptions of the architect. Like Francesco di Giorgio, each of these authors was strongly guided by his personal circumstances, professional ambitions and educational background. Thus, even though they may have agreed with one another in their fundamental dissatisfaction with architecture, neither individually nor collectively did they define the discipline.

For his part, Francesco saw his role as a “motivator,” providing in the Trattato a set of guidelines for “other more sublime and virtuous minds.”9 He wanted to produce not merely a reference guide, filled with facts and exempla, but a tract that would teach

7 Prager and Scaglia, Brunelleschi: Studies of His Technology and Inventions 125 – 130. 8 Krautheimer, Lorenzo Ghiberti (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1956): 256, 311. 9 Martini, Trattato 298. “Ma io, non avendo di questo molestia, solo questo merito delle fatighe mie aspetto, che da qualche intelligente da alcuna parte mi serà rendute grazie se non come determinatore, almeno come motore delli altri ingegni più sublimi e virtuosi.”

226

architects how to think more critically about their discipline. In its content and organization, the Trattato in both its versions is structured as a kind of architectural textbook. Yet as the first book of its kind – a fully illustrated, vernacular tract which provided a prescriptive approach to all aspects of architecture – there was no readily apparent model for the Trattato. Illustrated technical treatises, such as those of Frontius,

Giovanni Fontana, Taccola and Roberto Valturius, provided contextual references, but as texts written for patrons, not practitioners, they served a very different function. Not only were these treatises in Latin, but the flat, undetailed illustrations gave little information about how the machines they depicted actually operated.10 Standard primers used in commercial education, the trattati d’abaco, were not quite appropriate models either.

Although written in the vernacular and partially illustrated, these were essentially rule- books without any foundational theory. Nor did the architectural treatises of Alberti and

Filarete, which in the second half of the fifteenth-century were circulated in manuscript copies, provide suitable precedents for the Trattato. Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, written in difficult Latin, might be understood as a humanist commentary on architecture, while

Filarete’s tract was essentially a literary piece, an amusing narrative on the exploits and adventures of a court architect. Neither text provided contemporary working architects with a cohesive theory, or even a standard vocabulary. Within this context, the format

Francesco developed for the Trattato might be seen as a hybrid, combining features of the illustrated technical treatise, with the abaco manual, and the humanist commentary.

Francesco di Giorgio’s decision to model his treatise in part on the trattato d’abaco was a natural and obvious choice. Not only did such texts constituted the basic

10 Galluzzi, “Le macchine senesi” 16 – 25.

227

curriculum of the scuole dell’abaco – which provided a primary education in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry for middle class merchants, as well as artists and craftsmen – but

Francesco grounded his theory on the premise that architecture, as a scientific discipline, was rooted in mathematics.11 Not only did the architect realize his ideas through disegno

– a fundamentally mechanical practice, requiring extensive knowledge of geometry and arithmetic – but as given by Francesco, he was to develop his building plans using grids, squaring and quadrature.12 In Trattato I, his chapter on Geometry and Measures is analogous to that of an abaco text.13 Similarly, in Trattato II, Francesco utilizes an abaco method in his lesson on proportionate temple design. Relying heavily upon linear diagrams, his explication is given in terms of coordinate points, chords, and modules.

This mathematical approach to building design and instruction complemented

Francesco’s desire to formulate a lucid, scientific theory of architecture. The abaco manual was an established, proven mode of instruction, the language and forms of which were readily recognized by the practitioners in Francesco’s audience.

In contrast to Francesco’s succinct, abaco-style explications relating to building planning and quadrature, other passages of Trattato di Architettura, read more like learned commentaries on the theoretical foundations of architecture. This is particularly the case in version two, where Francesco included an expanded catalogue of literary sources – Vitruvius was his primary source of reference in Trattato I – featuring citations

11 Goldthwaite “Schools and Teachers of Commercial Arithmetic in Renaissance Florence” 420 12 By the fifteenth-century it was not uncommon to find artists and mathematicians working in collaboration, and a handful of treatises, such as Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Commentari, Alberti’s De’ ludi mathematici and Della pittura, and Piero della Francesca’s Prospectiva pingendi, evidence the growing attention given by artists to mathematics. See Davis 1 – 20. 13 The reference here for Trattato I is the codex Saluzziano 148. See Martini, Trattato tav. 50 – 61. Presumably because of their utility, few abaco books remain extant. The Biblioteca Marciana, Venice holds a well-preserved, fifteenth-century abaco text (codex Italiani IV, 35, 5570).

228

to the authoritative texts of Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Pliny the Elder, Averroes, Avicenna,

Vegetius, St. Augustine, Diogenes, and Petrarch. While proficient in Latin, Francesco did not know Greek, and he likely studied these texts through commentary editions, which were ubiquitous in Renaissance libraries, and served as the principal tool in humanist study and university education.14 Commentaries and annotated manuscripts, moreover, were plentiful in the Urbino court library, which notably held a total of seventy-one copies, translations and commentaries of Francesco’s favored Aristotelian texts.15 It was in this environment that the ambitious architect completed his translation of Vitruvius around 1485, a project he tellingly structured as a humanist commentary, glossing the

Greek and Latin terms directly in the text.16 Likewise, when Francesco rewrote the

Trattato in the second version, he decided to follow the commentary model more closely, restructuring the treatise into seven books, as opposed to eighteen, and following an

Aristotelian framework of “first causes.” Still, Trattato II is not a traditional humanist commentary. Francesco did not write in Latin, nor did he limit his canon of references to literary sources. In fact, despite his use of an expanded bibliography, Francesco is emphatic that the architect requires both practical and theoretical knowledge (ingegno and dottrina), and deplores the common fallacy that facility in one of these fields necessarily precludes the ability to excel in the other.17

In its final form, the Trattato di Architettura combines a breadth of mediated source material: Italian summaries of classical philosophies, historical exempla,

14 Annecchino 310 – 311 15 M. Peruzzi, Cultura Potere Immagine: La Biblioteca di Federico di Montefeltro (Urbino: Accademia Raffaello, 2004): 40. 16 Martini, La Traduzione del De Architectura di Vitruvio xxiii. 17 Martini, Trattato 489. Expounding upon the different components of architectural intelligence, he implicitly relates ingegno with that knowledge born from practice, contrasting such mechanical-derived skill with theory (dottrina).

229

anecdotes from the field, and hundreds of expository illustrations. While the references to ancient sources provide an authoritative conceptual basis, for the Renaissance practitioner, the true utility of the Trattato lay in the advice of the seasoned architect.

Francesco di Giorgio served as the model for his ideal architect, and in Trattato II he did not hesitate to remind his reader of the fact. Writing as if speaking directly to his pupil, he routinely supplements his arguments with his own experiences and expertise. He uses the fortresses he built in Cagli, Sassosorvaro, Tavoletto, Serra S. Abbondio, Mondavio, and Mondolfo as exemplary design models, and is not shy to share his experiences as hydraulic engineer, his study of antiquities, and his extensive knowledge of natural resources.18 His tone, moreover, is commanding and insistent. Frequently making use of the imperative “must” (dovere), Francesco resolutely asserts what the architect must do: he must understand materials, he must use drawing, he must design his fortresses according to the condition of the site.

It is within these forceful, self-referential passages that Francesco’s didactic intent for the Trattato di Architettura becomes most apparent. It is in these passages, moreover, that one recognizes the most distinctive shift between the first and second versions.

Trattato I reads as an objective synopsis on the individual components of architecture.

Here one finds few examples, and by omitting all personal references, the Sienese architect remained anonymous as the book’s author. But in Trattato II, Francesco dramatically altered his approach. This is evident not only in his emboldened tone, but also his augmented use of examples and expanded scope of authoritative references. The distinctive shifts between the two versions can be understood as bearing on the didactic

18 Martini, Trattato 459 – 464 for Francesco’s discussion on the fortifications he had realized.

230

function Francesco di Giorgio intended for the treatise. However, this dramatic change in the authorial voice warrants further consideration.

Quite clearly, in the time between the first and second versions of the Trattato,

Francesco significantly improved his literary skills, while also learning more about what made a strong didactic tract. For the Trattato to be effective, he realized, it had not only to be strong in its content and form, but had also to address the reader in a manner which was accessible and convincing. The emphasis he gave to his own experiences, as well as to secondary authorities, were deliberate modifications intended to underscore his own knowledge as both theorist and practitioner. While the majority of authorities introduced in Trattato II were literary figures, among Francesco’s most powerful corroborators was

Federico da Montefeltro. Although the Duke of Urbino had been dead for at least several years when Francesco commenced the second version, the architect references him in the present tense, explicitly associating his own architectural expertise, as well as his conception for the tract, with the court of Urbino. “I am not able to express his greatness,” he writes, “as is demonstrated in the buildings he planned and built [….] having commissioned from me 130 buildings on which I was continually at work.”

Continuing on, Francesco credits “the most honorable duke” for the support he gave him

– “my firm guide and rock” – in his architectural successes.19

Francesco’s evocation of Federico da Montefeltro, in keeping with the model of

Opusculum de’Architectura dedication, was a means to harness the late-duke’s cultural

19 Martini, Trattato 427 – 228. “Non posso pretermettere la magnanimità sua che per li edifici per lui fabbricati et ordinati si demostra, della quale io ne posso dare vero iudicio, peroché per sua benignità et umanità, amandomi teneramente come figliuolo, in uno medesmo tempo a me aveva commisso cento e trentasei edifice nelli quali continuamente si lavorava. […] Fermando adonque questo ornastissimo duca di abiti, per longa e continua esperienza confirmati, come mia ferma guida e polo, non temo senza impedimento passare ogni stretto e periculoso passo.” Additional references to Federico da Montefeltro appear on ibid 295, 339 and 425.

231

prestige, as well as that of his flourishing duchy. By so clearly positioning himself in relation to the court of Urbino, whose grandiose building projects had garnered the admiration of all of Europe, Francesco di Giorgio sought to elevate himself, and the value of his Trattato. Still, the fact that he felt the need to exploit the duke’s reputation, suggests that he had an even greater motive for using the Montefeltro name. It seems it was not enough that the Trattato was the comprehensive, well-written tract on architecture by the celebrated Sienese architect. It required the mark of greater prestige and prominence. Francesco wanted to clearly distinguish the Trattato di Architettura from the treatises of his predecessors and peers, and in particular, from then recently printed De re aedificatoria of Leon Battista Alberti.

Alberti and the revision of the Trattato di Architettura

Even before the 1485 printing of De re aedificatoria, Francesco di Giorgio was undoubtedly familiar with Leon Battista Alberti. Like Francesco, Alberti excelled in many artistic disciplines, and had proven himself as architect in Italy’s most powerful courts. Alberti was also a dear friend to Federico da Montefeltro, and in the late-1460s may have consulted with the duke on the design of the bath complex adjacent to the

Palazzo Ducale in Urbino – a system which Francesco completed the following decade.20

And while the two architects likely had little, if any, direct contact – the famed humanist died in 1472 when Francesco was still serving as operiao dei bottini in Siena – the printing of De re aedificatoria in 1485 brought them into a direct dialogue. It was this

20 R. Tavernor, “Chapter IX: Federico da Montefeltro of Urbino and Alberti’s Design for a Bath Building,” On Alberti and the Art of Building (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998): 189 – 200. On the hydraulic system and baths that Francesco di Giorgio developed in the Palazzo Ducale, see F. P. Fiore, “L’architettura civile di Francesco di Giorgio,” 86 and Luni 50 – 51. Manfredo Tafuri has also suggested that Francesco developed his design for the Duomo of Urbino from Alberti’s plan for the church of San Andrea in Mantua. See M. Tafuri, “Le chiese di Francesco di Giorgio Martini,” 23.

232

confrontation which spurred Francesco to re-write his Trattato.21 Reading Alberti’s eloquent text, possibly with the assistance of one of the many humanists in-residence at the Urbino court, the Sienese architect would have recognized the inadequacy of his

Trattato I. Among the cultural elite, De re aedificatoria was hailed as a masterful rhetorical piece, a flawless textual composition, which combined Alberti’s extensive knowledge of classical architecture, with erudite observations and dozens of literary exempla. Moreover, following its publication, it was more readily available, and thus well positioned to become the definitive treatise on all’antica architecture. Humanists like Cristoforo Landino and Angelo Poliziano lauded Alberti as the consummate

Renaissance architect, and powerful patrons, including Borso d’Este, Matthias Corvinus and Lorenzo de’ Medici treasured De re aedificatoria as the modern bible on all’antica architecture.22 Architects also fell under the sway of Alberti’s celebrity. In his Libro

Architettonico, Filarete repeatedly cites Alberti as a known authority on matters of art and architecture.23 Similarly, in his Vita of Brunelleschi, completed shortly after the publication of De re aedificatoria, Antonio Manetti hails Alberti as the new Vitruvius.24

21 Francesco di Giorgio’s relationship with Alberti is often considered by scholars. Betts notes that Alberti had “a profound influence” on Francesco in regards to the composition of Trattato II. See Betts, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio 107. In Fiore and Tafuri, “Introduzione,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, ed. F. P. and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1994): 19 – 20, the authors highlight the differences between the two, characterizing Francesco di Giorgio as ‘albertianamente antialbertiano.’ Ferruccio Canali has speculated upon Francesco’s possible contact with Alberti as a young man in Siena. See his, “Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Leon Battista Alberti, Firenze e Lorenzo il Magnifico,” Bollettino della Società di Studi Fiorentini 11 (2002): 11 – 35. Comparisons between De re aedificatoria and the Trattato, and the relationship between the two authors, is also discussed by Mussini vii-viii, xix – xx, and 81 – 91. 22 L.B. Alberti, “Introduction,” On the Art of Building in Ten Books, ed. J. Rykwert, N. Leach, and R. Tavernor (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988): xviii – xix; also L.B. Alberti, On Painting and On Sculpture, ed. C. Grayson (London: Phaidon, 1972): 143. 23 A.A. Filarete, Trattato di Architettura, ed. A.M. Finoli and L. Grassi (Milan: Il Polifilo, 1972): 640 – 642 24 A. Manetti, Life of Brunelleschi, ed. H. Saalman (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1970): 55.

233

Surrounded by humanists and scholars in Urbino – individuals who were known to circulate between courts so as to stay au courant with the latest developments –

Francesco di Giorgio was undoubtedly aware of the acclaim of Alberti’s text. But he also recognized its severe limitations. Although befitting the patron, De re aedificatoria was of little value for the practitioner. Not only was it inaccessible on account of its difficult

Latin and lack of illustrations, but according to Francesco’s model, Alberti’s vision of the gentleman-architect posed serious consequences for the future of the profession.

Francesco’s profound concern with the state of architectural practice, and recognition of its need of a grounding theory, was what had originally motivated him to write the

Trattato. But as he saw it, in the years that followed his completion of version one, the state of the field had only worsened. As he recounts in Trattato II, “increasingly today the most ignorant men take reward for the labors of others,” and some go even as far as to assume the title “architetto” without having a full sense of what this entails.25 Alberti, in

Francesco’s eye’s, was one of these men, and the printing and dissemination of his treatise posed a great threat. The re-writing of the Trattato, therefore was Francesco’s response to De re aedificatoria and the newly emergent Albertian architect. In the prologue of the codex Magliabechiana, Francesco implicitly addresses Alberti as his counterpoint when he speaks of the “studious” and “learned men” who write about painting and architecture without images, leaving abstruse books of “little invention.”26

25 Martini, Trattato 492. “[…] peroché sempre e massimamente oggidì li ignoranti, facendosi onorati delle fatighe aliene.” 26 Ibid 294 “[Onde] per questo non senza ragione nelle menti delli vertuosi nasce meraviglia: qual sia la cagione che tanto tempo sia stata ascosa e totalmente persa; e parimente ignote le forze delli vocabuli usati per li autori che della pittura et architettura, parte dell’antigrafica, hanno a noi lassati i libri, massime essendo in questo tempo stati più omini da la natura dotati di suttilissimi ingegni.”

234

Alberti is again evoked when Francesco comments upon the insufficiency of previous treatises on architecture:

Although I am not unaware that some modern [writers] have written and commented on this art, yet in the end I find that they have touched lightly on useful and difficult passages. Whence, it happens that for some it seems that in a brief time this art of architecture has been rediscovered […] [yet] without arrogance and bias of due reproof, one can say that all modern buildings are full of errors and that their parts lack proper proportion or symmetry.27

The subtext here is fairly clear: the Trattato was to fill the void left open by modern treatises on architecture, and in particular by De re aedificatoria. By not explicitly naming Alberti, Francesco di Giorgio avoided the risk of directly challenging one of the period’s most revered authorities, while also affirming the autonomy of his own theory.

Although Alberti’s precedent provided Francesco di Giorgio with the impetus to develop Trattato II, Francesco’s theory differs substantially from De re aedificatoria, and this was something the Sienese architect sought to emphasize. Whereas Alberti addressed his tract to other humanists, seeking to integrate architecture within a broad humanist culture, Francesco’s primary aim in writing the Trattato was to provide an accessible, practical theory of architecture. Thus, he deliberately underscored the distinctions between his theory and that of Alberti, drawing attention to those aspects of the Trattato that are absent from and antithetical to the Albertian model. The most glaring flaw of De re aedificatoria – the absence of illustrations – becomes the focal point around which the

Trattato takes shape. As Francesco would have duly noted, not only did Alberti not include images in his treatise, but he made of point of emphasizing the fact. The

27 Martini, Trattato 297. “[… ] benché a me non sia ignoto alcuni moderni in questa arte avere commentato e scritto, peroché infine nelli utili e difficili passi legermente quelli trovo esser passati. Onde, avvenga che a molti paia da qualche breve tempo in qua si sia ritrovata la architettura, intesi li fondamenti, regule e conclusione d’essa, senza arroganzia e suspizione di debita reprensione si può dire che tutti li edifici moderni sieno pieni di errori e di parti senza la debita proporzione o simmetria.”

235

Florentine architect admits that he struggled to adequately and accurately translate his ideas into drawing, and asserts that he has decided to write De re aedificatoria without images, because these would inevitably be altered by scribes, who make mistakes even when copying simple letters and Roman numerals.28

Yet, as previously discussed, Francesco di Giorgio viewed disegno as absolutely essential in architecture, and he repeatedly reminds his reader that the architect without disegno “is nothing and often also lacks many other abilities.”29 Moreover, he was emphatic that in architectural education, illustrations were far more valuable than text. As if commenting directly on De re aedificatoria, and Alberti’s belief that architecture might be adequately conveyed without images, Francesco comments that: “there have been the most dignified authors who have diffusely described the art of architecture and the art of buildings and machines, using characters and letters and without illustrated figures.”

Then, becoming more impassioned, he continues:

Although to the writers themselves it seems that they have elucidated their designs according to their intentions, to us it seems that through lack of drawings there are few who can understand them. For, following the imaginative faculty each person makes different compositions, which are often quite different from the intent of the original idea [….] and as a result the readers are not a little confused, because, as it is said, “so many readers so many diverse interpreters.”30

In terms of the architect’s work in developing and realizing a project, moreover,

Francesco di Giorgio’s model practitioner – the technician who learns through experience and on-site training – could not be more incongruous with Alberti’s ideal. As presented in

28 Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books Book III.2. In Book IX.10 Alberti comments on his abilities as a draftsman: “I have often conceived of projects the mind that seemed quite commendable at the time; but when I translated them into drawings, I found several errors in the very parts that delighted me most, and quite serious ones; again, when I return to drawings, and measure the dimensions, I recognize and lament my carelessness.” See page 317. 29 Martini, Trattato 506. “[L’architetto], la quale senza antigrafice è nulla e molte volte manca in quello ancora dove si estende.” 30 Ibid 490.

236

De re aedificatoria, the architect is a man of letters, who works at a distance from the physical processes of construction and deals only with the “most beautifully fitted out” structures suitable for the “noble needs of man.”31 The scope of architecture covered in

De re aedificatoria – prominent residences, civic buildings, public spaces, and grand urban plans – accords with this definition of the architect. Mechanical and utilitarian constructions – such as the kitchens, chimneys, staircases, storerooms, stables and bathrooms, which Francesco discusses in book two of the Trattato, or the mills, waterwheels and construction machinery, which are presented in book seven as foundational to good architecture – are of little concern to the Albertian architect.32 As given in De re aedificatoria, the architect is only required to know painting and mathematics. For knowledge on matters related to construction, he is to consult the texts of ancient authorities rather than rely upon the “artifice of invention.”33 And whereas

Alberti dedicates an entire book to the ornamentation of private spaces, Francesco is quite succinct on the subject: “Consequently, one should know that the unnecessary ornaments can take many forms […], modes which are developed in disegno, and which for me are superfluous to elaborate upon.”34 This is to say, the real architect who utilizes disegno needs no guidance in devising ornaments on his own.

31 Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books 3 32 On the “Ornament of Private Buildings” (Book. IX.10) Alberti is explicit: “to make something that appears convenient for use, and without doubt be afforded and built as projected, is the job not of the architect so much as the workman. But to preconceive and to determine in the mind and with judgment something that will be perfect and complete in its every part is the achievement of such a mind as we seek [as architects].” See Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books 315. 33 Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books 317, 38. In Book IX.10, Alberti comments: “Let it be enough that he has a grasp of those elements of painting of which we have written; that he has sufficient knowledge of mathematics for the practical and considered application of angles, numbers, and lines, such as that discussed under the topic of weights and the measurements of surfaces and bodies […] If he combines enthusiasm and diligence with a knowledge of these arts, the architect will achieve favor, wealth, fame for posterity, and glory.” 34 Martini, Trattato 355. “Consequentemente è da sapere che li ornamenti non necessari possono essere di più spezie, come [di] colonne morte e vive overo integre, di cornice, ricinti, stucchi, figure, riquadrati in

237

Underscoring the necessity of the architect’s manual skill, Francesco further differentiated himself from Alberti in prioritizing experience and practice over book- learning. Although he understood the prestige bestowed by classical sources – and recognized that the success of De re aedificatoria was in large part owed to the authoritative status of its humanist author, and in order to rival this, his treatise had to demonstrate a comparable knowledge of classical tradition – he also realized that in architectural practice, theory and rules (dottrina) were alone insufficient. Speaking to this point in book six, Francesco references the many “speculative minds” and “most distinguished authors” who through diligent study endeavored to restore architecture to the excellence it enjoyed in antiquity. Yet, lacking both disegno and ingegno, abilities honed through long practice, these individuals have failed. “And for this reason,” he writes, “I believe that many works are lost or delayed,” and likewise, much which is important “has been omitted.”35 It is this emphasis on the architect’s mechanical practice, and his physical engagement with the site and place, that most clearly distinguishes

Francesco’s vision for the architect from Alberti’s ideal.

palchi et altri modi li quali [io] per lo disegno dichiararò al quale mi referisco per resecare ogni superfluo parlare.” Following Vitruvius, Francesco considers ornament as an artistic display and a product of the architect’s creativity and invention. Like Francesco, Alberti also understood ornament as artistic display, and considered it an auxiliary component of building, however, he placed far greater value on ornament than Francesco did. In De re aedificatoria, Alberti pairs beauty with ornament and teaches that the architect’s greatest concern is to make a beautiful building. See Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books 154-157. 35 Martini, Trattato 489 – 490. “Sono per molti tempi stati dignissimi autori i quali hanno diffusamente descritto dell’arte dell’archittetura e di molti edifizi e macchine, quelli con carattare e lettare dimostrando e non per figurato disegno, et in tali modi hanno esplicato li concetti della mente loro […] [e] sono molti speculativi ingegni che per loro solerzia hanno molte cose invente e dell’altre antiche come di nuovo ritrovate quelle descrivendo, e per non avere el disegno sono difficilissime ad intendare, perché siccome noi vediamo sono molti che hanno la dottrina e non hanno l’ingegno, e molti dotati d’ingegno e non di dottrina, e molti hanno la dottrina e lo ingegno e non hanno el disegno. [...] e per questo credo molte opere si sieno perse e ritardate, siccome per manifesta esperienzia veggio in questa mia operetta essarmi stato forza molte tralassare.”

238

And this emphasis was what made the Trattato di Architettura so popular among

Renaissance architects. While Alberti’s De re aedificatoria may have won great acclaim among humanists, it was not a working man’s guide. Not only was the erudite treatise written for the patron, not the practitioner, but due to the fact that it was not translated into Italian until 1546, it remained largely inaccessible to the average architect.36

Likewise, the circulation and influence of Filarete’s Libro Architettonico among practicing architects was relatively minimal. The legacy of the Libro is attested to in the few manuscript copies which survive, as well as its reputation among contemporaries as being “mostly ridiculous.”37 By contrast, the Trattato, the first comprehensive, straight- forward tract on building, was reasoned, practical and readily accessible, and it quickly became the standard reference on architecture. In the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries, the extraordinarily useful treatise was reproduced in hundreds, if not thousands, of manuscript copies. Still, because the Trattato di Architettura was never printed, it is difficult to know who reproduced the treatise, or where, and thus also, it is difficult to assess how the book was actually used. Within the secondary literature, it has been said that the Trattato di Architettura was primarily used by patrons and military generals. It has also been argued that it was a primarily a theoretical work, much like De re aedificatoria, and had little practical utility.38 In other studies, the Trattato has been

36 Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books xix. 37 B. Hub, “Filarete and the East: The Renaissance of a Prisca Architectura,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 70 (2011): 32. Vasari characterizes the Libro as “per lo più ridicola.” See G. Vasari, “Vita di Antonio Averlino,” Le vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori nelle redazoni del 1550 e 1568, ed. R. Bettarini and P. Barocchi, vol. 3 (Florence: Sansoni 1966-87): 246. Still, as discussed by Georgia Clarke, manuscript copies of the Libro were present in the libraries of some of the most distinguished patrons of the fifteenth-century. See G. Clarke, “Vitruvian Paradigms,” Papers of the British School at Rome 70 (2002): 327 – 328. 38 See Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 18; and P. Long, Artisan/Practitionrs and the Rise of the New Sciences, 1400 – 1600 (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2011): 141 – 147, in which Trattato II is examined within a culture of humanist learning.

239

linked to Sebastiano Serlio’s I sette libri dell'architettura, the fully illustrated, vernacular manual which was intended to serve as a source of inspiration for subsequent architectural developments.39

The answer to how the Trattato di Architettura was used is found in a careful examination of its dozens of surviving manuscript copies. Within the copies, the form the illustrations take, and the marked variations in textual content, offer insight into how the treatise was reproduced and disseminated, as well as the function it served. It seems that, just as Francesco di Giorgio originally intended, the Trattato served as a didactic manual.

The broad scope of the book’s teachings – from the history of architecture, to building formula, information of materials and siting, and design patterns – served a large and diverse audience. Students of the tract, therefore, were not a singularly defined group.

Yet, as the manuscripts themselves show, it was practicing architects, artists and technicians who provided the greatest demand for the treatise’s reproduction.

Copy and dissemination

The copy and dissemination of the Trattato di Architettura commenced quite early – even before Francesco had completed version one. This is best evidenced in the

Zichy Codex, an exceptional architectural copybook assembled in the 1480s which contains a partial copy of a working draft of Trattato I – the so-called “proto-treatise.”40

39 On Serlio’s reliance on Francesco di Giorgio, see L. Cellauro, “Francesco di Giorgio and the Renaissance Tradition of the Illustrated Architectural Treatise,” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio, ed. B. Hub and A. Pollali (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011): 188, 191, 202. 40 The Zichy codex has been the subject of extensive codicological and textual analysis. The paper watermarks are Venetian, and date to the 1470s or 1480s. Scholars debate when exactly the manuscript was initiated, but all agree that it relates to an early “proto” version of Trattato I. See C. Kolb, “The Francesco di Giorgio Material in the Zichy Codex,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 47 (1988): 132 – 159; M. Mussini, Francesco di Giorgio e Vitruvio ix, xix – xxi, 119 – 131; M. Mussini, “Il Trattato di Francesco di Giorgio Martini e Leonardo: il Codice Estense restituito,” Quaderni di Storia dell’Arte 16 (1991). 82 – 84.

240

Conserved today in the Communal Library of Budapest, the nearly two-hundred folio

Zichy Codex was owned by Angelo Cortivo, a Venetian cartographer and land surveyor, who initiated the manuscript at the beginning his career, and continued to add to it throughout his life.41 Within the manuscript, the seventy-five folios which relate to the

Trattato suggest that Cortivo was working from a substantially incomplete, early manuscript copy. The text includes numbers for the re-ordering of the sections – a system Cortivo carefully reproduced without actually re-arranging the passages – as well as long, poorly-translated passages of Vitruvius. As noted previously, De Architettura was Francesco’s primary source of reference for Trattato I, and in preparing his text, he evidently struggled to make sense of Vitruvius’ difficult prose. Interspersed within the

Zichy folios, one also finds a selection of Francesco di Giorgio’s signature drawings.

How Cortivo came to acquire a copy of still-incomplete Trattato I is uncertain – it has been suggested that Dionisio da Viterbo, with whom Francesco collaborated in Siena in the 1470s may have shared his copy with Cortivo in the early 1480s when he served as hydraulic engineer in Venice – but the fact that the young cartographer took the time to so diligently copy the treatise attests both to its early circulation, and value among pracitioners.42 This is further demonstrated by a memorandum added by a second hand on folio 30r, which reads: “when you go to Urbino, ask for Francesco di Giorgio architect from Siena at his house or at his shop.”43 The note is undated, and it is quite likely that it was written after Francesco had returned to Siena in the 1490s. But the simple phrase

41 On dated, or datable, folios of the Zichy Codex, see Kolb 134 – 138. 42 Ermini 422. 43 Kolb 138. “Quando andate a Urbino dimandate di franc[esc]o di giorgio da siena architectore de cha o di sua bujgcha.”

241

indicates that within Francesco’s own lifetime, architects were referencing the Trattato, and excited by its contents, wanted to consult with the author.

Still, the Zichy Codex, by the fact that its author is known and may be linked to a specific place, is somewhat exceptional among the surviving copies of the Trattato.

While a handful of other manuscripts are known to have been executed or owned by known architects – for example, the codex Ashburnham 381 was annotated by Leonardo da Vinci – it is unclear where or how the majority of copies of the Trattato were produced. There was clearly no single, standard process for the treatise’s reproduction, nor does it seem that Francesco had much control, if any, on the degree to which the manuscripts were copied and circulated once they left his hands. Only a few manuscripts have been traced directly to Francesco di Giorgio’s workshop – notably the codex

Saluzziano 148 (Biblioteca Reale, Turin), the codex S.IV.4 (Biblioteca Comunale, Siena) and the Magliabechiana II.I.141 – while the vast majority appear to have been produced within a scriptorium or by independent copyists.44 Somewhat surprisingly, moreover, from the copies which survive, it appears that the two versions of the Trattato enjoyed similar popularity, despite the significant improvements evident in the latter version.

Copies of Trattato I were produced well into the sixteenth-century, suggesting that either copyists did not know of the latter version, or if they did, actually preferred the earlier version.

44 Although not autogragh, scholars believe that the codex S.IV.4 was composed by an amanuensis of Francesco di Giorgio, and that the architect made modifications within the text. The codex Saluzziano 148 is exceptional in that it contains Francesco di Giorgio’s Raccolta of antiquities, which derive from his autograph Taccuini dei Viaggi, and it is thought have been edited by the architect himself. See Mussini, “Il Trattato di Francesco di Giorgio Martini e Leonardo” 82.

242

The uncontrolled reproduction and distribution of the Trattato di Architettura was directly tied to the fact that it was never printed.45 Moreover, because Francesco continued to make modifications to various intermediary drafts, the contents of the treatise remained fluid, and thus subject to the copyists’ discretion. In certain instances, as in the case with the Zichy Codex, alternations in the text were the product of the fact that the copyist was working with an alternative form of the treatise. But in other cases, such as the codex Orsetti (Biblioteca del Museo Nazionale della Scienza e della Technica di Milano) and the codex Serie Militare 238 (Biblioteca Reale, Turin), it appears that the scribe lacked extensive knowledge of what he was copying. In both manuscripts, the significant number of corrections and cancelations are not just marks of carelessness, but suggest that the copyist was not an architect, and had almost no knowledge of contemporary building practices. This is further attested in the scribes’ frequent miss- spelling of technical terms, which in both copies are often elided with other words.46 The relative ease and speed of hand-copying made it all but impossible for Francesco to manage which versions were being reproduced or how. Likewise, he had no way to ensure that he was credited as the tract’s author – and in fact, only a handful of Trattato di Architettura manuscripts bear any trace of the name Francesco di Giorgio 47

45 It is possible that Francesco intended to print Trattato II – which, as conserved in the supremely polished codex Magliabechiana II.I.141, along with a translation of Vitruvius’ De architettura and his Raccolta of machine designs, would have constituted the first and most substantial component of a comprehensive, three-part exposition on architecture. See Fiore, Città e Macchine del ‘400 76. 46 Serie Militare 238 is a c. 1530 copy of Trattato I. For manuscript information and analysis, see Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 196 – 197. On the codex Orsetti, an early-seventeenth-century copy of Trattato I, see L. Gioppo, “Una copia sconosciuta del Trattato di Francesco di Giorgio Martini: il Codice Orsetti della Biblioteca del Museo Nazionale della Scienza e della Tecnica di Milano,” Raccolta Vinciana XXV (1993): 339 – 454. 47 Here again, we might reference Francesco di Giorgio’s complaints that “the most ignorant men” claimed authorship for the labors of others, and “usurp the glory of an invention that is not theirs.” See Martini, Trattato 492.

243

Reproductions of the Trattato range from complete, fully illustrated manuscripts, to partial or incomplete copies, to variously modified versions with substitutions and additions. While a great many of these are rather unremarkable in terms of their formal qualities – composed of basic, paper folios and filled with flat, mechanically-rendered copy-drawings, the generic forms of which bear the marks of excessive reproduction – collectively they tell us a good deal about the production and use of the treatise. Although there is no documentation of any workshop producing large quantities of the Trattato di

Architettura, the survival of the dozens of near-identical manuscript copies suggests that independent copyists did attempt to standardize the reproduction process. Certainly, such systemized reproduction would not have been unusual. The surviving architectural drawing books of Raffaello da Montelupo, the so-called Master C, Giovanni Battista

Montano, as well as the numerous anonymous volumes derived from the Codex Corner, testify to the existence of an industry of hand-rendered, illustrated architectural manuscripts in sixteenth-century Italy.48 Jacopo Strada’s enormous success in the mass- production of architectural drawing-books provides additional evidence of the unrelenting demand for such volumes. The drawings Strada produced were not original designs, but faithful reproductions of those he had collected from artists, architects, and antiquarians. Many of the images used by Strada – which he rendered using a basic tracing system – had already been so frequently reproduced that they were considered classical models.49

48 Arnold Nesselrath discusses the sixteenth-century industry for the reproduction of Italian “libri di disegni trattato” in his “I libri di disegni di antichità. Tentativo di una tipologia,” Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana, ed. S. Settis (Turin: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1986): 135 – 140. 49 On Jacopo Strada’s workshop, his collection of drawings, and production of architectural manuscripts, see D.J. Jansen, “The Strada Family and its Role in the Dissemination of Renaissance Mechanical Inventions,” L’Album Fiorentino dei Disegni Artificiali raccolti da Jacopo e Ottavio Strada, ed. V. Marchis and L. Dolza (Florence: Edizioni dell’Elefante, 2002): 216 – 244.

244

In the case of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato, evidence of its standardized reproduction is found not only in the repetition of distinct image types, but also in the manner in which the images are paired with text, and the final form this pairing took within the individual volumes. Within dozens of the Trattato copies, one frequently finds folios on which the drawings overlap, and even obscure, the adjacent text. Such layering suggests that the scribe typically transcribed the text first, leaving spaces for the insertion of the appropriate images. But the layering, along with the discrepancies apparent in comparing the line quality of the images with that of the text, also indicates that the copies were produced by at least two hands: the scribe and the illustrator. The final form of this collaboration, just as the copies’ actual content, was quite inconsistent. In manuscripts such as Acquisti & Doni 792 (Biblioteca Laurenziana, Florence) – a copy of

Trattato II dated c. 1530 – the work of the scribe appears quite amateurish in comparison to that of the illustrator. The text here is somewhat messy – the letters are inconsistent in scale and at times are crooked, passages have been crossed out – while the images – clear, precise illustrations, rendered in brown ink, with selective additions of tan wash or highlights – are the work of an accomplished artist. Other copies, like Spencer 181 (New

York Public Library, New York), are so meticulously composed that they appear to have been executed upon demand for the library of a scholar or building patron. This generously scaled, paper manuscript is a faithful copy of the codex Magliabechiana

II.I.141, and features eloquent cursive script and finely rendered pen and wash illustrations (Fig. V.1).

As evident in the codex Beinecke 491 (Beinecke Library, New Haven) and the codex Italiani IV 3-4 (5541) (Biblioteca Marciana, Venice) copies of the Trattato di

245

Architettura were also composed using pre-rendered images. Within these two volumes, the illustrations are pasted into the margins alongside the text – evidently having been cut from larger sheets which contained en masse copies of Trattato images (Figs. V.2 &

V.3).50 In the Marciana manuscript – which by the erasures in the text and uneven placement of the images, appears to have been composed with a certain degree of haste – the illustrations bear numbers in accordance with their placement in the treatise. Here also, the paper onto which the drawings were traced is badly discolored, suggesting that it was possibly treated with oil in order to facilitate the transfer of the images. The illustrations themselves, close-reproductions of those of the codex Saluzziano 148, have blurred contour lines, additional evidence that the paper was oiled, and in sections, the ink has permeated the support page, leaving discernable shadows on the folio’s opposite side. While the overall aesthetic quality of the Marciana codex pales in comparison to that of the codex Spencer 181, the simplified process by which it was produced was undoubtedly far more efficient. Piecing together basic, preform images with text rendered by a professional scribe, the copyist would have been able to greatly expedite his production of the Trattato in manuscript form. He also would have had greater control over the production process. The tracing process, and large-scale reproduction of images ensured that the individual manuscript copies remained more faithful to the original, even if they were reproduced by hand.51 Why such a copyist never executed a printed edition of the Trattato was likely due to its relatively large quantity of images, and the manner in

50 Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 180. 51 Mario Carpo’s characterization of handmade drawings as being fundamentally autonomous, as opposed to printed images, which guarantee the faithful reproduction of the author’s original design, provides a useful framework for understanding the intermediary status of copy-drawings like those included in the Trattato manuscripts. See M. Carpo, “How Do You Imitate a Building That You Have Never Seen? Printed Images, Ancient Models, and Handmade Drawings in Renaissance Architectural Theory,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 64 (2001): 230.

246

which they were intended to visually complement the text. Printing the Trattato in the sixteenth-century would have been a highly complex, time-consuming and expensive project.52 Moreover, as the treatise had no obvious, definitive version, it would have been unclear what exactly should be included in the printed edition. The piecing together of generic manuscript copies was a far more simple and economic solution.

Although there are few comparisons for manuscripts like the Marciana and

Beinecke codices – the pieced-together method of composition they display does not appear to have been widely employed in the sixteenth-century – there is evidence that this standardized process of reproduction was used to execute more than just these two copies of the Trattato. Among the thousands of loose folios of architectural drawings conserved today in the Uffizi, one finds unused sheets of Francesco di Giorgio stock-images, akin to those which must have been used for the Marciana and Beinecke volumes.53 On folios such as UA 520r and UA 4078r – the latter attributed to Antonio da Sangallo the Younger

– the images are carefully grouped according to a grid formation, so as to ensure that they could be easily cut apart and inserted into a manuscript’s margins (Figs. II. 49 & V.4). On both folios, moreover, the illustrations include numbers, akin to those of the Marciana codex. Left-over, pre-cut Trattato images survive as well. Within miscellaneous, sixteenth-century architectural copybooks, such as the codex Ashburnham 1828

(Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Florence) and the Album codex 10.935

52 Myra Nan Rosenfeld discusses the difficulties Sebastiano Serlio encountered in producing his printed architectural manuals, which were unprecedented in the quality and extent of illustrations they contain. See her “Sebastiano Serlio’s Contibutions to the Creation of the Modern Illustrated Architectural Manual,” Sebastiano Serlio. Sesto Seminario Internazionale di Storia dell’Architettura. Vicenza 31 agosto – 4 settembre 1987, ed. C. Thoenes (Milan: Electa, 1989): 102 – 110. 53 The loose pages of Francesco di Giorgio stock illustrations, prepared by an anonymous sixteenth-century copyist, are numbered U520A – U522A (Galleria Uffizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe). Folios of Antonio da Sangallo the Younger which derive from Francesco’s Opusculum and Trattato di Architettura include: 1438A, 1449Av, 1471Av, 1481Ar, 1482Ar, 1483Ar, 4059Ar, 4060Av, 4065Ar, 4078 Ar.

247

(Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna), one finds loose, fragmentary Trattato illustrations pasted onto extra pages (Figs. V.5 & V.6). Among the drawings inserted into the Album codex 10.935, several are nearly exact replicas of those pasted into the

Beinecke manuscript, even in regards to the textual annotations (Figs. V.7 & V.8). This remarkable discovery substantially supports the fact that in the early-sixteenth-century, the pieced-together Trattato manuscripts were the product of a significant industry.

The survival of unused stock-images for copies of the Trattato di Architettura, and the unique compositional system to which they relate, also has significant implications as to how Francesco di Giorgio’s treatise was used. The individuals who acquired Trattato copies like those conserved in the Marciana and Beinecke codices clearly placed greater value on treatise’s contents than on the aesthetic character of the manuscript which contained it. A haphazard copy like the Marciana codex, moreover, would have cost significantly less than a finished version like the codex Spencer 181.

One might thus logically assume that the audience for such pieced-together manuscripts were students, aspiring architects who sought to own personal copies of the well-known reference book, but had neither the resources to purchase a more polished copy, nor the time to reproduce one on their own. The slap-dash nature of the Marciana manuscript also indicates that among such a population, the demand for generic Trattato copies was high enough that even second-rate facsimiles found a market. It seems, therefore, that the

Trattato had not just broad popular appeal, but was used in a manner which ensured its demand.

Ample evidence confirms the Trattato’s function as a textbook – a course-book, so-to-speak, in schools of early-modern building design – and its use as such may be

248

regarded as the ultimate affirmation of Francesco di Giorgio’s project. More than the

Sienese architect could have ever anticipated, the Trattato di Architettura served as a didactic tool for the education of young architects, as well as a model-book for practicing professionals. Its importance and utility were reflected not only in its extensive reproduction, but also in the degree to which it was referenced by the era’s preeminent architects. Among others, Giuliano da Sangallo, Leonardo da Vinci, Fra Giocondo,

Baldassare Peruzzi, Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Jacopo da Vignola, Vincenzo

Scamozzi, Bartolomeo Ammannati, Teofilo Gallaccini and Philibert del’Orme carefully studied the Trattato and incorporated Francesco’s ideas into their built and written works.54

The Trattato di Architettura as textbook

While there was no standard curriculum of architectural education in the

Renaissance, informal schools of mechanics and technical design certainly existed. As previously discussed, in fifteenth-century Siena, a program of technical education developed in conjunction with the Studio, where local artists and architects could follow courses in practical arithmetic and geometry, mechanical design, and drawing techniques.

Elsewhere in Italy, “academies” – both formal and informal – were created in an effort to standardize art and architectural education, and provide artists with a theoretical background they often lacked. In 1563, Il Collegio degli Architetti, Ingegneri ed

54 Cellauro 189. See also Wolf 146 – 185, for discussion of the “authority” of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato in sixteenth-century architectural theories. Giuliano da Sangallo included copy-drawings after Francesco in his Taccuino (codex S.IV.8, Biblioteca Comunale, Siena) and his codex Barberiniano 4424 (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana). Antonio da Sangallo meticulously reproduced Trattato images on folios which appear to have been prepared for binding. On T. Gallacini’s knowledge of the Trattato, see A. Payne, The Telescope and the Compass: Teofilo Gallaccini and the Dialogue between Architecture and Science in the Age of Galileo (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2012): 103 – 108, 144.

249

Agrimensori (College of Architects, Engineers and Surveyors) was founded in Milan, providing an administrative structure and official educational program for Milanese architects, who had for generations served the state within the framework of the city’s

Opera del Duomo, managing the design and construction of waterways, roads, fortifications and civic buildings. The curriculum of the Collegio was essentially the same as that previously undertaken by architects – rooted in the study of geometry, arithmetic, drawing and the study of Vitruvius – but reframed within the context of higher education.55 The Florentine Accademia del Disegno was also established in 1563.

As with the Milanese Collegio, the Accademia did not redefine artistic education, but by associating it with a state-sponsored institution, elevated its status.56 Thirty years later, following a short period of teaching at the Accademia del Disegno, Galileo Galilei organized a similar, albeit more technically-rigorous, academy in Padua. Here, between

1593 and 1607, Galileo provided courses in advanced mechanics, draftsmanship, and astronomy, preparing young men for careers as military architects or high-ranking officials.57 Such courses in technical design, just as those taught on law or medicine and philosophy in the traditional university, utilized textbooks, and it is in examining these tracts that we come to understand Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura as filling an analogous function.

55 See A. Scotti, “Il Collegio degli Architetti, ingegneri e agrimensori tra il XVI e il XVII secolo,” Costruire in Lombardia: Aspetti e problem di storia edilizia, ed. A. Castellano and O. Selvafolta (Milan: Electa, 1983): 92 – 108. 56 In addition to completing traditional apprenticeships, the original regulations of the Accademia del Disegno stipulated that students of art and architecture were to regularly attend anatomical demonstrations and lectures on mathematics. See A. Hughes, “‘An Academy for Doing’: The Accademia del Disegno, the Guilds and the Principate in Sixteenth-Century Florence,” Oxford Art Journal 9 (1986): 3. 57 D. Lamberini, Il Principe Difeso. Vita e Opere di Bernardo Puccini (Florence: Editrice la Giuntina, 1990): 137; and M. Valleriani, Galileo Engineer (Boston: Springer Science and Business Media, 2010): 71 – 72.

250

The course books utilized in early-modern education were not the standardized, mass-produced multi-edition textbooks we know today. Rather, these volumes took the form of treatises, commentaries and customized manuals, which were commonly prepared by the instructor.58 The form and content of the course books depended largely on the instructor’s own training and background. Within Siena’s Studio, courses in mechanics were taught by learned practitioners, such as the local estimator Pietro dell’Abaco, who appropriately composed his textbook as a treatise on practical mathematics.59 Galileo, by contrast, who had studied medicine, mathematics and natural philosophy at the University of Padua, composed for his students more theoretically advanced treatises, including Delle macchine (1592 – 1593) and Le fortificazioni (1594).

Copies of such course texts might have been provided by the instructor – Galileo was known to supply his students with copies of his treatises – or would have been produced upon request by the university scriptoria.60 As evidenced in an extraordinary, early- seventeenth-century manuscript of technical design conserved today in Hamburg – which contains copies both Delle macchine and Le fortificazioni, and appears to have been compiled by a German student who attended Galileo’s school – it was also common for students to bind the texts of their professors with other useful reference works.61

Significantly, among the materials compiled with the Hamburg volume one finds thirteen

58 Annecchino 310. 59 On Pietro dell’Abaco’s treatise, see Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco, a Renaissance Estimator from Siena” 385. Instructors in the Studio of Siena, by contract, customarily divided their time divided their time between the Studio and the city’s offices of construction and civic maintenance, based in the Opera del Duomo and Spedale di Santa Maria. 60 D. Lamberini, Il Principe Difeso. Vita e Opere di Bernardo Puccini 138. 61 The manuscript in discussion is the codex Math. 200, conserved in the Staats-und-Universistät Bibliothek in Hamburg. On this manuscript, see Valleriani 71 – 72, 96. On the success of early-modern scriptoria, even after the development of the printing press, see Binaghi, “Fortuna critica del Codice Cataneo” 74; also Scaglia “Francesco di Giorgio, autore” 69.

251

folios with reproductions of Francesco di Giorgio’s machine designs. These pages, previously unknown to historians of architecture, join the countless number of copy- drawings derived from the Trattato, and as paired with Galileo’s educational texts, provide telling evidence of the greater legacy of these images in early-modern technical education (Fig.V.10).

Well before Francesco’s illustrations were incorporated into the Galilean

“textbook,” however, this material was employed by students within Siena’s Studio.

Evidence for the use and reproduction of the Trattato di Architettura within the Studio is provided in the nearly two-dozen Sienese-produced manuscript copies of the treatise which survive. These include a partial, autograph copy by Pietro Cataneo, rendered in

1533 when the aspiring architect worked as a scribe within the Studio.62 Cataneo, like

Baldassare Peruzzi, was unquestionably a student of the Trattato, and as Sienese natives and commune-employed architects, it is fairly easy to trace the artistic and intellectual lineage between Peruzzi (1481 – 1536), Cataneo (1510 – 1569) and Francesco di Giorgio.

Peruzzi likely trained under Francesco in the late-fifteenth-century, before his departure to Rome, and when he returned to Siena over twenty-five years later to assume the role of

Communal Architect, Cataneo was among his followers. Like Francesco, Peruzzi and

Cataneo were both generalists, experienced in military and civic architecture. Also like

Francesco, they were teachers, and sought to write didactic treatises for the emerging professional architect. Both Peruzzi’s incomplete treatise on architecture and Cataneo’s

L’Architettura reveal the unmistakable influence of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato.

62 The folios of Pietro Cataneo after Francesco di Giorgio were bound together in the nineteenth-century. They are numbered U3275A – U3381A (Galleria Uffizi, Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe). For a complete discussion of the Cataneo’s folios see Binaghi, “Fortuna critica del Codice Cataneo.”

252

Baldassare Peruzzi’s treatise on architecture is among the many unfinished, and thus often forgotten, artistic tracts of the Italian Renaissance. Commenced in 1527, the treatise was to serve as a course-book for Peruzzi’s students in the Studio of Siena, where, in addition to his duties as Communal Architect, he was charged with teaching architecture and perspective to those who were “interested and wanted to learn.”63

Although the commune had long supported a “school” of art and architecture within the

Opera del Duomo, Peruzzi’s contract is the first record of a formal program of architectural education. While the specific parameters of Peruzzi’s course — the number of students, the format of instruction, the classroom environment, and mode of examination — are unknown, the accounts of Giorgio Vasari, Egnazio Danti, Sallustio

Peruzzi and Pirro Ligorio, confirm that he planned to compose an educational tract which was to combine an illustrated commentary on Vitruvius, writings on the orders and perspective, and an exposition on ancient building.64 Today, the tract is known through

Peruzzi’s autograph, preparatory drawings, conserved in the Uffizi (c. 1527 – 1531), as well as in the incomplete manuscript copies held in Siena’s Biblioteca Comunale (codex

S.IV.7) and the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna (codex 10873).65

The Vienna codex opens with a statement of purpose in which Peruzzi relates that upon the request of friends, he has decided to write a tract on architecture. The treatise, he vows, will be different from previous ones, which are “filled with many long problems, and written in such prolix language [that they] seem more like the work of a

63 Annecchino 312. Peruzzi’s contract stipulated that he “sit obligatus eius artem [si tratta dell’architettura] docere omnes querentes et volentes discere.” 64 H. Burns, “Baldassare Peruzzi and Sixteenth Century Architectural Theory,” Les Traites d’Architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1st au 11 juillet 1981, ed. A. Chastel and J. Guillaume (Paris: Picard, 1988): 207 – 212. 65 See Annecchino 313; and M. Toca, “I disegni di Baldassare Peruzzi per i trattati d’architectura,” Necropoli 13-14 (1971): 54 – 72.

253

historian or chronicler than a master.” Rather, as Communal instructor, Peruzzi promises

“to speak tersely, discussing [the material] generally and positively in such a manner that

I hope that it will be useful and understandable to all its readers.”66 Following these introductory statements, he includes a four-page summary outlining the contents of his proposed thirty-two-book treatise. But it is here that the discerning reader begins to recognize that, contrary to Peruzzi’s claims of originality, his treatise is not actually so different from previous ones. In fact, much of his treatise derives directly from

Francesco’s Trattato.67

Peruzzi’s thirty-two-book tract, it appears, was intended to revise and expand upon the seven books of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato II. As in this later version,

Peruzzi opens with an exposition on materials and site conditions, and leaves ample space for the discussion of “utilitarian” constructions – fortifications, mills, artillery, chimneys and bathrooms. Still, Peruzzi’s manual was to differ from the Trattato in its organization.

Peruzzi’s books, as known from the handful that are rendered in full in the Vienna codex, were concise in scope and length. Each extending no more than one or two pages, the thirty-two books were to highlight basic information and examples, providing material in a manner that is accessible and easy to reference. For example, whereas the Trattato

66 The introduction is given on folio 2r and reads: “Molse adlo anxilio dellattissimo Iddio, senza el quale alcuna cosa ne celeste ne terena si move, presi animo a descrivere e figurare [?] opera pertinente ad architectura per lassare ali posteri le fatigue estudi che in decta arte oesperimentato e etia per honesti stima per suasione factami da moltissimi amici amatori dele virtù. E de diserosi di vedere a luce cosa che sia acomune utilita di ciascuno virtuoso edifiblime ingegno possi per persumptione per avere visto piu opere scripte, di desta arte da alcuni moderni architetti e chi in un modo chi in uno altro la descrive chi a voluto tradurre evulgarizare le scellentissimo testo di Vitruvio, chi se a usurpate le sue fatighe del atri vi usando el premio de in gratitudine procedendo in tanti longsi problemati e tanta perlixita che in piu sip o dice isto via a che magisterio fastidisce el lettore e lo auditore facendo piu narrationi di cose aliene che di quelle et allarte se aperengono; ne io prometto in questa opera exquisite ne terso parlare discrivendo trivalmente e positivamente in tal modo ch’ io spero che saria questa opera utile e da tutti li lettore intesa.” 67 On several folios, such as 42r, the copyist even included the source of the material. This folio bears the title: “Incipit poemiu Francisi Georgii Senesis architecttis liber primo Capitolo I.”

254

covers quadrature, temple design, and the columnar orders in one section (Book Four),

Peruzzi chose to divide this material between seven sections, dedicating three chapters to the orders, and four chapters to temples, their forms, proportions, and ornaments. Still, the fact that Peruzzi used the Trattato as the basis for his architectural textbook speaks to the authoritative status of Francesco’s treatise. For Peruzzi and his sixteenth-century contemporaries, the Trattato di Architettura was the definitive manual on practical architecture, and just like any popular text, it had a decisive impact on how its users thought about their work. In his role as Communal instructor, Peruzzi set out to teach a modified version of Francesco’s tract, still focusing on disegno, technical acumen and on- site experience. In this, he expounded for an entirely new generation the ideal of the practically-minded, architect-technician.

Pietro Cataneo was likely among the students who attended Peruzzi’s course in the Studio, and appears to have come to architecture through his study of advanced mathematics.68 His first treatise, Le pratiche delle due prime matematiche (1546), was an elaboration on the standard abaco manual written specifically for architects. Le pratiche is filled with concrete examples and calculations related to construction costs, material quantities, and the measurement of areas and volumes.69 Cataneo’s conception of architecture as a mathematical discipline also stands at the heart of his second treatise,

L’Architettura di Pietro Cataneo Senese (1567).70 Focused more specifically on architecture, the seven-book tract provides a pragmatic schema for the profession.

68 Cataneo 165. 69 Binaghi, “Pietro Cataneo Architettore nostro diletto ad Orbetello” 44 – 46. Le pratiche delle due prime matematiche (1546, reprinted in 1559), was akin to that of a university professor of mathematics or economics. 70 In 1554 Cataneo published a partial version of this treatise with the title I Quattro primi libri di archittura.

255

Although Cataneo never cites Francesco di Giorgio, the authoritative precedent of the

Trattato is readily apparent throughout. Not only does the L’Architettura follow the

Trattato in format, integrating text and illustrations and even reusing some of the same figures, but its essential theory is also analogous to that provided by Francesco di

Giorgio.

Cataneo begins L’Architettura with a strikingly familiar proclamation.

“Architecture,” he writes, “is a science of many doctrines and various complicated teachings.” The good architect, he continues, is a man of natural ingegno, who is skilled in drawing, geometry, perspective and arithmetic and learned in history and medicine.71

The ensuing books expound on the same core concepts highlighted in the Trattato, albeit in a more systematic and condensed manner. For example in Book One, on site conditions and city planning, Cataneo specifies that the expert architect must have “good experience” in all aspects of the building environment, and following the Trattato model, he provides specific examples, many of which concern Siena or Tuscany.72 Cataneo’s geometrical approach to building design (Book Three) is also comparable to Francesco’s.

71 Cataneo 185. “As architecture is a science of many doctrines and various complicated teachings, & [which requires] the judgment of those approving all the works that this art is complete; it will also be necessary for he who wishes to make the profession of the good architect, to be scientific, and of with natural ingegno, as he who is clever without science, or scientific without ingegno, cannot be the perfect architect. Before one can be well instructed in this art, or science, it is necessary that he be a good drawer, excellent in geometry, most able in perspective, optimal in arithmetic, learned in history, and have an understanding of medicine, as such sciences are necessary.” (“Per essere l’Architettura scienza di più dottrine e vari ammaestramenti ornata, col giudizio de la quale approvandosi tutte l’opere, che dall’altre arti si finiscono, serà di bisogno ancora a chi vorrà far professione di buono Architetto essere scientifico, e di naturale ingegno dotato. Però che essendo ingegnoso senza scienza, overo scientifico senza ingegno, non potrà farsi perfetto Architettore. Dove gli sera necessario, prima che si possa render bene istrutto di questa arte o scienza, esser bono disegnatore, eccellente geometra et aritmetico, bonissimo prospettivo, dotto istoriografo, et abbia tal cognizione di medicina, quale a tale scienza si conviene.”) 72 Ibid 267. “Quando adunque si fabricherà in luoghi che dei loro domini si sieno per più anni messe in opera le loro pietre, si conoscerà facilmente per la loro stessa sperienza la natura di quelle. Ma se di nuovo si fabricherà città, castello, o villa dove non fusse vestigio di abitazione o muraglia alcuna, serà allora necessario, per fare di buona sperienza, cavare la state di tale paese di ogni sorte petrina...”

256

Just as in the Trattato, Cataneo utilizes abstract, geometrical plans, which he refers to directly in the text – “come per la presenta pianta si dimostr” – and echoing Francesco, reminds the reader that his plans are only prototypes, a mere sampling of the infinite number of possible inventions the architect might devise.73

Of particular significance are Cataneo’s references to the Architect, a title he capitalized, and the architectural profession – “professione di buono Architetto.”74 As a state-employed architect in mid-sixteenth-century Italy, Cataneo witnessed first-hand the continual technological advancements that demanded designers with ever more mechanical know-how. States and republics required practically-minded professionals, technicians proficient in hydrologic and civil engineering, metallurgy and machine design. More than ever, the Albertian architect – knowledgeable of classical models, with general skills in draftsmanship but little on-site experience – was an unacceptable and dangerous model.75 Cataneo’s treatise, dedicated to the popular Sienese ruler Aeneas

Piccolomini, was thus both a natural extension of Francesco’s Trattato, and a revisionist proposal for contemporary building design. Pushing back against the increasingly prevalent notion of the architect as learned designer and building-author – a figure epitomized by individuals like Raphael, and endorsed by Sebastiano Serlio in his enormously influential I Sette libri dell'architettura (1537 – 1575), which dealt largely

73 Cataneo 343. On variation and invention in regards to palace plans, Cataneo writes: “Bella cosa è veramente il variare dagli edifizi ordinari: di che molte volte con lode universale se ne acquista la grazia della republica, o del suo signore. Sforzerommi pertanto di più inventioni, che mi vengono in mente, darne alcune esempio, che più mi paia da dover essere messo in opera, quantunque i medesimi si potessero diversamente mostrare.” 74 Ibid 185. 75 Valleriani 196 – 197. Cataneo references Alberti twice in his treatise – in regards to larch wood and the Doric capital. On the latter topic, he is particularly dismissive of the Florentine architect, commenting that his proposal for the Doric capital “per mio avviso è molto mal proporzionato, e però mostruoso…” See Cataneo 274, 355.

257

with architectural decorum and ornament, and revealed a limited concern with mechanics and structural systems – Cataneo extolled the model of the practicing, architect- technician.76 This conception of architecture was consistent with deeply engrained

Sienese traditions, and as exemplified in the tracts of Mariano Taccola, Francesco di

Giorgio and Baldassare Peruzzi, was actively taught and disseminated within the city’s artistic and educational institutions.

The legacy of the Trattato di Architettura

But Pietro Cataneo was among the last architectural theorists to promote the training of a generalist-architect. By the close of the sixteenth-century, architecture was splitting into two, distinct specializations – civil and military – and the Sienese ideal of the architect-technician, dexterous in both fields of practice, was becoming increasingly uncommon. For the first time, the knowledge and skill-sets required of the architect – who was responsible for the design of civic halls, churches and residences – were differentiated from those of the engineer – who was responsible for more “utilitarian” structures – fortresses, building machinery, water systems, and such – and so also, the independent professions of architecture and engineering were beginning to take shape.77

Still, change was not immediate, and among the shrinking population of learned, technically-adroit architects, Francesco di Giorgio’s theory still had great resonance. This final section examines the broader legacy of Trattato di Architettura, and its various iterations in customized model-books, architectural compendia, and technical treatises of

76 Due to the extraordinary diffusion of Serlio’s treatise – by 1600, it was translated into seven languages – it is arguably the most influential tract on architecture of the Italian Renaissance See V. Hart and P. Hicks, “On Sebastiano Serlio: Decorum and the Art of Architectural Invention,” Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, ed. V. Hart and P. Hicks (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1998): 142. 77 A. Coppa, Galeazzo Alessi. Trattato di Fortificazione (Milan: Edizioni Angelo Guerini, 1999.): 3 – 9.

258

the sixteenth- and seventeenth-centuries. Whether or not the majority of individuals who relied on the Trattato knew of Francesco di Giorgio, or recognized him as the tract’s author is uncertain. The disconnect which had already existed between Francesco di

Giorgio’s name and the Trattato in the late-fifteenth-century was further widened in the sixteenth, with the surge in the production of architectural treatises and commentaries, and the extraordinary fast-pace of technical and artistic developments. Considering the enormous circulation of the Trattato, Francesco’s presence in popular memory of the sixteenth-century was surprisingly limited. Leaving aside Giorgio Vasari’s “Life of

Francesco di Giorgio” – which features in both the editions of 1550 and 1568, but is replete with errors, and with no reference to the Trattato, reveals a limited knowledge of the Sienese architect – only three other writers of the Renaissance made explicit citations to Francesco di Giorgio.78 These references, by Daniele Barbaro, Vincenzo Scamozzi and

Jacopo da Vignola, offer a constructive point of departure for considering the legacy of the text, and the presence of its author within in the popular memory of the Cinquecento.

The Venetian humanist and dilettante architect Daniele Barbaro (1513 – 1570) was quite familiar with the Trattato di Architettura, and must have owned or had access to a manuscript copy, which he made use of when composing his 1564 edition of

Vitruvius’ De Architectura. In the section on the ancient camini, Barbaro paraphrases

Francesco’s commentary – noting that few other sources provide such information – and reproduces two of the Trattato illustrations of fireplaces. Still, within his citation to the

Trattato, Barbaro implicitly acknowledges his limited knowledge of the tract’s author,

78 On Vasari’s Life of Francesco di Giorgio, see A. Iorio, “Francesco di Giorgio and Brunelleschi,” Reading Vasari, ed. A. Barriault et al. (London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2005): 89 – 98.

259

whom he refers to as “the architect who built the palace of Urbino.”79 Similarly, the references made by Vincenzo Scamozzi (1548 – 1616) and Jacopo da Vignola (1507 –

1573), in as much as they indicate a continued knowledge of Francesco di Giorgio, attest to the degree to which the celebrated Sienese architect was already forgotten. Notably, however, unlike Barbaro, both writers associate Francesco with Siena rather than with

Urbino – a connection which suggests that the perpetuation of Francesco’s legacy was the strongest within his patria.80 Vignola’s citation to Francesco in his Le Due Regole della prospettive practica is particularly noteworthy in this regard. Speaking on perspective,

Vignola praises “Francesco di Giorgio Vanocci of Siena, sculptor, architect and painter” for his mastery of this art, and comments that “in architecture and perspective [he] was excellent, as is demonstrated in the admirable palace built for Duke Federico in Urbino and in many other of his works and in his stupendous drawings, of which some were given to me by M. Oreste Vanocci of Siena.”81 The double reference to Siena not only affirms Francesco’s patrimony, but also suggests the re-appropriation of the Trattato by subsequent generations of Sienese architects.

The “M. Oreste Vanocci” who gave Jacopo da Vignola Francesco di Giorgio’s

“stupendous drawings” was Oreste di Alessandro Vannoccio Biringuccio, member of the accomplished Biringuccio family of engineers, and grandson of Paolo Vannoccio

79 The passage reads: “Resta qui, che io dico alcuna cosa del modo che usavano gli antichi per iscaldarsi. Io ho havuto in questa materia due cose, prima l’Architetto, che fece il Palazzo d’Urbino…” D. Barbaro, I dieci libri dell’Architettura di M. Vitruvio, ed. M. Tafuri and M. Morresi (Milan: Edizioni Il Polifilo, 1987): 301; and Wolf 157. 80 V. Scamozzi, L’Idea dell’architettura universale, Book III. Scamozzi refers “Francesco Sanese architetto.” Scaglia offers a hypothesis on a manuscript possibly owned by Scamozzi, see Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 262 – 263. 81 J.B. da Vignola, Le Due Regole della prospettiva practica (Rome: Per Francesco Zanetti, 1583): 72. “[….] quale hebbe in ciò per precettore Francesco di Giorgio Vanocci Sanese, Scultore, Architetto, & Pittore: ma nell’Architettura & Prospettiva fa eccellentissimo, come mostra il mirabile palazzo fatto al Duca Federigo in Urbino,& molte altre opere sue & i suoi stupendi disegni, de'quali me ne sono stati donati alcuni da M. Oreste Vanocci da Siena.”

260

Biringuccio, Francesco’s friend and collaborator within the Camera del Comune.82

Considering Francesco’s close relationship with the elder Biringuccio, it is not surprising that Oreste had access to the Trattato. In fact, Siena’s Biblioteca Comunale holds a personal notebook of Oreste (codex S.IV.1), containing a wide range of material on civic building, machine design, hydraulics, and antiquities, a good portion of which derives from either Trattato I or II. As will be discussed momentarily, in the years prior to his untimely death (1585), Oreste was working on an architectural treatise, and there is good reason to believe that the codex S.IV.1 was an early draft of this. What is exceptional, however, is not that Oreste made use of the Trattato, but that his appropriation of this material – or more likely, the appropriation of this material by the Biringuccio family – was such that the family’s claim of authorship was equal to that of the original author.83

Francesco, as known by Vignola, was “Francesco di Giorgio Vanocci,” when in truth, it would have been more appropriate if he had called Oreste, “M. Oreste Vanocci di

Francesco.”84

Still, that Vignola associated Francesco di Giorgio with the material given to him by Oreste is significant, and merits further consideration. As noted previously, Pietro

Cataneo never once cited Francesco in his L’Architettura, nor is it clear that Peruzzi would have, had he finished his thirty-two book tract. Before the age of copyright regulations, it was quite common for writers to “plagiarize” textual content from their

82 Chironi, “Cultura tecnica e gruppo dirigente: la famiglia Vannocci Biringucci” 100. 83 Before Oreste, Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio also promoted the circulation and dissemination of the Trattato. Among the notations added to the codex Laurenziana by Leonardo da Vinci, one inside the front cover indicates a connection with “Pagolo di Vannoccio.” See C. Pedretti, “Excursus 3: Francesco di Giorgio, ‘Trattato di Architettura Civile e Militare.’ Pages Annotated by Leonardo,” Leonardo Architect, trans. S. Brill (New York: Rizzoli, 1981): 196. 84 The bronze caster Giovanni di Francesco, for example, is believed to have taken the appellation “di Francesco” in reference to his training under Francesco di Giorgio. See Galluzzi, Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento 38.

261

predecessors without citing them. Authors in the early-modern period only cited secondary sources which were considered consummate, authoritative texts – like those of

Aristotle or Cicero – or if they sought to specifically refute the arguments of another writer.85 Accordingly, in the Trattato Francesco referenced numerous classical authorities, but never credited his Sienese predecessor Jacopo Mariano Taccola, from whom he took significant content. Likewise, a systematic review of the textual component of Oreste Vannoccio Biringuccio’s codex S.IV.1 – which following the tracts of Peruzzi and Cataneo, represented yet another iteration of the Trattato, and in fact includes passages directly excerpted from the second version – reveals that the name

Francesco di Giorgio is entirely absent.86 Thus, even though Oreste recognized Francesco as the source of this material, he did not find it necessary to reference him in his new treatise. It is therefore possible that among practicing architects on the sixteenth-century, the name Francesco di Giorgio was more widely known than anyone wanted to commit to writing.

A review of a greater corpus of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century architectural treatises reveals that, to varying degrees, the Trattato di Architettura commonly served as the framework for new publications. The text of the previously discussed Marciana codex, which features cut-out illustrations from Trattato I, is loosely based on that composed by Francesco, but also substantially deviates from it.87 The material here is organized in twenty-three sections – differing from both versions one and two of the

85 L. Reti, “Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s Treatise on Engineering and Its Plagiarists,” Technology and Culture 4 (1963): 292. 86 This I have concluded from my own examination of the manuscript, and comparison of transcriptions I recorded with that of the codex Magliabechiana II.I.141, as published by Maltese. 87 For general commentary on the codex Ital. IV-3-4 (5541), see Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 202 – 203.

262

Trattato – and although the essential content is similar to that provided by Francesco, the wording and syntax are different. If it were not for the illustrations, the Marciana codex could be considered an independent work. The so-called Accademia manuscript (Album

Codex E.2.I.28, Biblioteca dell’Accademia di Belle Arti, Florence) and the codex Misc.

L.V.9 (Biblioteca Comunale, Siena) present additional examples of treatises which follow the Trattato’s visual program, but substantially develop upon its textual content.88

The author of the former manuscript was Lorenzo di Girolamo Donati, an engraver documented in Siena from 1529 to 1550, who, in addition to having access to Trattato I and II, and Francesco’s translation of Vitruvius, appears to have exchanged notebooks with Sallustio Peruzzi, Pietro Cataneo and Oreste Biringuccio.89 Composing the

Accademia manuscript, Donati took liberties with Francesco’s texts, substantially amending and re-arranging sections from versions one and two, and incorporating translations from Vitruvius and Pliny. But he kept many of Francesco’s images unaltered.

The codex Misc. L.V.9 also re-uses many of Francesco’s images, but combines them with material, both textual and visual, from Filarete’s Libro Architettonico and other authoritative texts. Unstructured and largely incomplete, the codex Misc. L.V.9 exemplifies the architect’s practice of collecting and copying theoretical works, synthesizing and reassembling the material in his own, original composition.

These examples, in addition to many others, reveal the great resonance of

Francesco di Giorgio’s illustrations. As with the Opusculum de’Architectura drawings,

88 Alessandro Parronchi has considered the Album codex E.2.I.28 to be copy of Baldassare Peruzzi’s lost treatise – a problematic hypothesis, as shown by Francesco Paolo Fiore. See A. Parronchi, Un Trattato inedito di architettura militare riferibile a Baldassare Peruzzi (Florence: Edizioni Gonnelli, 1982), and F.P. Fiore, “Review: Un trattato inedito di architettura militare riferibile a Baldassare Peruzzi by Alessandro Parronchi,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 43 (1984): 79 – 80. The codex Misc. L.V.9 has been previously attributed to Pietro Cataneo, but in fact, contains contributions from multiple hands. 89 Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 278.

263

artists, architects and theoreticians assembled personal model-books of the Trattato images. Bartolomeo Ammannati completed an autograph collection of Francesco’s mechanical drawings, as did Antonio da Sangallo the Younger and his assistant, Antonio d’Abaco.90 Cosimo Bartoli, who in 1550 published an illustrated, translated edition of

Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, also copied extensively from Francesco, using the visual material from Opusculum and Trattato I as the basis for his own compendia of architectural models.91 By 1600, the visual and textual material derived from Trattato – and in particular that relating to mechanical design – was so commonplace that it was considered universal, intellectual property. Thus, when Carlo Promis undertook to publish the Trattato for the first time in 1841, he thought it unnecessary to reproduce

Francesco’s book seven on machine design, because this material was “found in all books of mechanics of the sixteenth-century,” and therefore was “of little importance.”92

But Promis’ conception of the ubiquity of Francesco di Giorgio’s machine designs stemmed not from their reproduction in the manuscripts and notebooks of sixteenth-century practitioners. Rather, the “books of mechanics” he referred to were the printed, theatre of machine volumes – those of the engineers Agostino Ramelli (1588) and Vittorio Zonca (1607), and the posthumously printed drawing book of Jacopo Strada

(1617) – which drew heavily upon the models of Francesco’s Trattato di Architettura

(Figs. V.10 – V.12).93 Each published in multiple editions and languages, the books of

90 The folios of Bartolomeo Ammannati and Antonio d’Abaco which derive from Francesco’s Opusculum and Trattato di Architettura are conserved in the Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi. 91 On Cosimo Bartoli’s knowledge of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato and Opusculum, see Scaglia, Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist 78 – 80. 92 C. Promis, Vita di Francesco di Giorgio Martini architetto senese del secolo XV (Turin: Chirio & Mina, 1841): 202. 93 See A. Ramelli, Le diverse et artificiose machine, ed. G. Scaglia (Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1991); V. Zonca, Novo teatro di Machine et Edificii, ed. C. Poni (Milan: Edizioni il Pofilio, 1985). For commentary and reproduction of Jacopo Strada’s drawing-book of machines, which was published as

264

Ramelli, Zonca and Strada were determinative in the pan-European dissemination of

Trattato-derived mechanical designs. Yet, beyond their replication of Francesco di

Giorgio’s designs, the “theatre of machines” volumes may be related to the Trattato in their function and textual content. These books were assembled by inventors and technicians, who were either seeking legal privileges for their designs, or, having obtained these privileges, were in need of a patron or investor to help finance their realization.94 Presenting their inventions within a visual “theatre,” the authors staged their ingenuity and extensive knowledge, and in turn, advocated for the study of mathematics and the social elevation of the building designer.95 The purpose of these volumes, therefore, was in many respects analogous to that Francesco di Giorgio had intended for his treatises. Moreover, in their promotion of the mathematically-trained, architect- technician, the “theatre of machines” was complementary to the popular technical design treatises of Galeazzo Alessi (c. 1570), Bernardo Puccini (c. 1565 – 1575) and Buonauito

Lorini (1609).

The treatises of Alessi, Puccini and Lorini, which concern fortification, civic and mechanical design, are not reliant on Francesco di Giorgio’s imagery, nor do they treat architecture with the same breadth as the Trattato di Architettura. Still, the approach to architecture adopted by these authors, and the manner in which they define the architect,

Künstlicher Abriss allerhand Wasser-Wind,Ross-und-Hand-müllen, published in Frankfurt thirty years after his death, see V. Marchis and L. Dolza, eds. L’Album Fiorentino dei Disegni Artificiali raccolti da Jacopo e Ottavio Strada (Florence: Edizioni dell’Elefante, 2002). 94 M. Popplow, “Protection and Promotion: Privileges for Inventions and Books of Machines in the Early Modern Period,” History of Technology, volume 20, ed. G. Hollister-Short (London: The Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 1999): 108 – 112. The granting of privileges for machine inventions commenced in the late-fifteenth-century – when in 1474 the Venetian Senate passed a resolution that offered engineers protection from unauthorized copying of new inventions. 95 K. Knoespel, “Gazing on Technology: Theatrum Mechanorum and the Assimilation of Renaissance Machinery,” Literature and Technology, ed. M. L. Greenberg and L. Schachterle (Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1992): 101.

265

bears a debt to crucial aspects of Francesco’s theory. These three tracts, as well as those of Ramelli and Zonca, not only develop upon the technical and design innovations presented in the Trattato – polygonal and earth-work fortifications, hydraulic mechanisms, and building machinery – but the qualifications and training they assign to the architect closely correspond, even in wording, to the discussions of Francesco di

Giorgio. Like their Sienese predecessor, Alessi, Puccini, Lorini, Ramelli and Zonca, worked both as civil and military architects – responsible for the design of residential and religious structures, government buildings and defenses – and like Francesco, they believed that mechanics and machine design were fundamental in the realization of good architecture. As given by Ramelli in his Le diverse et artificiose machine, machines are

“worthy of great consideration, in bringing great benefit to all sorts of operations.”96

Zonca echoes this sentiment in his Novo Teatro, writing that machines were absolutely

“necessary for Architects,” and “more so than in any other art, embody the acuteness of human ingenuity.”97 In a similar vein, on the subject of fortification design, Lorini asserts that “among all the arts and sciences (aside from the sacred writings), the discipline of

Military [design] takes first place.”98

In each one of these texts, the ingenuity represented in machine design, or in fortification architecture, lay in the architect’s extensive knowledge of mathematics, a

96 Agostino Ramelli summarized the importance of machine design in his book’s title: Le diverse et artificiose machine del Capitano Agostino Ramelli Dal Ponte Della Tresia Ingegniero del Christianissimo Re di Francia et di pollonia; nelle quali si contengono uarij et industriosi Mouimenti, degni digrandißima speculatione, per cauarne beneficio infinito in ogni sorte d' operatione. 97 The full title of Zonca’s treatise reads: Novo Teatro Di Machine Et Edificii. Per uarie et sicure operationi; co’ le loro figure tagliate in Rame é la dichiaratione, e dimostratione di ciascuna; Opera necesaria ad Architetti, et a quelli, ch’ di tale studio si dilettanto. In the preface he notes “[…] l’arte del fabricare machine sia nel supremo, in cui più che in ogn’altro si scorga l’acutezza dell’ingegno humano.” 98 “Et se fra tutte l’arti & le scienze (lascinado le sacre lettere) la disciplina Militare tiene il primo luogo.” B. Lorini, Le Fortificationi (Venice: presso Francesco Rampazetto, 1609): “Ai Lettori.”

266

correspondence first made explicit in the Trattato di Architettura. In the very first lines of

Trattato II, Francesco evokes the mathematicians Eupompos of Macedonia, Apelles and

Melanzio, declaring that “no art was perfect without geometry and arithmetic,” which was not only fundamental to drawing – the most noble of science – but was “first among the liberal arts.”99 Ramelli reiterates this in his book’s preface, commenting that it was the technician’s knowledge of mathematics – knowledge “necessary for learning all the liberal arts” – that distinguished him from the common artist.100 Lorini, in turn, paraphrases key passages from Francesco’s discussion on disegno, explicitly relating drawing to the practitioner’s knowledge of mathematics, and ingenuity.

On disegno depends the true understanding of all things: it enables one to show that great perfection which the ingegno of a man may have, who both imitates the wonderful works made by nature and by art and also shows everyone, and makes them understand each of his concepts. And therefore disegno is of such value that whoever masters it can truly say that it is very easy to express perfectly any work that he wants to put forth.101

For Francesco, mathematics, and in particular geometry, were also essential in providing the architect with a modular design system, processes he discussed in his chapters on city planning, residential, and religious architecture. But geometry was perhaps of most important in defense design. Francesco’s principles of geometric fortification design, based on polygonal perimeter walls and angled bastions, had an enormous influence on

99 Martini, Trattato 293. 100 Quoted here: “Dell’eccellenza delle mathematiche, ove si dimostra quanto elle sieno necessarie all’acquisto di tutte l’arti liberali.” Lorini also opens his treatise with a discussion on mathematics, which he declares that “geometry is not only useful, but necessary” for fortification design. 101 Lorini 32. “[…] atteso che da lui dipenda la vera intelligencia di tutte le cose: potendosi con questo mostrare quella maggior Perfettione, che possa havere l’ingegno dell'huomo, si nell'imitare l'opere maravigliose fatte dalla Natura, e dall'Arte, come anco per mostrare a tutti, e per far'intendere ogni suo concetto. E però il disegno è di tanto valore, che chi ben lo posìede potrà con verità dire, esserli molto facile l'essequire perfettamente tutte l'opere che proporrà voler fare.” As quote by M. Henninger-Voss, “Measures of Success: Military Engineering and Architectonic Understanding of Design,” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700, ed. W. Lefèvre (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004): 152

267

subsequent military architecture, and tellingly, it is this material which constitutes the basis of Alessi’s, Puccini’s and Lorini’s theories on fortifications. Without giving a full review of these texts, it is sufficient to say that the principle forms, terms, and constructions in discussion – triangular mural works, sloped perimeter walls, radiating arms, external ditches, cigli, and capannati – all descended from the Trattato. Francesco was among the first to advocate for the geometrical fortification, which responded to, and accommodated, the use of gunpowder artillery, and which was almost instantaneously credited with initiating the new, modern science of fortification design.

But the correspondence between Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura and the technical design tracts of the sixteenth-century extends even beyond their celebration of mechanics and high evaluation of disegno and mathematics. After all, by the sixteenth-century, the humanist revival of mathematics, and the study of the works of

Euclid, Hero, Pappus, Proclus and the Aristotelian Mechanica, extended far beyond architecture. Like Francesco, Alessi, Ramelli, Puccini, Zonca, and Lorini displayed a commitment to the edification and elevation of the architect, and their conceptions of the architect were remarkably similar to that of their Sienese predecessor. In keeping with their own practice, these men saw the architect as technically adroit designer, skilled in a wide range of media, and with sufficient judgment and experience to finalize the proportions and forms of his constructions.102 Elucidating the duties of the architect in a petition to the General Council of Padua, and thus also defining his official title as

“Architetto,” Vittorio Zonca wrote that the architect “oversees those works which are

102 Zonca repeatedly leaves specific proportions and forms to “the master’s judgment” (“secondo parerà al giudicio del Maestro,” 31). Likewise, Lorini gives few measurements in his Le Fortificationi, leaving these to be determined by the architect.

268

made perfect and clever by the disciplines of mathematics.” This includes “the invention of plans […]; the perfect arrangement of the orders; the leveling and regulation of water and land; and the development in drawing of not only flat plans, but also perspectives.”

Beyond this, he added that the architect “oversees the situation of contentious sites […] and moderates them for private interests just as he does for the public benefit.”103

Zonca’s appeal, much like that issued in the Trattato di Architettura, asserts his firm belief that the architect deserved a social status commensurate with his extensive knowledge. The appeal, moreover, reflects the recognition that if the architect was to achieve an exalted professional title, it was first necessary to categorically define his profession. The differentiation between the architect and the artist, mason or dilettante building designer, was something addressed in every single architectural tract of the

Cinquecento, but it is the commentary of Puccini which bears particularly strong parallels with that of Francesco di Giorgio. Educated within the court of Francesco I de’ Medici and active in both civil and military design, Bernardo Puccini was highly vocal about the merits owed to the architect-technician. Following the creation of the Accademia dei

Disegno – which upon Vasari’s stipulation, restricted membership to only those architects trained in painting or sculpture – Puccini amended his trattato, adding a forceful appeal to give “utilità, nobilità, e dignità” to military and technical design.104 As if assuming the voice of Francesco di Giorgio, he declares that the science of mechanics had been made

103 “[…] sovraintendere a quelle opera che dale discipline mathematiche hanno il loro perfetto essere et abelimento, come….l’invenzione delle piante, l’elevationi di quelle con la perfetta disposizione degli ordeni loro, il livellare et regolare l’acque e terreni, piagliare in disegno non solo le superficie piane, ma li relieve – et per concavo ancora – oltre il formare le posizioni de’siti contentiosi, così nelle cause civili come nelle criminali, moderando per interesse de’privati et sì per benefitio publico.” See Zonca ix. 104 The trattato in reference here is the incomplete treatise on military architecture which Puccini worked on between c. 1564 and 1575. The draft is conserved in the manuscript codex Acquisiti e Doni 214 in the Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, Florence. See Lamberini, Il Principe Difeso. Vita e Opere di Bernardo Puccini 120 – 124.

269

“miserable by detractors, and so unjustly, due to ignorance, ambition and personal interest dismissed [within society].” Continuing on, he writes that while some “have only had disdain for the Military Architect,” he was in fact master “to the King and great

Lords,” and thus quite distinct from those “cowardly, ignorant or the plebian” men who so often dismissed him.105

It thus seems that, despite the efforts of Alberti, Filarete, and Francesco nearly a century before, architecture in the sixteenth-century was still undervalued within the arts and humanities. The architect still lacked social distinction, and even with the development of new educational institutions and confraternities, a definitive profession of architecture had yet to coalesce. The architect, moreover, still faced the same difficulties in terms of receiving due credit for his technical expertise and retaining authorship of his inventions. Reflecting on his own experiences with the court of the Duke of Anjou,

Ramelli laments that that some of among his household “whom I would think it unseemly to name,” have “honored themselves and furtively robbed me of many special drawings

[…] adding or subtracting useless details devised by their foolish caprice, confusing them here or distorting them there to cover the theft.”106 His commentary – his reluctance to name those who have taken from him, and denunciation of the fools who have confused and distorted his inventions – echoes that of Trattato book seven. Likewise, the figure he implicitly casts as the exemplary architect – intellectually, morally and manually superior to the ordinary artisan – is closely akin to Francesco di Giorgio’s exemplar.

105“[…] che così ingiustamente dall’Ignorantia, Ambitione e proprio interesso è stata scacciata, tenendo per abbietti e vili quelli che esercitavano in sì nobile e utile subbietto, ch’altro non è che esercitare l’arte della Guerra.” “Alcuno dunque non fu giammai che si sdegni essere Militare Architetto, mestiero non da vili ne’ da ignoranti o plebe, ma proprio da Re e gran Signori.” See Lamberini, Il Principe Difeso. Vita e Opere di Bernardo Puccini 126. 106 Ramelli, Le diverse et artificiose machine 14-14v.

270

The legacy of Francesco di Giorgio’s model architect – not only in abstract, conceptual terms, but also the way in which he was defined and discussed in the literature

– was without question substantial. Although Leon Battista Alberti’s theory enjoyed a more formal afterlife – reissued in the translated editions of De re aedificatoria, and reiterated in the new treatises of Serlio and Palladio – very few practitioners attained his ideal of the learned, humanist-architect. As evidenced in the writings of Zonca, Alessi,

Puccini, Ramelli and Lorini, among a core population of like-minded practitioners,

Francesco di Giorgio’s vision for the professional architect remained authoritative. Yet, somewhat paradoxically, among this same group of individuals, the achievements of the late-Sienese architect, and the utility of his treatise, was barely worth noting. In this period, the dissemination and exchange of information was so pervasive that no idea was truly original or unprecedented. Francesco di Giorgio’s theory responded to, and developed upon common practical discourse, just as the writings of Alessi, Puccini,

Zonca, Ramelli and Lorini did several generations later. The history of early modern architecture is filled with accusations of plagiarism and appropriation. Puccini, for example, is said to have taken material from Giovanni Battista Belluzzi and Pietro

Cataneo, but at the same time, his ideas are easily traced in the writings of Ammannati,

Galileo and Lorini.107 This is not to say that Francesco di Giorgio’s individual contributions were insignificant, but rather, that they were incredibly formative within the much greater, rapidly developing field of early-modern Italian building design.

107 On Puccini’s reliance on Belluzzi, and the diffusion and “plagiarism” of his theory, see Lamberini Il Principe Difeso. Vita e Opere di Bernardo Puccini.

271

Conclusion

This study began with the polemical assertion that Francesco di Giorgio, more than any of his fifteenth-century contemporaries, exemplified the early-modern professional architect. Throughout the thesis, primary source documents, examined through the lenses of technical training, travel and social-political engagement, have used to consider Francesco’s architectural practice, and to demonstrate the degree to which his theory innervated this work. I have argued that the Trattato di Architettura, as a manual written for and used by practitioners, codified the routine training and procedures of the early-modern architect. Francesco di Giorgio’s conception of architecture as a

“profession” – an occupation involving prolonged training and formal qualification, in which professed knowledge of a subject or science is applied – has been clearly demonstrated. Yet, according to the standard historical trope, “professionalism” as we know it today did not exist in the fifteenth century, or even the sixteenth. Indeed, it was not until the nineteenth-century, when formally trained practitioners freed themselves from the tutelage of the Church, that the modern professional truly emerged.1 How then do we reconcile the discrepancy between Francesco di Giorgio’s model of the professional architect and the professional architect of the modern period? More generally, what was the conception of professionalism in the early-modern period, and to what extent is a discussion of Renaissance artistic professionalism anachronistic?

Tomaso Garzoni’s voluminous survey on professional culture, La piazza universale di tutte le professioni del mondo (1585), helps to illuminate these questions.

1 "profession,” OED.com, 2014. Web. 15 December 2014. For an overview on the development of modern professionalism, see M. S. Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979): 2 – 6.

272

Extending nearly one-thousand-pages, Garzoni’s tome glosses more than one-hundred- fifty professions, from academics (accademici) to housewives (comari), printers

(tipografi) and robbers (rubbatori). Garzoni also included an entry on “Architetti,” subtitled, “masters of building, fortification of fortresses, masters of machines and common mechanisms, or engineers.”2 The seven page chapter draws on readily accessible ancient texts – those of Aristotle, Pliny, and Vitruvius – as well as printed editions of Leon Battista Alberti, Luca Pacioli, Albrecht Dürer, Sebastiano Serlio and

Andrea Palladio. There is no reference to Francesco di Giorgio, but considering that

Garzoni was a scholar, not an artist, who learned about the professions he defined through encyclopedias, literary satires, political and legal treatises, and published practitioners’ manuals, it is neither surprising nor remarkable that he did not know of the

Sienese architect. What is remarkable about Garzoni’s entry, however, is his conception of the architect as a technician, and the clear distinction he makes between the architect and the guild professions with whom he was often affiliated – those of painters (pittori), wallers (muratori), builders (fabricatori) and sculptors (scultori). The architect may have trained with these individuals, but his work, and the qualifications required of him, differed substantially.

Still, Tomasso Garzoni’s conception of the professional architect, and more fundamentally of professionalism, is quite different from that of the modern era. La piazza universale does not frame professionalism in terms of the objective, legitimized competency characteristic of modern professions – expertise developed through formal

2 See T. Garzoni, La piazza universale di tutte le professioni del mondo (Venice: Miloco, 1665): 556. For information on the original 1585 edition, see T. Garzoni, La piazza universale di tutte le professioni del mondo, ed. G.B. Bronzini, 2 vols. (Florence: Olschki, 1996).

273

academic training and examination, which often subsumes a post-Reformation ethical concept of work. Yet the professionalism of La piazza universale was not born in a vacuum. Garzoni’s understanding of the professional was built upon a mass of contemporary literature – treatises, commentaries, plays, poetry, craft manuals and recipe books – in which humanists, doctors, lawyers, artists and merchants delineated and defended their vocations. This culture of professionalism was rooted in the studia humanitatis, and, as elucidated in the recent studies of George McClure and Douglas

Biow, is traceable throughout the learned, vernacular and public activities of the early- modern period.3 In the Renaissance, having a profession denoted two distinct semantic fields: a public confession or avowal (in the sense of professing an idea, faith or allegiance), or an affiliation with a more restricted field, an occupation (manual or intellectual).4 Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura, and the mentalité it expresses about the processes, values, and beliefs of the architectural community, belong to this early-modern conception of professionalism. For Francesco, the profession of architecture was an art, a vocation that was more than building design, draftsmanship, construction management and political representation. In the most essential terms, it was a composite of all these tasks, but quite frequently, it involved considerably more.

Francesco di Giorgio was not unique in his conception of architecture as a profession. Although architects in the fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuries lacked strong occupational and social affiliations, ample evidence shows that in the absence of a well- defined institutional framework, they were more self-consciously attuned to their status

3 See studies of Biow and McClure, op. cit. 4 See M. Malatesta “Introduction: The Italian Professions from a Comparative Perspective,” Society and Professions in Italy, 1860 – 1914, ed. M. Malatesta, trans. A. Belton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995): 6.

274

and the implications of professional recognition. This is immediately apparent in the upsurge of theoretical literature regarding art and architecture in this period. Like

Francesco di Giorgio, Antonio Averlino “il Filarete,” Pietro Cataneo, Sebastiano Serlio, and Andrea Palladio, wrote to delineate the role of the architect, who they defined as a professional. As previously noted, Pietro Cataneo dedicated his treatise to the

“professione di buono Architetto.”5 Similarly, in the foreword to I Quattro Libri,

Palladio informs his readers that the treatise was intended to elucidate the principles of ancient Roman architecture, and to guide the very many “who study this profession.”6

Within Giorgio Vasari’s Lives, a tract dedicated to the celebration of individual artists and the documentation of their work according to a disciplinary framework, one also finds multiple references to the architectural profession, as well as to those of painting and sculpture. He tells us that Francesco di Giorgio had “very good judgment in architecture and proved that he had a very good knowledge of that profession.”7 In a similar vein, Vasari states that Bramante made the “profession of architecture secure for all who came after him” and that no one equaled Baldassare Peruzzi in the “profession of architecture.”8

5 Cataneo 343. 6 Andrea Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans. R. Tavernor and R. Schofield (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997): 76. The Italian reads: “Et à questa impresa tanto più volentieri mi son messo, quāto ch’ io veggo à questi tempi essere assaissimi di questa professione studiosi.” 7 The Italian of the 1568 edition reads: “Nell’architettura ebbe grandissimo giudizio e mostrò di molto bene intender quella professione…” See Vasari, “Vita di Francesco di Giorgio,” Le vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori nelle redazoni del 1550 e 1568, ed. R. Bettarini and P. Barocchi, vol. 3 (Florence: Sansoni 1966-87): 383. 8 On Bramante, Vasari writes “Ma non fu manco utile al secolo nostro Bramante, acciò, seguitando le vestigie di Filippo, facesse agli altri dopo lui strada sicura nella professione della architettura.” On Peruzzi: “E nel vero che Baldassarre era di giudizio e di diligenza e di sapere talmente ordinato nelle cose sue, che mai non s'è veduto pari a lui nella professione dell'architettura per esser quello dalla pittura accompagnato.” See Vasari, “Bramante da Urbino architettore” and “Vita di Baldassare Peruzzi Sanese pittore et architetto,” Le vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori nelle redazoni del 1550 e 1568, vol. 4, 73, 322.

275

That the concept of profession existed in the minds of early-modern architects is thus undeniable. And yet, what was meant by the “professione di Architetto” was by no means fixed. Francesco di Giorgio did not define the professional architect, and arguably, no one ever would. The history of European architecture is filled with accounts of rise of the professional. In England, John Shute (d. 1563), Sir Roger Pratt (1620 – 1684), and Sir

William Chambers (1723 – 1796) are cited as early proponents of the professional architect, but it is Sir John Soane (1753 – 1837) who is commonly regarded as the “father of the modern architecture profession.” In his Plans, elevations, and sections of buildings

(1788), Soane expounded on “the business of the architect,” characterizing the architect as building designer, intermediary agent between patron and workmen, and construction overseer.9 Three-quarters of a century later, John Ruskin (1819 – 1900) sought to reverse this trend. He attacked “the idea of an independent architectural profession” as “a mere modern fallacy,” and expressed a wish “to see the profession of an architect united, not with that of the engineer, but [with that] of the sculptor.”10 It is therefore quite clear that debates on the character, training and credentials of the professional architect continued throughout the seventeenth-, eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries. Moreover, we know that well into the twentieth-century, architectural standards and educational curricula varied widely. Not only did institutional systems differ in structure and scale, but a substantial number of practitioners trained and practiced outside of these official organizations.11

9 J. Wilton-Ely, “The Rise of the Professional Architect in England,” The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, ed. S. Kostof (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977): 194. 10 Ibid 200. 11 Ibid. Also, J. Draper, “The Ecole des Beaux Arts and the Architectural Profession in the United States: The Case of John Galen Howard,” The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, ed. S. Kostof (New York: Oxford University Press, 1977): 209 – 237. More recently, the professionalization of

276

The history of Francesco di Giorgio is that of a fifteenth-century Sienese architect, who served the great military generals and political leaders of his day, and who left an enduring mark on the theoretical conception of the early-modern architect with his

Trattato di Architettura. With regards to his patrons, the breadth and extent of his practice, and the monumental legacy he left as both building designer and theorist,

Francesco was exceptional. Yet, considering his career in more essential terms – that of an architect who designed buildings and reflected on the relationship between architecture and the social, political, economic forces which gave rise to it – Francesco di

Giorgio was fairly common. The fundamental questions he confronted were not radically different from those which preoccupy architects still today. Reflecting on the role of the architect in 1957, the celebrated Italian architect and industrial designer Gio Ponti commented: “the architect is qualified to do many things: paint, sculpt, write scenarios and screenplays, design objects and productions. […] One discipline is not a diversion from another, [as] diversions do not exist.”12 Coming from a man whose design focus was notoriously diverse, Ponti’s assessment of the architecture might be read as a plea for a discipline without boundaries. Yet, at the same time, it is a valid affirmation of the fact that architecture never achieves a fixed definition. Architecture – in the fifteenth-century and still today – involves more than buildings, construction and design processes, the theory of building design, or the history of all these things.13 It is something inherently

architecture has been examined by E.F.I. Gilabert, A. Miljacki, A. Schafer et al., Office Us Agenda (Venice Biennale 2014- American Pavilion Catalogue) (Zürich: Lars Müller Publisher, 2014). 12 G. Ponti, Amate l’architettura (Milan: Cooperativa Universitaria Studio e Lavoro, 2004): 192, as cited by: F. Serrazanetti and M. Schubert, eds. The Hand of the Architect: Three Hundred and Seventy-eight Signed Drawings by some of the Greatest Contemporary Architects (Milan: Moleskine, 2009): 8. 13 Trachtenberg 8.

277

founded in the place, time and culture which surrounds it, defined first by its creators, and subsequently by the many social forces which act upon it.

278

Bibliography

Abulafia, David. “Introduction: from Ferrante I to Charles VIII.” The French descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95: Antecedents and Effects. Aldershot: Variorum, 1995. 1 – 28.

Ackerman, James. “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance.” Distance Points. Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991. 361 – 384.

---. The Reinvention of Architectural Drawing. 1250 – 1550. London: Sir John Soane’s Museum, 1998.

Ackerman, J. and Wolfgang Lotz. “Vignoliana.” Essays in Memory of Karl Lehmann. Ed. L. Freedman Sandler. New York: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1964. 1 – 24

Adams, Nicholas. “Architecture for Fish: the Sienese dam on the Bruna River. Structures and Design, 1468 – 1530.” Technology and Culture 25 (1984): 768 – 797.

---. “Baldassare Peruzzi and a Tour of Inspection in Valdichiana, 1528 – 1529.” Revue d'art canadienne 5 (1978): 28 – 36.

--- . “Castel Nuovo a Napoli. Anni novanta del XV secolo.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. Eds. F.P Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1994. 288 – 295.

--- . “Knowing Francesco di Giorgio.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F.P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 305 – 316.

--- . “L’architettura militare di Francesco di Giorgio.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. Eds. F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1994. 126 – 162.

---. “L’ architettura militare in Italia nella prima metà del Cinquecento.” Il primo Cinquecento. Ed. A. Bruschi. Milan: Electa, 2002. 546 – 561.

---. “Military Architecture and Renaissance Art History or ‘Beliezza on the Batttlefield.’” Architectura 14 (1984): 196 – 118.

---. “The construction of Pienza (1459 - 1464) and the consequences of renovatio.” Urban life in the Renaissance. Ed. S. Zimmerman and R. F. E. Weissman. Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1989. 50 – 79.

---. “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco, a Renaissance Estimator from Siena.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 48 (1985): 384 – 395.

279

Adams, Nicholas, Daniella Lamberini, and Simon Pepper. “Un Disegno di spionaggio cinquecentesco. Giovanni Battista Belluzzi e il rilievo delle defese di Siena ai tempi dell’assedio. ” Mitteilungen des Kunthistorischen Instituts in Florenz (1988): 558 – 579.

Adorisio, Assunta Maria. Per uso e per decoro. L’arte del ferro a Firenze e in Toscana dall’età gotica al XX secolo; l’eclettismo ottocentesco, arti industriali e tradizione artigiana. Florence: Marie Cristina de Montemayor Editore, 1996.

Agostinelli, Marcello and Fabio Mariano. Francesco di Giorgio e Il Palazzo della Signoria di Jesi. 2 vols. Jesi: Cassa di Risparmio di Jesi, 1986.

Alberti, Leon Battista. On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Trans. J. Rykwert, N. Leach, and R. Tavernor. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1988.

Ames-Lewis, Francis. Drawings in Early Renaissance Italy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.

---. “Modelbook Drawings and the Florentine Quattrocentro Artist. Art History 10 (1987): 1 – 11.

Angelini, Alessandro.“Francesco di Giorigo pittore e i suoi collaboratori.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. Ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993. 284 – 290.

---. “Senesi a Urbino.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. Ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993. 332 – 34.

Annecchino, Valeria. “Baldassare Peruzzi e la didattica dell’architettura a Siena.” Baldassare Peruzzi 1481 – 1536. Ed. C. Frommel, et al. Venice: Marsilio Editori, 2005. 309 – 318.

Armati, Carlo. “Influenze martiniane nell’architettur militare di età laurenziana.” Francesco di Giorgio Martini: rocche, città, paesaggi: Atti del convegno nazionale di studio, Siena, 30-31 maggio 2002. Rome: Kappa, 2004. 127 – 143.

Arrighi, Gino, ed. La Praticha di Gieometria dal Codice Ashburnham 361 della Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana di Firenze. Florence: Giunti, 1970.

Ascheri, Mario. Siena nel Rinascimento. Istituzioni e sistema politico. Siena: Edizioni “Il Leccio,” 1985.

Bacile di Castiglione, Gennaro. Castelli Pugliesi. Rome: Buona Stampa 1927.

---. "Le mura e il castello di Otranto." Napoli Nobilissima 14 (1905): 1 – 4.

280

Bagnoli, Alessandro. “Donatello e Siena.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. Ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993. 162 – 169.

---. “Gli Angeli dell’altare del Duomo e la scultura a Siena alla fine del secolo.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena1450 – 1500. Ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993. 382 – 386.

Balchin, P. Urban Development in Renaissance Italy. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.

Baldestracci, Duccio, Daniela Lamberini and Mauro Civai. I Bottini Medievali di Siena. Siena: Edizioni Alsaba, 1993.

Balestracci, Duccio. “Alcune considerazioni su Miniere e Minatori nella Società Toscana del Tardo Medioevo.” Siderurgia e Miniere in Maremma tra ‘500 e ‘900: Archaeologia industrial e storia del movimento operaio. Ed. I. Tognarini. Florence: All’Insegna del Giglio, 1984. 19 – 35.

---. “La Corporazione dei Muratori dal XIII al XVI Secolo.” Il Coloro della Città: Siena. Ed. M. Boldrini. Siena: Protagon Editori Toscani, 1993.

Barbaro, Daniele. I dieci libri dell’Architettura di M. Vitruvio. Ed. M. Tafuri and M. Morresi. Milan: Edizioni Il Polifilo, 1987.

Bardeschi, Marco Dezzi, ed. Francesco di Giorgio e l’ingegneria militare del suo tempo. Lucca: Centro Internazionale per lo Studio delle Cerchia Urbane, 1968.

---. “L’Architettura Militare del ‘400 nelle Marche con particolare riguardo all’Opera di Francesco di Giorgio.” Atti del IX Convegno di Studi Storici Maceratesi. Macerata: Tipografia Maceratese, 1975. 137 – 149.

---. “Le rocche di Francesco di Giorgio nel ducato di Urbino.” Castellum (1968): 97 – 139.

Barow, Horst. Roads and Bridge of the Roman Empire. London: Edition Axel Menges, 2013.

Bartalini, Roberto. “Francesco di Giorgio. 18: Medaglia di Ambrogio Spannocchi de’ Piccolomini, prima del 1478.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. Ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993. 160 – 161.

Bassi, Elena, ed. Pietro Cataneo, Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola, con l'aggiunta degli scritti di architettura di Alvise Cornaro, Francesco Giorgi, Claudio Tolomei, Giangiorgio Trissino, Giorgio Vasari. Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1985.

281

di Battista, Rosanna, Luisa Molari and Pier Gabriele Molari. “The First Launching of a mine: Francesco di Giorgio and the Capture of Castel Nuovo.” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio. Ed. B. Hub and A. Pollali Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. 163 – 175.

Baxandall, Michael. Painting and Experience in Fifteenth-Century Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.

Beck, James. Jacopo della Quercia. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.

---. “The Historical ‘Taccola’ and the Emperor Sigismund in Siena.” The Art Bulletin 50 (1968): 309 – 320.

Beck, James, ed. Mariano di Jacopo detto il Taccola: Liber Tertius de Ingeneis ac Edifitiis non Usitatis. Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1969.

Belardi, Paolo. “Disegno Architettonico e remote control nei carteggi di Raffaello, Antonio da Sangallo e Galeazzo Alessi.” Il Disegno di Progetto dalle origini al XVIII secolo. Atti del Congresso Roma 22 – 24 aprile 1993. Rome: Gangemi, 1997. 47 – 50.

Bellosi, Luciano. “Il ‘vero’ Francesco di Giorgio a l’arte a Siena nella seconda metà del Quattrocento.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. Ed. L.Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993. 19 – 89.

Bellugi, Sabrina. “Gli architetti fiorentini operanti oltre la Toscana.” La sicurezza dell’esistere:le architetture fortificate al tempo di Lorenzo. Institute: Scramasax, 1992. 111 – 120.

Beltramini, Maria. “Le illustrazioni del Trattato d’architettura di Filarete: storia, analisi e fortuna.” Annali di architettura 13 (2001): 25–52.

Benelli, Francesco. “Baccio Pontelli e Francesco di Giorgio. Alcuni confronti fra rocche, chiese, cappelle e palazzo.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 517 – 556.

---. “Diversification of knowledge. Military architecture as a political tool in the Renaissance. The case of Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 57/58 (2010): 140 – 155.

Bentley, Jerry. Politics and Culture in Renaissance Naples. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Bertagna, Martino. “La Basilica di San Bernardino all'Osservanza di Siena. Notizie

282

Storico-artische.” Archivum franciscanum historicum 56 (1963): 284 – 331.

Bertelli, C. “A Tale of Two Cities: Siena and Venice.” The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo. H. Millon and M. Lampugnani, eds. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd, 1994. 373 – 397.

Bettini, Sergio. “Intorno a Francesco di Giorgio: un codice di machine civili e military della collezione Santini.” Some degree of happiness. Studi di storia dell’architettura in onore di Howard Burns. Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2010. 69 – 87.

Betts, Richard. “On the Chronology of Francesco di Giorgio’s Treatises: New Evidence from an Unpublished Manuscript.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52 (1977): 3 – 14.

----. “Si come Dice Vetruvio: Images of Antiquity in Early Renaissance Theory of Architecture.” Antiquity and its Interpreters. Ed. A. Payne, A. Kuttner and R. Smick. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 244 – 257.

---. “Structural Innovation and Structural Design in Renaissance Architecture.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 52 (1993): 5 – 25.

---. The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio. PhD Diss. Princeton University, 1971.

Biagi, Maria Luisa Altieri. “Vile Meccanico.” Lingua Nostra 26 (1965): 1 – 12.

Binaghi, Rita. “Fortuna critica del Codice Cataneo.” Arte Documento 8 (1994): 73 – 82.

---. “Pietro Cataneo. “Architettore nostro diletto ad Orbetello..." Studi in onore di Renato Cevese. Eds. G. Beltramini and A. G. Giavarina. Vicenza: 2000. 41 – 59.

---. “Un manoscritto di Pietro Cataneo conservato agli Uffizi.” Il disegno di architettura 5 (1994): 60 – 66.

Biow, Douglas. Doctors, Ambasadors, Secretaries: Humanism and Professions in Renaissance Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

Biringuccio, Vannoccio. De la Pirotechnica. Ed. A. Carugo. Milan: Edizioni il Poliflio, 1977.

Boccia, Lionello. “III.c. 19.” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena nel Rinascimento. Ed. P. Galluzzi. Milan: Electa, 1991. 374.

Boldrini, Maurizio, ed. Il Coloro della Città: Siena. Siena: Protagon Editori Toscani,

283

1993.

Borghesi, S. and L. Banchi. Nuovi Documenti per la Storia dell’Arte Senese. Siena: Enrico Torrini Editore, 1898.

Borsi, Stefano. Giuliano da Sangallo: I Disegni di architettura e dell’antico. Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1985.

---. “Una medaglia di Francesco di Giorgio Martini: una questione di immagine.” Art e dossier 16 (2001): 40 – 45.

Bowsky, William. The Finance of the Commune of Siena, 1287 – 1355. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Brenzoni, Raffaello. Fra Giovanni Giocondo Veronese : Verona 1435 - Roma 1515; figura genialissima e tipica della versalità rinascimentale italiana alla luce delle fonti coeve e dei documenti esposti cronologicamente. Florence: Olschki, 1960.

Brinton, Selwyn. Francesco di Giorgio Martini of Siena. Painter, Sculptor, Engineer, Civil and Military Architect (1439 – 1502). 2 vols. London: Besant & Co., Ltd, 1934.

Bruschi, Arnaldo. “Luciano di Laurana. Chi era costui? Laurana, fra Carnevale, Alberti a Urbino: un tentativo di revision.” Annali di architettura 20 (2008): 37 – 81.

Burns, Howard. “Baldassare Peruzzi and Sixteenth Century Architectural Theory.” Les Traites d’Architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1st au 11 juillet 1981. Ed. A. Chastel and J. Guillaume. Paris: Picard, 1988.

---. “I disegni di Francesco di Giorgio agli Uffizi di Firenze.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Milan: Electa, 1994. 330 – 356.

--- . “Progetti di Francesco di Giorgio per i conventi di San Bernardino e Santa Chiara di Urbino.” Studi Bramanteschi: atti del Congresso internazionale, Milano, Urbino, Roma, 1970. Rome: De Luca, 1974. 293 – 311.

---. “‘Restaurator delle ruyne antiche’: Tradizione e studio dell’antico nell’attività di Francescodi Giorgio.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Milan: Electa, 1994. 151 – 181.

Butzek, Monika, ed. Die Kirchen von Siena: Der Dom S. Maria Assunta. Vol. 3, Part 1. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1985.

Camerota, Filippo. “Renaissance Descriptive Geometry: The Codification of Drawing Methods.” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700. Ed. W. Lefèvre. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004. 175 – 208.

284

---. “Teaching Euclid in the Practical Context: Linear Perspective and Practical Geometry.” Science and Education 15 (2006): 323 – 334.

Canali, Ferruccio. “Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Leon Battista Alberti, Firenze e Lorenzo il Magnifico.” Bollettino della Società di Studi Fiorentini 11 (2002): 11 – 35.

Canali, Ferruccio and Virgilio Carmine Galati. “Roberto Pane e un’incompiuta revisione dell’architettura Salentina nel Rinascimento nell’Italia Meridonale, Giuliano da Maiano, Francesco di Giorgio Martini e Antonio Marchesi da Settignano a Napoli nelle Corte dell’Umanesimo Baronale di Terra d’Otranto.” Bollettino della Società di Studi Fiorentini 7-8 (2001): 67 – 87.

Carducci, Giovangualberto. “Ciro Ciri da Casteldurante ed il suo preteso intervento nella costruzione dei castelli aragonesi di Terra d’Otranto.” Scritti di storia pugliese in onore di mons. Carmine Maci. Ed. M. Paone. Galatina: Editrice Salentina, 1994. 61 – 92

---. “La ricostruzione del castello di Taranto nella strategia difensiva aragonese (1487 – 1492).” Archivio storico pugliese 48 (1995): 101 – 178.

Carpo, Mario. Architecture in the Age of Printing: Orality, Writing, Typography, and Printed Images in the History of Architectural Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003.

---. “How Do You Imitate a Building That You Have Never Seen? Printed Images, Ancient Models, and Handmade Drawings in Renaissance Architectural Theory.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 64 (2001): 223 – 233.

Cecchini, Giovanni. “Maestri luganesi e comaschi a Siena nel secolo XV.” Architetti e scultori del Quattrocento. Ed. E. Arslan. Como: Antonio Noseda, 1959. 131 – 150.

Ceci, G. “Nuovi Documenti per la storia delle arti a Napoli durante il Rinascimento.” Napoli Nobilissima 9 (1900): 83 – 84.

Cellauro, Louis. “Francesco di Giorgio and the Renaissance Tradition of the Illustrated Architectural Treatise.” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio. Ed. B. Hub and A. Pollali. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. 185 – 203.

Ceriana, Matteo. “Ambrogio Barocci e la decorazione del palazzo Ducale di Urbino.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 269 – 304.

285

Cesariano, C. Vitruvius De Architectura. Munich: Wilhem Fink Verlag, 1969.

Chapman, Hugo. “Introduction.” Fra Angelico to Leonardo: Italian Renaissance Drawings. London: The British Museum Press, 2010. 15 – 75.

Chastel, André. The Studios and Styles of the Renaissance Italy 1460 – 1500. Trans. Jonathan Griffin. London: Thames and Hudson, 1966.

Chironi, G. “Appendice documentaria.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. F.P. Fiore and M. Tafuri, eds. Milan: Electa, 1993. 400 – 411.

---. “Cultura tecnica e gruppo dirigente: la famiglia Vannocci Biringucci.” Una tradizione senese: dalla Pirotechnia di Vannoccio Biringucci al Museo del Mercurio. Ed. I. Tognarini. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche, 2000. 99 – 130.

---. “Fonti e Documenti. Politici e ingegneri. I provveditori della Camera del comune di Siena negli anni '90 del Quattrocento.” Ricerche storiche 23 (1993): 375 – 395.

---. “Repertiorio di documenti riguardanti Mariano di Iacopo detto il Taccola e Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena nel Rinascimento. Ed. P. Galluzzi. Milan: Electa, 1991. 471 – 482.

Chittolini, Giorgio. “Su Alcuni Aspetti dello Stato di Federico.” Vol. 1. Federico di Montefeltro. Lo Stato. Le Arti. La Cultura. 3 vols. Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1986. 61 – 102.

Christiansen, Keith, Laurence B. Kanter, and Carl Brandon Strehlke. Painting in Renaissance Siena. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988.

Ciapponi, Lucia. “Appunti per una biografia di Giovanni Giocondo da Verona.” Italia mediovale e umanistica 4 (1961): 131 –158.

Clarke, Georgia. “Vitruvian Paradigms.” Papers of the British School at Rome 70 (2002): 319 – 346.

Clough, Cecil. “Federico da Montefeltro and the Kings of Naples: a study in fifteenth- century survival.” Renaissance Studies 6 (1992): 113 – 172.

---. "Federico da Montefeltro's Patronage of the Arts, 1468-1482." Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 36 (1973): 129 – 44.

---. “La Familia del Duca Guidobaldo da Montefeltro ed Il Cortegiano.” ‘Familia’ del principe e famiglia aristocratica, Papers of a conference. Vol 2. Rome: Biblioteca del Cinquecento, 1988): 335 – 347.

286

---. “Sources for the economic history of the duchy of Urbino, 1474 – 1508.” Manuscript (1966): 3 – 27.

---. “Toward an economic history of the state of Urbino at the time of Federigo da Montefeltro and of his son, Guidobaldo.” Studi in memoria di Federigo Melis. Ed. L. de Rosa. Vol. III. Naples: Giannini Editore (1978): 469 – 504.

Colocci, Francesco, ed. Contributi e Ricerche su Francesco di Giorgio nell’Italia Centrale. Simposio di Studi. Urbino, Monastero di Santa Chiara, Sabato 22 marzo 2003. Urbino: Edizioni Comune di Urbino, 2003.

Comune di Fossombrone, ed. Fossombrone nel Ducato di Federico. Segni di un’epoca e di una cultura. Fossombrone: Comune di Fossombrone, 1982.

Comune di Siena, ed. I Bottini: Acquedotti medievali senesi. Siena: Edizioni Gielle, 1984.

Coppa, Alessandra. Galeazzo Alessi. Trattato di Fortificazione. Milan: Edizioni Angelo Guerini, 1999.

---. L’Architettura della difesa nella trattatistica. Da Vitruvio all’età umanistica.” Architettura fortificata: un problema interpretativo e operativo. Rome: Istituto Italiano dei Castelli, 2002. 67 – 87.

Corardo, M. “L’archittura della basilica e del convento dell’osservanza.” L'Osservanza di Siena: la basilica e i suoi codici miniati. Ed. C. Alessi, et al. Milan: Electa, 1984. 21 – 50

Cottafavi, Clinio. “Saggi inediti su edifici della Corte di Mantova.” Atti e memorie della Accademia Virgiliana di Mantova 34 (1963): 5 – 39.

Cusmano, Silvia Chiara. Castelnuovo Berardegna: il Castello, la Fattoria, il Paese. Poggibonsi: Arti Grafiche Nencini: 2003. da Volterra, Joampiero Leostello. Ephemeridi de le cose. 1480-1495. MS. Bibliothèque nationale de France. 14 July 2014. .

Dal Poggetto, Paolo, ed. Piero e Urbino, Piero e le corti rinascimentali. Venice: Marsilio, 1992.

David, Benjamin. “Narrative in Context: The Cassoni of Francesco di Giorgio.” Renaissance Siena: art in context. Ed. L. A. Jenkens. Kirksville, MO.: Truman State University Press, 2005. 109 – 137.

Davies, Paul. “Santa Maria del Calcinaio a Cortona come Architettura di Pellegrinaggio.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno

287

internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 679 – 706.

Davis, Margaret Daly. Piero della Francesca’s Mathematical Treatises. Ravenna: Longo Editore, 1977. de Hollanda, Francisco. Diálogos em Roma (1538). Conversations on Art with Michelangelo Buonarroti. Ed. G. D. Folliero-Metz. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1998.

Denley, Peter. Commune and Studio in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena. Bologna: CLUEB, 2006.

---. Teachers and schools in Siena, 1357 – 1500. Siena: Betti, 2007.

Dennistoun, James. Memoirs of the Dukes of Urbino. 3 vols. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1851.

De Pascalis, Giancarlo. “Francesco di Giorgio e l’architettura militare in area pugliese.” Francesco di Giorgio Martini: rocche, città, paesaggi: Atti del convegno nazionale di studio, Siena, 30-31 maggio 2002. Rome: Kappa, 2004. 161 – 172.

Dechert, Michael S. A. City and fortress in the works of Francesco di Giorgio: the theory and practice of defensive architecture and town planning. PhD Diss. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University, 1983.

---. “Il Sistema Difensivo di San Leo: Studio della Sua Architecttura.” Vol.2. Federico di Montefeltro. Lo stato. Le arti. La cultura. 3 vols. Ed. G. C. Baiardi, G. Chittolini, and P. Floriani. Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1986. 199 – 212.

---. “The Military Architecture of Francesco di Giorgio in Southern Italy.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 49 (1990): 161 – 180.

Draper, J. “The Ecole des Beaux Arts and the Architectural Profession in the United States: The Case of John Galen Howard.” The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession. Ed. S. Kostof. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 209 – 237.

Edgerton, Samuel. The Heritage of Giotto’s Geometry: Art and Science on the Eve of the Scientific Revolution. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Edwards, Sarah. “La Scala Elicoidale: The Spiral Ramps of Francesco di Giorgio. An Architectural Re-Invention.” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio. Ed. B. Hub and Pollali. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. 107 – 126.

Eisler, J. “Remarks on Some Aspects of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato.” Acta Historiae

288

Artium 18 (1972): 193 – 224.

Elen, Albert J. Italian Late-Medieval and Renaissance Drawing-Books. Leiden 1995.

Ericsson, Christoffer. Roman Architecture expressed in sketches by Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Studies in Imperial Roman and Early Christian Architecture. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica, 1980.

Ermini, Giampaolo. “Campane e cannoni. Agostino da Piacenza e Giovanni da Zagabria: un fonditore padano ed uno schiavone nella Siena del Quattrocento.” L'industria artistica del bronzo del Rinascimento a Venezia e nell'Italia settentrionale: atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Venezia, Fondazione Giorgio Cini, 23 e 24 ottobre 2007. Ed. M. Ceriana and V. Avery. Verona: Scripta, 2008. 387 – 446.

Ettlinger, Leopold. “The Emergence of the Italian Architect During the Fifteenth Century.” The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession. Ed. S. Kostof. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 96-123.

Fara, Amelio. “Michelozzo e l’architettura militare.” Michelozzo: scultore e architetto (1396 – 1472). Ed. G. Morolli. Florence: Centro Di, 1998. 269 – 274.

Farinelli, Roberto. “Le Fortificazione nel Comprensorio Comunale di Castelnuovo Berardenga.” Architettura nel Chianti Senese. Catalogo di Castelnuovo Berardenga. Arezzo: Editrice grafica L’Etruria Cortona, 1996. 48 – 61.

Fattorini, Gabriele.“Neroccio de’ Bartolomeo Landi (Siena 1447 – 1500).” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. Ed. L. Syson. London: National Gallery, 2007. 355.

Ferguson, Eugene S. Engineering and the mind's eye. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1992.

Ferraiolo. Cronaca. Ed. R. Coluccia. Florence: Presso L’Accademia della Crusca, 1987.

Ferretti, Emanuela. “La sapienza di Siena nei disegni di Giuliano da Sangallo e Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” Architetti a Siena. Testimonianze della Biblioteca Comunale tra XV e XVII secolo. Ed. D. Danesi, M. Pagni and A. Pezzo. Siena: Silvana Editoriale, 2009. 71 – 88.

Filangieri, R. “Antonio Marchese da Settignano, Architetto militare del Rinascimento.” Rivista di artiglieria e del genio 70 (1931): 473 – 479.

Fiore, Francesco Paolo. “Francesco di Giorgio e il monastero di Sta. Chiara in Urbino.” Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’architettura 44 – 50 (2004 – 2007): 119 – 128.

---. Citta e Macchine del ‘400 nei Disegni di Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Florence:

289

Leo S. Olschki Editore, 1978.

---. “Francesco di Giorgio e il Monastero di Santa Chiara in Urbino.” Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura N.S. 44/50 (2007): 119 – 128.

---. “Il Palazzo Ducale di Urbino. Seconda metà del XV secolo e sgg.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri, eds. Milan: Electa, 1994. 164 – 173.

---. “L’architettura civile di Francesco di Giorgio.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri, eds. Milan: Electa, 1994. 74 – 125.

---. “La città felice di Loreto.” Richerche di storia dell'arte IV (1977): 37 – 46.

---. “Principi architettonici di Francesco di Giorgio.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 369 – 400.

---. “Review: Un trattato inedito di architettura militare riferibile a Baldassare Peruzzi by Alessandro Parronchi.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 43 (1984): 79 – 80.

Fiore, Gaspare de. Baccio Pontelli architetto fiorentino. Rome: Edizioni dell'Ateneo, 1963.

Fisković, Igor. “Michelozzo di Bartolomeo a Dubrovnik 1461 – 1464.” Michelozzo: scultore e architetto (1396 - 1472). Ed. G. Morolli. Florence: Centro Di, 1998. 275 – 285.

Fonseca, Cosimo Damiano. “‘In ampliorem firmiorem formam restituit’: la ricostruzione aragonese del Castello di Taranto.”Il castello di Taranto: immágine e progetto: mostra documentaria promossa in occasione del quinto centenario della ricostruzione aragonese del Castello di Taranto: Taranto, Castello Aragonese 25 novembre - 18 dicembre 1992. Galatina: Congedo, 1992. 24 – 40.

Fontana, Vincenzo. Fra’ Giovanni Giocondo: architetto 1433 – c. 1515. Vicenza: Neri Pozza Editore, 1988.

Fontebuoni, Luisa. “La famiglia del Conte e poi Duca Federico da Montefeltro.” Il Palazzo di Federico da Montefeltro. Vol. 1. Ed M. L. Polichetti. Urbino: Quattroventi, 1985. 374 – 380.

Foster, Philip. “Lorenzo de’Medici and the Florence Cathedral Façade.” The Art Bulletin 63 (1981): 495 – 500.

Franci, Raffaella and Laura Toti Rigatelli. Introduzione all’Aritmetica Mercantile del Medioevo e del Rinascimento. Urbino: Quatto Venti, 1982.

290

Fredericksen, Burton. The Cassone Paintings of Francesco di Giorgio. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum, 1969.

Frommel,Christoph L. and Nicholas Adams. The architectural drawings of Antonio da Sangallo the younger and his circle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1994.

Galluzzi, Paolo. Gli ingegneri del Rinascimento da Brunelleschi a Leonardo da Vinci. Florence: Giunti, 1996.

---. “Le macchine senesi. Ricerca antiquaria, spirito di innovazione e cultura del territorio.” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena del Rinascimento. Ed. P. Galluzzi. Milan: Electa, 1991. 15 – 46.

---. “The Career of a Technologist.” Leonardo da Vinci: Engineer and Architect. Montreal: The Montreal Museum of Fine Arts, 1987. 41 – 110.

Garofalo, Emanuela. Le arti del costruire: corporazione edili, mestieri e regole nel Mediterraneo aragonese, XV – XVI secolo. Palermo: Caracol, 2010.

Garzoni, T. La piazza universale di tutte le professioni del mondo. Venice: Miloco, 1665.

---. La piazza universale di tutte le professioni del mondo. Ed. G.B. Bronzini. 2 vols. Florence: Olschki, 1996.

Gattoni da Camogli, Maurizio. “La politica estera e il primato dei Petrucci a Siena (1498 – 1524).” Siena e il suo territorio nel Rinascimento. Vol. III. Ed. Mario Ascheri. Siena: Edizioni il Leccio, 2000. 215 – 222.

---. Pandolfo Petrucci e la politica estera della Repubblica di Siena (1487 – 1512). Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 1997.

Gerbino, Anthony. “Introduction.” Geometrical Objects: Architecture and the Mathematical Sciences, 1400 – 1800. Heidelberg: Springer, 2014. 1 – 41.

Giavarina, Adriano Ghisetti. “Fonti dcoumentarie e lettura di fabbriche: Francesco di Giorgio Martini in Abruzzo.” Esperienze di Storia dell’Architettura e di restauro. 2 vols. Ed. G. Spagnesi. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1987. 99 – 105.

Gilabert, E.F.I., A. Miljacki, A. Schafer et al. Office Us Agenda (Venice Biennale 2014- American Pavilion Catalogue). Zürich: Lars Müller Publisher, 2014.

Gille, Bertrand. The Renaissance Engineers. London: Lund Humphries, 1966.

291

Gioppo, L. “Una copia sconosciuta del Trattato di Francesco di Giorgio Martini: il Codice Orsetti della Biblioteca del Museo Nazionale della Scienza e della Tecnica di Milano.” Raccolta Vinciana XXV (1993): 339 – 454.

Goldthwaite, Richard. “Schools and Teachers of Commercial Arithmetic in Renaissance Florence.” The Journal of European Economic History 1 (1972): 418 – 434.

---. The Building of Renaissance Florence. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1980.

---. “The Building of the Strozzi Palace: The Construction Industry in Renaissance Florence.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History. Vol. X. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1973. 99 – 194

---. “The Painting Industry in Early Modern Italy.” Painting for Profit. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. 275 – 301.

---. The economy of Renaissance Florence. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 2009.

Grafton, Anthony. Leon Battista Alberti. Master Builder of the Renaissance. New York: Hill and Wang, 2000.

Grendler, Paul F. Schooling in Renaissance Italy: Literacy and Learning, 1300 – 1600. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.

Haines, Margaret. “Myth and Management in the Construction of Brunelleschi’s Cupola.” I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 14/15 (2011-2012): 47 – 101.

Hall, Bert. “Editing Texts in the History of Early Technology.” Editing Texts in the History of Science and Medicine. Ed. T.H. Levere. New York and London: Garland, 1982. 69 – 100.

Hart, Vaughan and Peter Hicks. “On Sebastiano Serlio: Decorum and the Art of Architectural Invention.” Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise. Ed. V. Hart and P. Hicks. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1998.

Henninger-Voss, Mary. “Measures of Success: Military Engineering and Architectonic Understanding of Design.” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700. Ed. W. Lefèvre. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004. 143 – 172.

---. “Working Machines and Noble Mechanics. Guidobaldo del Monte and the Translation of Knowledge.” Isis 91 (2000): 233 – 259.

Hersey, G.L. Alfonso II and the Artistic Renewal of Naples 1485 – 1495. New Haven: Yale University, 1969.

292

Heydenreich, L.H. “Federigo da Montefeltro as a Building Patron.” Studies in Renaissance and Baroque Art presented to Anthony Blunt on his 60th Birthday. London: Phaidon, 1967.

Hicks, D.L. “Sienese society in the Renaissance. Comparative Studies in Society and History 2 (1960): 412 – 420.

---. “Sources of Wealth in Renaissance Siena: Businessmen and landowners.” Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria 93 (1986).

---. “The Sienese State in the Renaissance.” From the Renaissance to the Counter- Reformation. Ed. C.H. Carter. London: Cape, 1966.

Hilary, Richard. “The Nepotism of Pope Pius II. 1458 – 1464.” The Catholic Historical Review 64 (1978): 33 – 35.

Hollingsworth, Mary. Patronage in Renaissance Italy. London: John Murrary, 1994.

---. “The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence.” Art History 7 (1984): 385 – 410.

Hook, Judith. Siena: A City and its History. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1979.

Hovarth, Enrico. “Siena e il primo Rinascimento ungherese.” Corvina: rassegna italo- ungherese 5 (1925): 49 – 72.

Hub, Berthold. “Filarete and the East: The Renaissance of a Prisca Architectura.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 70 (2011): 18 – 37.

Hughes, Anthony. “‘An Academy for Doing’ I: The Accademia del Disegno, the Guilds and the Principate in Sixteenth-Century Florence.” Oxford Art Journal 9 (1986): 3 – 10.

Iorio, Arthur F. “Francesco di Giorgio and Brunelleschi.” Reading Vasari. Ed. A. Barriault et al. London: Philip Wilson Publishers, 2005. 89 – 98.

---. Francesco di Giorgio’s Paintings: A Reassessment. PhD Diss. University of Virginia, 1993.

Jansen, Dirk Jacob. “The Strada Family and its Role in the Dissemination of Renaissance Mechanical Inventions.” L’Album Fiorentino dei Disegni Artificiali raccolti da Jacopo e Ottavio Strada. Ed. V. Marchis and L. Dolza. Florence: Edizioni dell’Elefante, 2002. 216 – 244.

Jappelli, R. “Monumental Dams.” Mechanical modeling and Computational Issues in Civil Engineering. Ed. M. Frémond. Boston: Springer, 2005.

293

Jenkens, A. Lawrence. “Introduction: Renaissance Siena, the State of Research.” Renaissance Siena: art in context. Ed. L. Jenkens. Kirksville, MO.: Truman State University Press, 2005. 1 – 20.

---. “Pius II and His Loggia in Siena.” Pratum Romanum: Richard Krautheimer zum 100. Geburtstag. Wiesbaden: Dr. L. Reichert, 1997. 199 – 214.

Kanerva, Liisa. Between Science and Drawings: Renaissance Architects on Vitruvius’s Educational Ideas. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica, 2006.

---. Defining the Architect in Fifteenth-Century Italy. Exemplary Architects in L.B. Alberti’s De re aedificatoria. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1998.

Kemp, Martin. “From ‘Mimesis’ to ‘Fantasia’: The Quattrocento Vocabulary of Creation, Inspiration and Genius in the Visual Arts.” Viator 8 (1977): 347 – 398.

---. “‘La diminutione di ciascun piano’: la rappresentazione delle forme nello spazio di Francesco di Giorgio.” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena nel Rinascimento. Ed. P. Galluzzi. Milan: Electa, 1991. 105 – 112.

Knoespel, K. “Gazing on Technology: Theatrum Mechanorum and the Assimilation of Renaissance Machinery.” Literature and Technology. Ed. M. L. Greenberg and L. Schachterle. Bethlehem, PA: Lehigh University Press, 1992. 99 – 124.

Kolb, Carolyn. “The Francesco di Giorgio Material in the Zichy Codex.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 47 (1988): 132 – 159.

Kucher, Michael P. The Medieval Roots of the Modern Networked City: The water supply system of Siena, Italy. PhD Diss. University of Delaware, 2000.

Lamberini, Daniela. “Giuliano da Maiano e l’architettura militare.” Giuliano e le bottega dei da Maiano. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi. Fiesole 13 – 15 giugno 1991. Ed. D. Lamberini, M. Lotti and R. Lunardi. Florence: Octavo, 1994. 13 – 27.

---. Il Principe Difeso. Vita e Opere di Bernardo Puccini. Florence: Editrice la Giuntina, 1990.

---. “La fortuna delle machine senesi nel Cinquecento.” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena del Rinascimento. Ed. P. Galluzzi. Milan: Electa, 1991. 135 – 144.

---. “Michelozzo Ingegnere: Empiris e Umanesimo nella Cultura Tecnica del Rinascimento.” Michelozzo. Scultore e Architetto (1396 – 1472). Ed. G. Morolli. Florence: Centro Di:Associazione dimore storiche italiane, 1998. 263 – 268.

294

---. “Practice and Theory in Sixteenth-Century Fortifications.” Fort 15 (1987): 5 – 20.

---. “Tradizione Tecnica e ‘Plagio’ nei Disegni della Machinatio Vitruviana di Matrice Fiorentina.” Documentary Culture: Florence and Rome from Grand-Duke Ferdinand I to Pope Alexander VII. Ed. E. Cropper. Florence: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1992. 141 – 163.

Lamberini, Daniela, ed. Il Sanmarino: Giovan Battista Belluzzi, architetto militare e trattatista del cinquecento. 2 vols. Florence: Olschki, 2007.

Larson, M. S. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979.

Lefèvre, Wolfgang. “Architectural Knowledge.” The Structures of Practical Knowledge. Ed. M. Valleriani. Heidelberg: Springer Press, 2015. (forthcoming)

---. “The Emergence of Combined Orthographic Projections.” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700. Ed. W. Lefèvre. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004. 209 – 244.

Lombardi, Enrico. Massa Marittima e il suo territorio nella storia e nell’arte. Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 1985.

Long, Pamela. Artisan/Practitionrs and the Rise of the New Sciences, 1400 – 1600. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2011.

---. Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to the Renaissance. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 2001.

---. “Power, Patronage and the Authorship of Ars. From Mechanical Know-How to Mechanical Knowledge in the Last Scribal Age.” History of Science Society 88 (1997): 1 – 41.

Lotz, Wolfgang. “Introduzione ai lavori del convegno.” Galeazzo Alessi e l’architettura del Cinqueceno. Genoa: Sagep Editori, 1975.

Lowic, Lawrence. “Francesco di Giorgio on the Design of Churches: the Use and Significance of Mathematics in the Trattato,” Architectura XII (1982): 151 – 163.

---. “The Meaning and Significant of the Human Analogy in Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 42 (1983): 360 – 370.

Luni, Mario. “Francesco di Giorgio Martini e L’Antico nel Palazzo Ducale di Urbino.” Piero e Urbino, Piero e le corti rinascimentali. Ed. P. Dal Poggetto. Venice: Marsilio, 1992.

295

Malaguzzi-Valeri, Francesco. “Architetti, scultori, pittori, miniatori e orefici ricordati in atti giudiziari di Bologna, sec. XIV – XVII.” Archivio dell’Arte VII (1894): 370 – 371.

Malatesta, Maria. “Introduction: The Italian Professions from a Comparative Perspective.” Society and Professions in Italy, 1860 – 1914. Ed. M. Malatesta. Trans. A. Belton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 1 – 23.

Manno, Antonio. “Architettura e Arti Meccaniche nel Fregio del Palazzo Ducale di Urbino.” Vol. 2. Federico da Montefeltro. Lo Stato. Le Arti. La Cultura. 3 vols. Rome: Bulzoni Editori, 1986. 89 – 98.

Mariano, Fabio. Francesco di Giorgio. La Practica Militare. Un’Ipotesi Attributiva per la ‘Cittadella Simbolica’ di S. Costanzo. Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti, 1989.

Marr, Alexander. Between Raphael and Galileo: Mutio Oddi and the Mathematical Culture of Late Renaissance Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.

---. “Copying, Commonplaces, and Technical Knowledge: The Architect-Engineer as Reader.” The Artist as Reader. On the Education and Non-Education of Early Modern Artists. Ed. H. Damm, M. Thimann and C. Zittel. Leiden: Brill, 2013. 421 – 446.

Martines, Giangiacomo. “Francesco di Giorgio a Gubbio in tre documenti d’archivio rinvenuti e trascritti da Piero Luigi Menichetti. Ricerche di storia dell’arte 11 (1980): 67 – 70.

---. “Il Palazzo Ducale di Gubbio: Un brano sepolto della città medioevale, un’ipostesi per Francesco di Giorgio.” Ricerche di storia dell’arte 6 (1977): 89 - 110.

Martini, Francesco di Giorgio. Das Skizzenbuch des Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Vat. Urb. lat. 1757. Ed. L. M. Tocci Zürich: Belser Verlag, 1989.

---. La Traduzione del De Architectura di Vitruvio dal ms. II.I.141 della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. Ed. M. Biffi. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore, 2002.

---. Trattati di architettura ingegneria e arte militare. Ed. C. Maltese. 2 vols. Milan: Il Polifilo, 1967.

---. Trattato di architettura di Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Ed. P. C. Marani. 3 vols. Florence: Giunti Barbèra, 1979 – 1994.

Martini, Laura. Cristoforo di Bindoccio e Francesco di Giorgio: due botteghe di pittori senesi del Trecento e Quattrocento a Campagnatico. Cristoforo di Bindoccio and Francesco di Giorgio: two fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Sienese painters’

296

workshops in Campagnatico. Siena: ali edizioni, 2005.

Martorano, Francesca. “In Calabria sulle trace di Francesco di Giorgio.” Francesco di Giorgio Martini: rocche, città, paesaggi: Atti del convegno nazionale di studio, Siena, 30-31 maggio 2002. Rome: Kappa, 2004. 173 – 185.

Matracchi, Pietro. La chiesa di S. Maria delle Grazie al Calcinaio presso Cortona e l’opera di Francesco di Giorgio. Cortona: Calosci, 1991.

McClure, George. The Culture of Profession in Late-Renaissance Italy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004.

McComb, Arthur. “The Life and Works of Francesco di Giorgio.” Art Studies: Medieval, Renaissance and Modern 2 (1924): 3 – 34.

McGee, David. “The Origins of Early Modern Machine Design.” Picturing Machines 1400 – 1700. Ed. Wolfgang Lefèvre. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2004. 53 – 84.

Meneses, Patricia. Baccio Pontelli a Roma: L’attività dell’architetto fiorentino per Giuliano della Rovere. Ghezzano: Felici Editore, 2010.

Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell'arte Senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854-56. Holland, DAVACO Publishers, 1969.

Millon, Henry. “The Architectural Theory of Francesco di Giorgio.” Art Bulletin 40 (1958): 257 – 261.

Moores, John D. “New Light on Diomede Carafa and his ‘Perfect Loyalty’ to Ferrante of Aragon.” Italian Studies 26 (1971): 1 – 23.

Mussari, Bruno. “Antonio Fiorentino: la memoria degli interventi per i castelli calabresi promossi da Ferrante I.” Quaderni PAU 21/22 (2001): 31 – 44.

Mussini, Massimo, ed. Francesco di Giorgio e Vitruvio. Le traduzioni del “De architectura” nei codici Zichy, Spencer 129 e Magliabechiano II.I.141. 2 vols. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2003.

---. “Il Trattato di Francesco di Giorgio Martini e Leonardo: il Codice Estense restituito.” Quaderni di Storia dell’Arte 16 (1991).

---. “Siena e Urbino. Origini e sviluppo della trattatistica martiniana.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 317 – 336.

297

Mussolin, Mauro. “Il Beato Bernardo Tolomei e la fondazione di Monte Oliveto Minore a Siena.” La Misericordia di Siena attraverso i secoli. Ed. M. Ascheri and P. Turrini. Siena: Protagon Ed. Toscani, 2004. 495 – 509.

---. “Prassi, teoria, antico nell’architettura Senese del Rinascimento. Un percorso per immagini attraverso i documenti della Biblioteca Comunale.” Architetti a Siena. Testimonianze della Biblioteca Comunale tra XV e XVII secolo. Ed. D. Danesi, M. Pagni and A. Pezzo. Siena: Silvana Editoriale, 2009. 45 – 70.

---. “The Rebuilding of the Church of Santo Spirito in the Late Fifteenth Century.” Renaissance Siena: art in context. Ed. L. A. Jenkens. Kirksville, MO.: Truman State University Press, 2005. 81 – 107.

Os, Henk van. Studies in Early Tuscan Painting. London: The Pindar Press, 1992.

---. Vecchietta and the sacristy of the Siena Hospital Church: a study in Renaissance religious symbolism. Gravenhage: Staatsuitg., 1974.

Nardi, Paolo. “Lo Studio di Siena nell’età Rinascimentale: Appunti e Riflessioni.” Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria 99 (1992): 249 – 265.

---. “Una fonte inedita delle lauree senesi nel secolo XV: i libri di ammistrazione dell’Opera del Duomo.” Annali di storia delle Università italiane 10 (2006): 57 – 69.

Natali, Antonio. “La chiesa di Villa a Castiglione Olona e gli inizi del Vecchietta.” Paragone 35 (1984): 3 –14.

Nauert, Charles G. “Humanists, Scientists, and Pliny: Changing Approaches to a Classical Author.” The American Historical Review 84 (1979): 72 – 78.

Nesselrath, Arnold. “Disegni di Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 337 – 368.

---. “I libri di disegni di antichità. Tentativo di una tipologia.” Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana. Ed. S. Settis. Turin: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1986.

Nevola, Fabrizio. “Creating a stage for an urban elite: there-development of the Via del Capitano and the Piazza Postierla in Siena (1487 – 1520).” The World of Savonarola: Italian Elites and Perceptions of Crisis. Ed. S. Fletcher and C. Shaw. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000. 182 – 193.

---. “Lost of Napkins and a Few Surprises: Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s House, Goods, and Social Standing in Late-Fifteenth-Century Siena.” Annali di architettura 18 –

298

19 (2006 – 2007): 71 – 82.

---. “Ritual Geography: Housing the Papal Court of Pius II Piccolomini in Siena (1459 – 60).” Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena. Ed. P. Jackson and F. Nevola. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 64 – 88.

---. Siena. Constructing the Renaissance City. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.

Pagliara, Pier Nicola. “Vitruvio da testo a canone.” Memoria dell’antico nell’arte italiana. Ed. S. Settis. Vol. III. Turin: Giulio Einaudi editore, 1986. 7 – 82.

Palladio, Andrea. The Four Books on Architecture. Trans. Robert Tavernor and Richard Schofield. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997.

Pane, Roberto. “Francesco di Giorgio Martini nell’Italia meridionale. La cappella del Pontano. Le fortificazioni pugliesi.” Il Rinascimento nell’Italia meridonale. Vol. II. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità, 1977. 199 – 240.

---. “Giuliano da Maiano. Poggioreale, la Duchesca e la Conigliera. Opere minori, chiostri del XV e XVI secolo.” Il Rinascimento nell’Italia meridonale. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità, 1977. 37 – 74.

Pantanelli, Antonio. Francesco di Giorigo Martini. Pittore, Scultore e Architetto Senese del secolo XV e dell’arte de’suoi tempi in Siena. Siena: Ignazio Gati, editore, 1870.

Paoletti, John. “Antonio Federighi: A Documentary Re-Evaluation and a New Attribution.” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 17 (1975): 87 – 143.

Papini, Roberto. Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. Florence: Electa Editrice, 1946.

Parronchi, Alessandro. Un Trattato inedito di architettura militare riferibile a Baldassare Peruzzi. Florence: Edizioni Gonnelli, 1982.

Patetta, Tobia. “Pio II: Committenze e Scelte nelle arti figurative tra Siena e Roma.” Pio II Umanista Europeo. Atti del XVII Convegno Internazionale (Chianciano-Pienza 18 – 21 luglio 2005). Ed. L. S. Tarugi. Florence: Franco Cesati Editore, 2007. 795 – 814.

Payne, Alina. The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance. Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

---. The Telescope and the Compass: Teofilo Gallaccini and the Dialogue between Architecture and Science in the Age of Galileo. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2012.

299

Pedretti, Carlo. “Excursus 3: Francesco di Giorgio, ‘Trattato di Architettura Civile e Militare.’ Pages Annotated by Leonardo.” Leonardo Architect. Trans. S. Brill. New York: Rizzoli, 1981. 196 – 204.

Pepper, Simon. “Castles and cannon in the Naples campaign of 1494 – 95.” The French descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95: Antecedents and Effects. Ed. D. Abulafia. Aldershot: Variorum 1995. 263 – 291.

Pepper, Simon and Nicholas Adams. Firearms and Fortifications. Military Architecture and Siege Warfare in Sixteenth-Century Siena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Pepper, S. and Q. Hughes. “Fortification in late 15th century Italy: the treatise of Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” Papers in Italian archaeology 1: the Lancaster seminar: recent research in prehistoric, classical, and medieval archaeology. Ed. H. M. Blake, T. W. Potter, D. B. Whitehouse. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1978.

Peruzzi, Marcella. Cultura Potere Immagine: La Biblioteca di Federico di Montefeltro. Urbino: Accademia Raffaello, 2004.

Petrucci, Fabio Bargagli. “Francesco di Giorgio Operaio dei Bottini in Siena.” Bollettino senese di storia patria IX (1902): 227 – 236.

---. Le Fonti di Siena e i Loro Aquedotti. Note storici dalla origini fino al MDLV. 2 vols. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1906.

Ponti, G. Amate l’architettura. Milan: Cooperativa Universitaria Studio e Lavoro, 2004.

Popham, Arthur and Philip Pouncey. Italian drawings in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. 2 vols. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1950.

Popplow, Marcus. “Protection and Promotion: Privileges for Inventions and Books of Machines in the Early Modern Period.” History of Technology, volume 20. Ed. G. Hollister-Short London: The Institute of Historical Research, University of London, 1999. 103 – 124.

Prager, Frank D. and G. Scaglia. Brunelleschi: Studies of His Technology and Inventions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1970.

---. Mariano Taccola and His Book De Ingeneis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1972.

Promis, Carlo. Vita di Francesco di Giorgio Martini architetto senese del secolo XV. Turin: Chirio & Mina, 1841.

300

Quast, Matthias. “Il linguaggio di Francesco di Giorgio nell’ambito dell’architettura dei palazzi senesi.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 401 – 432.

Quattrucci, Angela. “Gli archivi minerali di Massa Marittima: prime esperienze di riordino.” Una tradizione senese: dalla Pirotechnia di Vannoccio Biringucci al Museo del Mercurio. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche, 2000. 303 – 310.

Quinterio, Francesco. Giuliano da Maiano "grandissimo domestico." Rome: Officina Edizioni, 1996.

Ramelli, Agostino. Le diverse et artificiose machine. Ed. Gustina Scaglia. Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1991.

Rankin, F.K.C. The Arithmetic and Algebra of Luca Pacioli (c. 1445 – 1517). PhD Diss. The Warburg Institute, 1992.

Reti, Ladislao. “Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s Treatise on Engineering and Its Plagiarists.” Technology and Culture 4 (1963): 287 – 298.

Ricci, Francesco. Francesco di Giorgio e il Castello Aragonese di Taranto. Taranto: Scorpione Editrice, 2012.

Richardson, Brian. Manuscript Culture in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Rocchi, Enrico. “Francesco di Giorgio Martini architetto civile e militare.” Rivista d’artigliera e genio II (1900): 184 – 214.

---. “Francesco di Giorgio nelle tradizioni dell’ingegneria militare italiana.” Bollettino senese di storia patria IX (1902): 186 – 201.

---. “L’ opera e i tempi di Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” Bollettino senese di storia patria VII (1900): 183 – 230.

Romagnoli, Ettore. "Francesco di Giorgio di Martino. Architetto, Ingegniere, Scultore, Pittore, Bronzzetta, ec.” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800. Vol. IV. Florence: Edizioni S.P.E.S, 1976. 685 – 941.

---. “Giovanni delle Bombarde, Bronzetta e Scultore.” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800. Vol. V. Florence: Edizioni S.P.E.S, 1976. 135 – 138.

---. “Jacomo di Benedetto di Nanni di Cozzarello, architetto, scultore.” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800. Vol. V. Florence: Edizioni

301

S.P.E.S, 1976. 209 – 232.

---. “Paolo di Salvetto Salvetti. Ingegner militare, minerologista, etc.” Biografia Cronologica de’ Bellartisti Senesi. 1200 – 1800. Vol. V. Florence: Edizioni S.P.E.S, 1976. 355 - 389.

Romanelli, Elena. “Scuole e botteghe di architettura fortificata.” La sicurezza dell’esistere: le architetture fortificate al tempo di Lorenzo. Institute: Scramasax, 1992. 143 – 154.

Rosenfeld, Myra Nan. “From drawn to printed model book: Jacques Androuet Du Cerceau and the transmission of ideas from designer to patron, master mason and architect in the Renaissance.” Racar 16 (1989): 131 – 145.

---. “Sebastiano Serlio’s Contibutions to the Creation of the Modern Illustrated Architectural Manual.” Sebastiano Serlio. Sesto Seminario Internazionale di Storia dell’Architettura. Vicenza 31 agosto – 4 settembre 1987. Ed. C. Thoenes. Milan: Electa, 1989. 102 – 110.

Rotondi, P. “Ancora un’opera sconosciuta di Francesco di Giorgio in Urbino.” Commentari: Rivista di critica e storia dell’arte (1950): 89 – 91.

---. Francesco di Giorgio nel Palazzo Ducale di Urbino. Milan: Provinciali Spotorno, 1970.

Rowland, Ingrid. “Vitruvius and Technology.” Architettura e tecnologia. Acque, tecniche,e cantieri nell’architettura rinascimentale e barocca. Ed. Claudia Conforti and Andrew Hopkins. Nuova Argos: Rome, 2002. 245 – 259.

Rowland, Ingrid, ed. Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. The Corsini Incunabulum with the annotations and autograph drawings of Giovanni Battista da Sangallo. Rome: Edizioni dell’Elefante, 2003.

Rusciano, Claudia. “Presenza e intervenuti di Francesco di Giorgio in Campania.” Francesco di Giorgio Martini: rocche, città, paesaggi: Atti del convegno nazionale di studio, Siena, 30-31 maggio 2002. Rome: Kappa, 2004. 151 – 160.

Russo, Flavio. “La Murazione Aragonese di Napoli.” Archivio Storico per le Province Napoletane. Naples: Societa Napoletana di Storia Patria, 1987. 87 – 120.

Salazar, L. ed. “Racconti di storia napoletana.” Archivio Storico per le province napoletane XXXIII (1908): 507 – 508.

Salmi, Mario. Disegni di Francesco di Giorgio nella collezione Chigi-Saraceni. Siena: Accademia-Chigiana, 1947.

302

Salomon, X. and L. Syson. “Cassone Paintings.” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. Ed. L. Syson. London: National Gallery, 2007. 213.

Sanpaolesi, P. “Aspetti di architettura del '400 a Siena e Francesco di Giorgio.” Studi artistici urbinati 1(1959): 139 – 168.

Santoro, Fiorella Sricchia. “Francesco di Giorgio, Signorelli a Siena e la cappella Bichi.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. Ed. L. Bellosi, F.P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993. 420 – 423.

Santi, Giovanni. La Vita a le gesta di Federico di Montefeltro, Duca d’Urbino: poema in terza rima (Codice Vat. Ottob. lat. 1305). 2 vols. Ed. L. M. Tocci. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1985.

Scaglia, Gustina. A Translation of Vitruvius and Copes of Late Antique Drawings in Buonaccorso Ghiberti’s Zibaldone. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1979.

---. “Drawings of Machines for Architecture from the Early Quattrocento in Italy.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 25 (1966): 90 – 114.

---. “Francesco di Giorgio, autore.” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena del Rinascimento. Ed. Paolo Galluzzi. Milan: Electa, 1991. 59 – 79.

---. Francesco di Giorgio. Checklist and History of Manuscripts and Drawings in Autographs and Copies from ca. 1470 to 1687 and Renewed Copies (1764 – 1839). Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Press, 1992.

---. Il“Vitruvio Magliabechiano” di Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Florence: Edizioni Gonelli, 1985.

---. “The Development of Francesco di Giorgio’s Treatise in Siena.” Les Traites d’Architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1st au 11 juillet 1981. Ed. André Chastel and Jean Guillaume. Paris: Picard, 1988. 91 – 97.

Scher, Stephen K. The Currency of Fame: Portrait Medals of the Renaissance. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1994.

Schlimme, Hermann, ed. Practice and Science in Early Modern Italian Building. Milan: Electa, 2006.

Scotti, A. “Il Collegio degli Architetti, ingegneri e agrimensori tra il XVI e il XVII secolo,” Costruire in Lombardia: Aspetti e problem di storia edilizia. Ed. A. Castellano and O. Selvafolta. Milan: Electa, 1983. 92 – 108

Seidel, Max. “Die Fresken des Francesco di Giorgio in S. Agostino in Siena.”

303

Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 23 (1979): 2 – 108.

Serino, Vinicio, ed. Siena e l’acqua. Storia e immagini della città e delle sue fonti. Siena: Nuova Immagine Editrice, 1997.

Serlio, S. On Architecture. Books I – V of ‘Tutte L’Opere D’Architettura et Prospetiva’ by Sebastiano Serlio. Ed. V. Hart and P. Hicks. Vol. 1. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Serra, L. “Le Rocche di Mondavio e di Cagli e altri fortezze di Francesco di Giorgio Martini nelle Marche.” Miscellanea di Storia dell’arte in onore di I Benvenuto Supino. Florence: Leo Olschki, 1933. 435 – 455.

Serrazanetti, F. and M. Schubert. Eds. The Hand of the Architect: Three Hundred and Seventy-eight Signed Drawings by some of the Greatest Contemporary Architects. Milan: Moleskine, 2009.

Shaw, Christine. Ascesa al potere di Pandolfo Petrucci. Siena: Edizioni il Leccio, 2001.

---. “Peace-making rituals in fifteenth-century Siena.” Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena. Ed. P. Jackson and F. Nevola. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 89 – 103.

---. Pius II and the government of Siena.” Pio II Piccolomini: il Papa del Rinascimento a Siena. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi 5 -7 Maggio 2005. Ed. F. Nevola. Siena: Protagon Editori, 2009. 25 – 35.

---. “Politics and Institutional Innovation in Siena 1480 – 1498 (I).” Bullettino Senese di Storia Patria 103 (1996): 9 – 102.

---. Popular Government and Oligarchy in Renaissance Italy. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

---. “Memory and Tradition in Sienese Political Life in the Fifteenth Century.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 9 (1999): 221 – 231.

Shearman, John. “The Born Architect?” Studies in the history of art. Vol. 17. Washington, DC: The National Gallery of Art, 1986. 203-210.

Simonetta, Marcello, ed. Federico da Montefeltro and his Library. Vatican: Y. Press, 2007.

--- . “Federico da Montefeltro Architetto della Congiura dei Pazzi e del Palazzo di Urbino.” Francesco di Giorgio alla Corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi. Urbino, 11-13 ottobre 2001. Ed. F. P. Fiore. Florence: Leo Olschki Editore, 2004. 81 – 102.

304

Sisi, Carlo. “Giacomo Cozzarelli (Siena, 1435 – 1515).” Domenico Beccafumi e il suo tempo. Milan: Electa, 1990. 540 – 547.

Speziale, Giuseppe Carlo. Storia militare di Taranto negli ultimi 5 secoli. Bari: Laterza, 1930.

“Storia del Castello di Pizzo.” Museo del Castello Pizzo Calabro. Piazza della Repubblica, 1, 89812 Pizzo Vibo Valentia, Italy. 28 December 2012.

Strazzallo, Franco. Architetti e Ingegneri Napoletani dal ‘500 al ‘700. Turin: Edizioni di Gabriele e Mariateresa Benincasa, 1969.

Strehlke, Carl Brandon. “Art and Culture in Renaissance Siena.” Painting in Renaissance Siena, 1420 - 1500. Ed. K. Christiansen, L. B. Kanter, and C. B. Strehlke. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988. 33 – 60.

---. “Vecchietta.” Painting in Renaissance Siena, 1420 – 1550. Ed. K. Christiansen, L. B. Kanter and C. B. Strehlke. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988. 258 – 259

Syson, Luke. “Male Nude with Snake (Aesculapius?), about 1490 – 5.” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. Ed. L. Syson. London: The National Gallery, 2007. 226.

---. “Portrait medal of Antonio di Ambrogio Spannocchi (1474 – 1503), about 1494.” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. Ed. L. Syson. London: The National Gallery, 2007. 227.

---. “Portrait medal of Giacoppo Petrucci (1434 – 1497), about 1487.” Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. Ed. L. Syson. London: The National Gallery, 2007. 194 – 198.

---. “Study after figures of ‘Rhea Silvia’ and ‘Acca Laurentia’ by Jacopo della Quercia on the Fonte Gaia.” Ed. L. Syson. Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. London: National Gallery, 2007. 248

Syson, Luke, ed. Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. London: The National Gallery, 2007.

Tavernor, Robert. “Chapter IX: Federico da Montefeltro of Urbino and Alberti’s Design for a Bath Building.” On Alberti and the Art of Building. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. 189 – 200.

Tafuri, Manfredo. “La Chiesa di San Sebastiano in Vallepiatta a Siena. 1493 circa e sgg.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. Eds. F. P. Fiore, and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1994. 302 – 317.

---. “Le chiesa di Francesco di Giorgio Martini.” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto. Eds.

305

F. P. Fiore, and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1994. 21 – 73.

Toca, Mircea. “I disegni di Baldassare Peruzzi per i trattati d’architectura.” Necropoli 13- 14 (1971): 54 – 72.

Tocci, Luigi Michelini. “Disegni e appunti autografi di Francesco di Giorgio in un codice del Taccola.” Scritti di Storia dell’Arte in Onore di Mario Salmi. Vol. 2. Rome: De Luca Editore, 1962. 203 – 212.

---. “Federico di Montefeltro e Ottaviano Ubaldini della Carda.” Vol. 1. Federico di Montefeltro. Lo Stato. Le Arti. La Cultura. 3 vols. Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1986. 297 – 344.

Tognarini, Ivan, ed. Una Tradizione Senese: Dalla Pirotechnia di Vannoccio Birgingucci al Museo del Mercurio. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2000.

Toker, Franklin. “Alberti’s Ideal Architect: Renaissance – or Gothic?” Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth. Ed. A. Morrogh et. al. Florence: Giunta Barbèra: 1985. 666 – 674.

---. “Gothic Architecture by Remote Control: An Illustrated Building Contract of 1340.” The Art Bulletin 67 (1985): 67 – 95

Toledano, Ralph. Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Pittore e Scultore. Milan: Electa, 1987.

Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s practice in Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Trachtenberg, Marvin. Building-in-Time: From Giotto to Alberti and Modern Oblivion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Tronti, Carlo and Marco Valenti, eds. La Fonte di Follonica e le fonti medievali di Siena. Florence: All’insegna del Giglio, 2004.

Ugolini, Andrea. “Giovan Battista Belluzzi architetto militare e trattatista.” Castella Marchiae 8/9 (2007): 203-206.

Valleriani, Matteo. Galileo Engineer. Boston: Springer Science and Business Media, 2010.

Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de' più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori nelle redazoni del 1550 e 1568. Ed. R. Bettarini and P. Barocchi. 3 vols. Florence: Sansoni, 1966 – 87.

---. Lives of the Painters, Sculptors and Architects. 2 vols. Trans. G. du C. de Vere. New York: Everyman’s Library, 1996.

306

Vasoli, Cesare. “Michelozzo e la cultura fiorentina del suo tempo.” Michelozzo. Scultore e Architetto (1396 – 1472). Ed. G. Morolli. Florence: Centro Di: Associazione dimore storiche italiane, 1998. 9 – 20.

Vatovec, Corinna Vasić. Luca Fancelli, Architetto. Florence: UNIEDIT, 1979.

Viganò, Marino. “I Cantieri delle Fortificazioni: Committenti, Ingegneri, Maestranze." Architettura Fortificata: Un Problema Interpretativo e Operativo. Ed F. Manetti Valli. Rome: Istituto Italiano dei Castelli, 2002.

Vigni, Giorgio. Lorenzo di Pietro detto il Vecchietta. Florence: G.C. Sansoni Editore, 1937. da Vignola, Jacopo Barozzi. Le Due Regole della prospettiva practica. Rome: Per Francesco Zanetti, 1583.

Villa, Guglielmo. “Rocche, città e territorio nei Trattati martiniani.” Francesco di Giorgio Martini: rocche, città, paesaggi: Atti del convegno nazionale di studio, Siena, 30-31 maggio 2002. Rome: Kappa, 2004. 19 – 29.

Vivarelli, Maurizio. Massa Marittima. Florence: Franco Cantini Editore, 1999.

Volpe, Gianni. Francesco di Giorgio. Architetture nel ducato di Urbino. Milan: Clup- Città Studi, 1991.

---. IO DVX – IO PRE. Urbanistica e architettura nelle terre marchigiane di Giovanni Della Rovere (1474 – 1501). Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti, 1993.

---. Rocche e fortificazioni del Ducato di Urbino (1444 – 1502). Intro. Paolo Marconi. Urbino: Comitato per le celebrazioni fredericiane, Regione Marche, 1982.

---. “Ricerche e riflessioni dale Marche settentrionali. Le fortificazioni roveresche tra Metauro e Cesano.” Francesco di Giorgio Martini: rocche, città, paesaggi: Atti del convegno nazionale di studio, Siena, 30-31 maggio 2002. Rome: Kappa, 2004. 79 – 96.

Volpicella, L. Regis Ferdinandi primi instructionum liber (10 maggio 1486 – 10 maggio 1488). Naples: L. Pierro and Figlio, 1916.

Warnke, Martin. The Court Artist. On the Ancestry of the Modern Artist. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Weller, Allen Stuart. Francesco di Giorgio 1439 – 1501. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943.

307

Wolf, Eric. “Reevaluating Francesco di Giorgio on the Form and Nomenclature of Columns.” Reconstructing Francesco di Giorgio. Ed. B. Hub and A. Pollali Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2011. 33 – 59.

---. The Ecclesiastical Architecture of Francesco di Giorgio Martini: A Study of Theory and Practice. PhD Diss. Harvard University, 1998.

---. “The French connection: Philibert de l’Orme reads Francesco di Giorgio Martini. Coming About… A Festschrift for John Shearman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Art Museums, 2001. 313 – 315.

Wilkinson, Catherine. “Renaissance Treatises on Military Architecture and the Science of Mechanics.” Les Traites d’Architecture de la Renaissance. Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1st au 11 juillet 1981. Ed. A. Chastel and J. Guillaume. Paris: Picard, 1988. 467 – 474.

---. “The New Professionalism in the Renaissance.” The Architect: Chapters in the History the Profession. Ed. S. Kostof. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 124 – 160.

Wilton-Ely, J. “The Rise of the Professional Architect in England.” The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession. Ed. S. Kostof. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 180 – 208.

Zaggia, Stefano. “Architetture universitarie: collegi per studenti e palazzo dello Studio.” Luoghi, spazi, architetture. Ed. D. Calabi and E. Svalduz. Vicenza: Fondazione Cassamarca, 2010. 229 – 250.

Zarrilli, C. “Francesco di Giorgio pittore e scultore nelle fonti archivisitiche senesi.” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500. Ed. L. Bellosi, F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri. Milan: Electa, 1993.

Zonca, Vittorio. Novo Teatro Di Machine Et Edificii. Ed. C. Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1985.

308

Appendix I: Figures

List of Figures

Chapter I: Critical Biography of Francesco di Giorgio, Architect of Siena

Figure I.1: Rocca di Sassocorvaro; designed by Francesco di Giorgio c. 1476 – 1478 (source: author)

Figure I.2: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto (c. 1460 – 1475); folio 60v: fortification plans and cannon cradles; top right – plan for the Rocca Sassocorvaro (Codex Urbinus Latinus 1757, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana)

Figure I.3: Rocca di Cagli; designed by Francesco di Giorgio c. 1478 – 1482 (source: author)

Figure I.4: Western side of the Palazzo Ducale and Duomo of Urbino; design contributions by Francesco di Giorgio c. 1475 – 1490 (source: author)

Figure I.5: San Bernardino, exterior view of apse and cylindrical dome; designed by Francesco di Giorgio (1480s) (source: author)

Figure I.6: Rocca di Mondavio; designed by Francesco di Giorgio c. 1482 – 1490 (source: author)

Figure I.7: Santa Maria del Calcinaio, Cortona; designed by Francesco di Giorgio 1484 – 1485 (source: author)

Figure I.8: Palazzo della Signoria, Jesi; designed by Francesco di Giorgio 1481-1482; late-19th century model (Biblioteca Planettiana, Jesi)

Chapter II: Technical Training & the Architect’s Education

Figure II.1: Bottino maestro of the Fonte del Campo, Siena (source: Balestracci, Lamberini and Civai)

Figure II.2: Fontebranda, Siena (constructed late-14th century) (source: author)

Figure II.3: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 86v: illustrations of cannons, artillery and scheme for drilling mine beneath a fortification

Figure II.4: Spiral stair-ramp of the Rocca of Sassocorvaro (1476 – 1478) (source: author)

309

Figure II.5: Core of the air and communication shaft within the spiral stair-ramp, Rocca of Sassocorvaro (1476 – 1478) (source: author)

Figure II.6: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II, 1427 – 1441); folio 60r: naval vessels in variation with defensive shields and extendible attack-arms (Codex Monacensis 197 II, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich)

Figure II.7: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 38v: Archimedean screw with marginal illustrations

Figure II.8: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 21r: cavalier with portable bombard

Figure II.9: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books III & IV, 1432 – 1433); folio 1v: portrait of Emperor Sigismund (codex Palatina 766, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence)

Figure II.10: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books III & IV); folio 36r: terracotta device for lifting sunken objects

Figure II.11: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 30r: mermaid- man steering ox

Figure II.12: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books III & IV); folio 13v/14r: image of Filippo Brunelleschi’s marble transport device (“Badalone”) with transparent view of adjacent quarry

Figure II.13: Anonymous Sienese, Codex Additional 34113 (c. 1480); folio 148v: copy of De Ingeneis, Book I, folio 21r (Codex Additional 34113, British Library, London)

Figure II.14: Anonymous Sienese, Codex Additional 34113; folio 211r: copy of column- lifting device from Francesco di Giorgio’s Opusculum de’Architectura

Figure II.15: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 39v: counter- weight trebuchet

Figure II.16: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 40r: water- powered mill in landscape

Figure II.17: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 130v: pontoon, two wind-motors, and boat-water-mill, possibly added by Francesco di Giorgio

Figure II.18: Giuliano da Sangallo, Codex Barberini (c. 1465 – 1510); folio 6r: mixed sheet with building plans, studies of ornamental corbels, entablature profile, vases and composite capital (codex Barberinus latinus 4424, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana)

310

Figure II.19: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 70v: floating bridge; diagram for mill powered by aqueduct

Figures II.20: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 82r: mobile assault ladder; plans for defensive moats and ditches

Figure II.21: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 99r: underground canal feeding fish-pond

Figure II.22: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 19r: underground canal feeding fish- pond

Figure II.23: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books III & IV); folio 4r: chain “Tartar” pump

Figure II.24: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 86r: chain “Tartar” pump

Figure II.25: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 97v: mobile dragons for military attack

Figure II.26: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 53v: mobile dragons for military attack

Figure II.27: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 13r: “Good Harbor” design

Figure II.28: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folios 32r: variation on the “Good Harbor”

Figure II.29: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folios 112r: variation on the “Good Harbor”

Figure II.30: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books I & II); folio 41v: capstan winch for lifting or pulling weights

Figure II.31: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 129r: capstan winch for lifting or pulling weights

Figure II.32: Jacopo Mariano Taccola, De Ingeneis (Books III & IV); folio 44r: recovery of sunken columns

Figure II.33: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 126r: recovery of sunken columns

Figure II.34: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 116r: gear-shafts

Figure II.35: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 137v: multiple-gear rotary mill

311

Figure II.36: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 137r: directional windmill

Figure II.37: Francesco di Giorgio, Codicetto; folio 117r: foreshortened illustration of gear-shaft (top) and obelisk in transport mechanism

Figure II.38: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 17v: geometrical diagrams which illustrate the methods of quadrature (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence)

Figure II.39: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 24v: orthogonal plan projections for palaces (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure II.40: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 72r: orthogonal plan projections for fortifications (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure II.41: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 34r: Ionic capital in section and elevation (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure II.42: Francesco di Giorgio, Raccolta di Antichità (c. 1490); folio 76r: interior elevation and plan drawings of the Basilica of Maxentius, Rome (codex Saluzziano 148, Biblioteca Reale, Turin)

Figure II.43: Guido da Vigevano, Texaurus Regis Francie (1335); folio 49r: transparent view of ship with motor-elements (Source: Database of Machine Drawings)

Figure II.44: Giovanni Fontana, Bellicorum instrumentorum liber (c.1430); folio 2v: transparent view of flame tower (Source: Database of Machine Drawings)

Figure II.45: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 12v: transparent-views of camini (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure II.46: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 94r: transparent view of suction pump (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure II.47: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 75v: axonometric illustration of fortification model (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure II.48: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 97v: “open- box” illustration of multiple-gear, horse-powered rotary mill (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure II.49: Anonymous sixteenth-century architect; UA 521: copy-drawings of Francesco di Giorgio’s “open-box” machine illustrations (Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi, Florence)

312

Figure II.50: Anonymous sixteenth-century architect, Codex Math. 200 (c. 1590 – 1600); folio 29r: “open-box” machine illustrations in the manner of Francesco di Giorgio Codex (Hamburg Staatsbibliothek)

Figure II.51: Notebook of Guidobaldo da Monte (1545 – 1607); folio 29r: detail of roller- beam hoist (Codex Lat. VIII. 87, 3048, Biblioteca Marciana, Venice)

Figure II.52: Jacques Gentillâtre (1578 – 1633), Ms. Français 14727; folio 552r: “open- box” illustration of pulley (Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris)

Chapter III: The Architect’s Travel

Figure III.1: Francesco di Giorgio, Taccuino dei Viaggi; UA 331r: vault stuccoes at Baia (Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi, Florence)

Figure III.2: Francesco di Giorgio, Taccuino dei Viaggi; UA 335r: ground plans from Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli

Figure III.3: Francesco di Giorgio, Taccuino dei Viaggi; UA 335v: three palazzo and two fortification plans, with study of capital from the temple of Sant’Angelo in Perugia, and sketch of figurative relief from Chiusi

Figure III.4: Francesco di Giorgio, Taccuino dei Viaggi; UA 319v: plan and elevation studies from Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli

Figure III.5: Francesco di Giorgio, Taccuino dei Viaggi; UA 334r: plan study of Circus of Maxentius, Rome

Figure III.6: Francesco di Giorgio, Taccuino dei Viaggi; UA 326r: study of relief decoration from Roman sarcophagus in the church of San Paolo, building plans, copy of inscription from Campo Marzio in Rome

Figure III.7: Francesco di Giorgio, Taccuino dei Viaggi; UA 326v: study of sculptural details from the Abbey of Monte Cassino

Figure III.8: Simone di Tomaso del Pollaiolo Il Cronaca, “Studies of Corinthian column from the Florentine Baptistery” (c. 1485 – 1500) (DR1985:0674, Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montréal)

Figure III.9: Simone di Tomaso del Pollaiolo Il Cronaca, “Study of a capital from the S.S. Apostoli, Florence (c. 1485 – 1500) (DR1985:0674, Canadian Centre for Architecture)

313

Figure III.10: Giuliano da Sangallo, Codex Barberini; folio 26r: study of ruined facade with inscription, and profile of Doric capital with exact measures, both from the Forum Boarium in Rome

Figure III.11: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 21r: palace plans (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure III.12: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 20v: “Case dei Signori” (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure III.13: Castello di Bari, detail of corner angled bastion; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, c. 1485 (source: author)

Figure III.14: Aerial view of Castello di Manfredonia; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, 1480s (source: Museo di Castello di Manfredonia)

Figure III.15: Castello Aragonese di Taranto; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, late-1480s (source: author)

Figure III.16: Castello di Vasto, detail of almond-shape bastion; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, early-1480s (source: author)

Figure III.17: Castello di Monte Sant’Angelo, detail of almond-shape bastion; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, 1490 – 1491 (source: author)

Figure III.18: Francesco di Giorgio, Trattato di Architettura (c. 1495); folio 53v: variations of bastions (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure III.19: Castello di Otranto, detail of segmented triangular and oval bastions; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, c. 1490 (source: author)

Figure III.20: Castello di Otranto, detail of western ditch; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, c. 1490 (source: author)

Figure III.21: Castello Aragonese di Taranto, view of subterranean corridor; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, late-1480s (source: author)

Figure III.22: Castello di Gaeta; Aragonese reconstruction with interventions of Francesco di Giorgio, 1490s (source: author)

Figure III.23: Francesco di Giorgio, Raccolta Magliabechiana (c. 1495); folio 205v: model-drawing of polygonal fortress (codex Magliabechiana II.I.141)

Figure III.24: Baldassare Peruzzi; UA 608: plans of the fortresses of Cetona and Sarteano, Siena (c. 1530) (Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi)

314

Figure III.25: Antonio da Sangallo the Younger; UA: 736r: elevation study for the Rocca Paolina (c. 1540) (Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe) (source: Frommel and Adams, 1994)

Figure III.26: Antonio da Sangallo the Younger; UA760r: early study for Fortezza da Basso, Florence (1534) (Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe) (source: Frommel and Adams, 1994)

Chapter IV: The Architect as Politician & Entrepreneur

Figure IV.1: Francesco di Giorgio, Triumph of Chasity (c. 1463 – 1468); tempera on panel, 14.5 x 47.6 in. (source: J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, CA)

Figure IV.2: Francesco di Giorgio; U396E: “Two Female Figures” (c. 1475) (Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi)

Figure IV.3: Francesco di Giorgio, Opusculum de’Architectura (c. 1475); folio 25v: four- wheel cart (Ms. 197.b.21, The British Museum, London)

Figure IV.4: Francesco di Giorgio, Opusculum de’architettura; folio 49v: bridge of inflated skins, folding bridge and two men with water-wings and paddles

Figure IV.5: Francesco di Giorgio, Opusculum de’Architectura; folio 19r: building crane

Figure IV.6: Francesco di Giorgio, Opusculum de’Architectura; folio 15r: column-lifting device

Figure IV.7: Anonymous Sienese, Codex Palatina 767: copybook of machine drawings (c. 1480); folio 93r: four-wheel cart derived from Francesco di Giorgio’s Opusculum de’Architectura (Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence)

Figure IV.8: Anonymous Sienese, Codex Palatina 767; folio 191: building crane derived from Francesco di Giorgio’s Opusculum de’Architectura

Figure IV.9: Francesco di Giorgio, Opusculum de’Architectura; folio 15v: breechloading bombards fixed on carriages

Figure IV.10: Francesco di Giorgio, Opusculum de’Architectura; folio 36r: artillery variations mounted on carriages

Figure IV.11: Francesco di Giorgio, Raccolta Magliabechiana; folio 194r: studies of a bronze, beech-loading cannon

315

Figure IV.12: Francesco di Giorgio, Raccolta Magliabechiana; folio 196r: illustration of a multiple-projectile cannon

Figure IV.13: Anonymous Sienese, Codex Palatina 767; folio 163r: five variations of cannons; the bottom one bears the inscription: “Opus Dio. Vit” – which refers to Dionisio da Viterbo

Figure IV.14: Anonymous Sienese, Codex Palatina 767; folio 162r: illustration of cannon, bearing the Orsini coat of arms and carrying the inscription “OPVS FRANCISIS”

Figure IV.15: Anonymous Sienese, Codex Additional 34113; folio 199r: section and transparent views of a cannon, with detail of screw joint which holds together the chamber piece and the outer barrel

Chapter V: Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato as Textbook & its Legacy

Figure V.1: Anonymous Sienese copyist, Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura (version two) (c.1530); unnumbered folio: Book 5 on fortifications (codex Spencer 181, New York Public Library, New York)

Figure V.2: Anonymous Sienese copyist, Codex Beinecke 491: Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura (version one) (c.1520); folio 15r: columnar proportions and the human analogy to the column capital (Beinecke Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut)

Figure V.3: Anonymous copyist, derivation of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura (c.1515); folio 67r: column capitals (Codex Ital. IV 3-4 (5541), Biblioteca Marciana, Venice)

Figure V.4: Antonio da Sangallo the Younger, Trattato di Architettura copy-drawings (c. 1510- 1520); folio UA 4078r: pulley-systems for hoisting weights, column hauler, building crane (Gabinetto dei Disegni e delle Stampe, Galleria Uffizi)

Figure V.5: Anonymous copyist, Album Codex 10.935 (c.1530); folio 133v: Cut-out illustrations of vaults, vaulting supports and camino from Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna)

Figure V.6: Anonymous copyist, Album Codex 10.935; folio 132v: cut-out illustrations of camini from Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura

Figure V.7: Anonymous copyist, Album Codex 10.935; detail of folio 132v: detail of camini ventilation from Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato di Architettura

316

Figure V.8: Anonymous Sienese copyist, Codex Beinecke 491; folio 13r: detail of camini ventilation system

Figure V.9: Anonymous copyist, Codex Math. 200; folio 27r: windlass worked by treadmill and shears, copied from Francesco di Giorgio’s Opusculum de’Architectura

Figure. V.10: Bernardo Puccini, Codex Palatino 1077: manuscript of machine drawings (c. 1565); folio 111r: force pump (Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence) (source: Lamberini, 1992)

Figure V.11: Vittorio Zonca, Novo teatro di machine et edificii (1607); folio 107: piston force-pump (source: ECHO – Cultural Heritage Online, Max-Planck Institute for the History of Science)

Figure V.12: Jacopo Strada, Kunstliche Abriss, allerhand Wasser-, Wind-, Ross- und Hand Mühlen (1617); plate 87: grain mill (source: E-lib.ch: Elektronische Bibliothek Schweiz, ETH-Bibliothek Zürich)

317

Figure I.1 318

Figure I.2 319

Figure I.3 320

Figure I.4 321

Figure I.5 322

Figure I.6 323

Figure I.7 324

Figure I.8 325

Figure II.1 326

Figure II.2 327

Figure II.3 328

Figure II.4 329

Figure II.5 330

Figure II.6 331

Figure II.7 332

Figure II.8 333

Figure II.9 334

Figure II.10 335

Figure II.11 336

Figure II.12 337

Figure II.13 338

Figure II.14 339

Figure II.15 340

Figure II.16 341

Figure II.17 342

Figure II.18 343

Figures II.19 & II.20 344

Figures II.21 & II.22 345

Figures II.23 & II.24 346

Figures II.25 & II.26 347

Figure II.27 348

Figures II.28 & II.29 349

Figure II.30 350

Figure II.31 351

Figures II.32 & II.33 352

Figure II.34 353

Figure II.35 354

Figure II.36 355

Figure II.37 356

Figure II.38 357

Figure II.39 358

Figure II.40 359

Figure II.41 360

Figure II.42 361

Figure II.43 362

Figure II.44 363

Figure II.45 364

Figure II.46 365

Figure II.47 366

Figure II.48 367

Figure II.49 368

Figure II.50 369

Figure II.51 370

Figure II.52 371

Figure III.1 372

Figure III.2 373

Figure III.3 374

Figure III.4 375

Figure III.5 376

Figure III.6 377

Figure III.7 378

Figure III.8 379

Figure III.9 380

Figure III.10 381

Figure III.11 382

Figure III.12 383

Figure III.13 384

Figure III.14 385

Figure III.15 386

Figure III.16 387

Figure III.17 388

Figure III.18 389

Figure III.19 390

Figure III.20 391

Figure III.21 392

Figure III.22 393

Figure III.23 394

Figure III.24 395

Figure III.25 396

Figure III.26 397

Figure IV.1 398

Figure IV.2 399

Figure IV.3 400

Figure IV.4 401

Figure IV.5 402

Figure IV.6 403

Figure IV.7 404

Figure IV.8 405

Figure IV.9 406

Figure IV.10 407

Figure IV.11 408

Figure IV.12 409

Figure IV.13 410

Figure IV.14 411

Figure IV.15 412

Figure V.1 413

Figure V.2 414

Figure V.3 415

Figure V.4 416

Figure V.5 417

Figure V.6 418

Figures V.7 & V.8 419

Figure V.9 420

Figure V.10 421

Figure V.11 422

Figure V.12 423

Appendix II: Maps

Map I: Territory of Siena in the fifteenth-century

424

Map II: Locations recorded in Francesco di Giorgio’s Taccuino dei Viaggi

425

Map III: Locations recorded in the Taccuino dei Viaggi in relation to the Roman roads

426

Map IV: Neapolitan fortifications designed or modified by Francesco di Giorgio

427

Appendix III: Archival Documents

Where provided, the translations to the documents are my own. These should not be regarded as definitive. The prose of these texts, frequently employing a mixed Latin- Italian vernacular, is awkward. Many of the passages use archaic terminology and contain notarial abbreviations, making literal translations exceeding and convoluted.

Note on dating, measurements and money:

Dating: The Tuscan year began on March 25, the day of the Annunciation, rather than on January 1. The dates of the following documents have been modified according to modern usage.

Money: The Sienese lira was a money of account, not a coin. One lira equaled 20 soldi or 240 denari. In relation to other currencies, 1 Florentine florin equaled approxiamtely 3.15 Siense lire. Likewise, the exchange rate of the Venetian ducat to the lira was approximately 1 to 3.15.

Measures: The Sienese staio was the principal unit of surface measurement. One staio was slightly less than one-third of an acre. Measurements based on the braccio (literally “arm-length”) were also used. One Sienese braccio = 60.11 cm.

(1) September 23, 1439 The baptism record of Francesco di Giorgio.

Franciescho Maurizio di Giorgio di Martino pollaiuolo si battezzò a’ di xxiij di settenbre fu chonmare monna Gemma di Bindo Tosini da Brolio.

Archivio di Stato di Siena; Biccherna 1132; Registro dei Battezzati ad annum, folio 645r *See Borghesi and Banchi 257; G. Chironi, “Repertorio dei documenti riguardanti Marinao di Iacopo detto il Taccola e Francesco di Giorgio Martini,” Prima di Leonardo. Cultura delle macchine a Siena del Rinascimento, ed. P. Galluzzi (Milan: Electa, 1991): 472 (hereafter “Chironi 1991”); and Weller 339.

(2) 1453 Record of assets of Giorgio Martino del Viva, father of Francesco di Giorgio. He is said to have an agrarian property in the district of San Martino, a residential property in Badia Nuova, and an unworked property in San Giorgio, the total value of which is forty-seven florins. He also reports to rent a home in San Prospero, and to have one dependent child.

Una perpetua dal Priore di San Martino parte vignata parte lavorativa; una mezza casa nel popolo di San Maghuritio in luogo detto la Fiera Nuova, valutata fiorini venti; una quarta casella di valuta di fiorini dodici posta nella contrada della Badia Nuova; nella corte di San Giorgio, staia tre di bosco e staia tre di terra, fiorini quindici; casa a pigione dalle monache di San Prospero, paga lire 14 di pigione; dieci fiorini di debito e un figlio a carico.

428

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Denunzie, Lira 141, folio 61 *See Chironi (1991) 471.

(3) 1460 Lorenzo di Pietro Vecchietta, Benvenuto di Giovanni and Francesco di Giorgio are said to owe 18 lire to the Opera Metropolitana for a bushel of wheat.

Maestro Lorenzo di Pietro e Benvenuto e Francesco dipentori deno dare lire diciotto, soldi 0 sono per uno moggio di grano ebero per noi da Benvenuto e Mateo nostri mugniari, apare a libro di Giovani fatore, foglio 4. l. XVIII s. – “

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana di Siena, 712, c. 209r (date not specified) *See C. Zarrilli, “Francesco di Giorgio pittore e scultore nelle fonti archivisitiche senesi,” Francesco di Giorgio e il Rinascimento a Siena 1450 – 1500, L. Bellosi, F.P Fiore and M. Tafuri, eds. (Milan: Electa, 1993): 530.

(4) June 23, 1463 Document concerning the reconstruction of a bridge at Petriolo near Siena; possibly “Magistro Giorgio” refers to Francesco di Giorgio.

1463 23 Giugno Et facte sunt licere, cujus tenor tali est. Noi aviamo aviso da più nostri cittadini come voi avete dato principio a fare l’armadure in sulla volta vechia vè rimasta d’esso ponte, e non in sul sodo, nè in quel luogo fu fondate la volta vechia; che assai ne prendiamo admiratione; perchè essendo voi nell’arte vostra huomini peritissimi et experti, facciate alla volta nuova tale principio, el quale conosciamo essere imperfecto, et non avere suo dovere; et però volino, et così è nostra intentione, che la detta volta a arco del pontesi cominci in sul sodo, e inposte del ponte vechio, e non in quella forma si vede cominciarsi. Et così intendiamo si facci l’armadura, et fondisi alle buche delle imposte vechie: e così arà sua perfectione. Et questa è nostra intentione, la quale voliamo per queste nostre lettere a voi notificare. (Et fuerunt directe magistro Georgio, et magistro Pietro edificatoribus pontis Petriuoli.)

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Deliberzione, Libro 1, no. 21 *See G. Milanesi, Documenti per la storia dell'arte Senese, vol. II (Holland: DAVACO Publishers, 1969): 324; Weller 2 (note 3).

(5) November 26, 1464 Payment of 12 lire to Francesco di Giorgio from the Compagnia di San Giovanni della Morte for a relief of St. John the Baptist. The document specifies that the payment was recieved on Francesco’s behalf by one “Mariano detto Bigonzo.”

429

A dì 26 di novenbre [1464] deti a Francesco di Gorgio [sic] di Martino dipentore, che ci fa S. Giovanni di rilievo, lire dodici, e quali li portò Mariano detto Bigonzo, et deti lire 12 li deti per deto di Francescho d’Andreia Dalmarata nostro priore.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Patrimonio dei Resi 815, II, folio 2v *See Chironi (1991) 472; Weller 339; Zarrilli 530

(6) 1465 Record of assets of Giorgio Martini, Francesco di Giorgio’s father.

Denuncia dei beni di Giorgio di Martino (la perpetua dal Priore di San Martino), staia tre di bosco nella corte di San Giorgio; casa a pigione annua di fiorini otto e mezzo; debito fiorini trentotto.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 162, denunzie *See Chironi (1991) 472.

(7) June 26, 1467 Document confirms the involvement of Lorenzo di Pietro “il Vecchietta” in the design of the fortification of Sarteano.

Document lost *See M. Dechert, “Il Sistema Difensivo di San Leo: Studio della Sua Architecttura,” Federico di Montefeltro. Lo stato. Le arti. La cultura, vol 2, ed. G. C. Baiardi, G. Chittolini, P. Floriani (Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1986): 202; M. D. Bardeschi, “L’Architettura Militare del ‘400 nelle Marche con particolare riguardo all’Opera di Francesco di Giorgio,” Atti del IX Convegno di Studi Storici Maceratesi (Macerata: Tipografia Maceratese, 1975): 144.

(8) November 13, 1467 Record of marriage contract between Francesco di Giorgio and Cristofana of Cristofano di Compagnatico.

Magister Franciscus Georgii Martini pictor de Senis receipt in dotem a Christofaro Tadei magistri Nicolai de Campaneatico florenos ducentos de 4 [libros pro] floreno, pro dotibus domine Cristofore filie dicti Cristofori et uxoris dicti Francisci.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Gabella 225, folio 69r *See Chironi (1991) 472; Arthur Iorio, Francesco di Giorgio’s Paintings: A Reassessment (PhD Diss., University of Virginia, 1993): 247; Weller 339

(9) December 18, 1468 Francesco di Giorgio receives 94 florins toward the dowry of his second wife, Agnese de’ Landi dal Poggio.

430

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 652, Ser Benedetto di Stefano Biliotti (December 7, 1468 – March 19, 1471), folios 5r – 9r *See Iorio 247 – 250.

(10) January 26, 1469 Francesco di Giorgio declares to have received 300 florins of the dowry of Agnese de’ Landi dal Poggio, daughter of Antonio di Benedetto Neroccio of Siena.

1468 (st. sen.) Die xxvi Ianuarij Georgius Martini. Franciscus eius filius fuerunt confessi habuisse et recepisse a filiis Antonii Benedicti Nerocci de Senis flor. tercentoe de Lib. 4 pro flor., dote domine Agnetis filie dicti Antonii et future uxoris dictis Francisci.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Gabella 258, folio 20v *See Chironi (1991) 472; Weller 339.

(11) April 28, 1469 The nomination of Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea as operai dei bottini. The pair agrees to increase the amount of water in the city’s fountains by one-third. The contract notes that they will receive the same salary and authorities as are customarily granted to the operaio – three florins per month.

In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi, amen. Anno MCCCCLXVIIIJ, indictione IJ, die vero veneris XXVIJ mensis aprilis. Generali Consilio Campane convocato et congregato, lectum fuit infrascriptum recordum:

Dinanzi a Voi magnifici et potenti signori quattro de la vostra Bicherna Proveditori, expongano che parendo alloro che la conservatione et lo augmento de l’acqua de la fonte vostra sia una de le principali parte del loro offitio, perchè è necessaria et honorevole a la vostra città, ànno con diligentia volute intendare in quale stato et condictione si truovano e’ buctini et maxime quelli de la fonte del Campo de la quale escie l’acqua quasi di tucte l’altre fonti, et avendo loro avuta buona informatione da più et vari ciptadini che Francesco di Giorgio depentore et Pavolo d’Andrea sarebbero a questo offitio de’buctini molto sofficienti et maxime per trovare acque nuove, perchè è loro proposito di fare cresciare l’acqua in decta fonte el terzo più di quella che al presente vi corre; e’quali Francesco et Pavolo si offerano con quello medesmo salario che si dà in tre anni al camarlengo d’essi buctini, fare quanto di sopra è dichiarato et detto essendo a loro lecito, senza loro preiudicio, di potere cavare in quelli luoghi dove bisogno sarà, per trovare dicte acque. Unde, parendo a le V.M.S. di fare per li vostri opportuni consigli deliberare di dare questo offitio per tre anni, da cominciarsi immediate, finito l’offitio di questo presente camarlingo overo operaio et finire come segue, con quello medesmo salario et emolumenti et graveze che al presente si costuma dare, a’ predetti Francesco et Pavolo, essi s’offerano fare questo offitio bene et diligentemente et fare cresciare la decta aqua, quanto di sopra ànno decto o più, et per questo fare et observare, proferano dar buone et sufficienti ricolte. Raccomandandosi alle prefate M.S.V. le quali Dio feliciti.

431

Before you, magnificent and power lords, four of the Biccherna supervisors, As it seems to them that the conservation and augmentation of water of the fountains is one of the principal aspects of their office, as it is necessary and honorable for the city, they have diligently sought to understand the state and condition of the bottini, and especially the Fonte del Campo, from which flows the water for almost all the other fountains. And having been well informed by many citizens that Francesco di Giorgio, painter, and Paolo d'Andrea would be very sufficient for this office of the bottini, and in particular for finding new waters, as they propose to increase the water of the said fountain by one-third more that it has at present. It is in this capacity that that Francesco and Paolo are offered the same salary that is given for three years to the chamberlain of the bottini, to do what is stated above, and it is declared that they are given right, without their prejudice, to be able to quarry in those places where it is necessary to find these waters. Thus, it seems [appropriate] to Your Lordships to follow this timely advice, and to give this office for three years, beginning immediately, to the aforementioned Francesco and Paolo, terminating the term of the present chamberlain or operaio and proceeding as follows, giving them the same salary, allowances and authority as it is customarily granted. To them this office is granted, to be done well and diligently, and [they are] to increase the water, as said previously [by one-third], or even more, and to do this, and to give good and sufficient work. Entrusting ourselves to Your Lordships in whom God delights.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Consiglio Generale 232, Deliberazioni, folio 274r –v *see Chironi (1991) 472; Bargagli-Petrucci (II) 420 – 421; Weller 340.

(12) June 8, 1469 The Biccherna authorizes Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea, operai dei bottini, to spend whatever necessary to reconstruct an eighty-braccia (48 meter) section of the aqueduct between the Fonte Nova and the main aqueduct of the Fonte del Campo.

Spectatissimi domini Quatuor Biccherne concesserunt licentiam et decreverunt ad hoc ut maior copia aque sit in civitate, quod Franciscus Georgii et Paulus Andree, operaii buttinorum, possint facere de novo, et fodere circa bracia ottuaginta bottini et ipsum murare pro introducenda aqua fontis Novi in bottinum magistrum fontis Campi, expensis Comunis, tendendo bonum compotum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 785, Deliberazioni, folio 12v *See Chironi (1991) 472; Bargagli-Petrucci (II) 421; Weller 340 – 341.

(13) June 10, 1469 Francesco di Giorgio is tried for having posed threat of ruin to homes of Siena. This likely relates to his position as operaio dei bottini.

Georgius Martini qui eorum mandato pucta [?] ad scribendum domos ruinam minantes pro civitate tres denariorum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 785, Deliberazioni, folio 13r

432

*See Chironi (1991) 472.

(14) 1469 Payment of 3200 lire to Francesco di Giorgio for his work as operaio of the Fonte del Campo.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 328, entrata-uscita, folio 129v [not found] *See Chironi (1991) 472; Carlo Promis, Vita di Francesco di Giorgio Martini (Turin: Chirio & Mina, 1841): 15.

(15) June 5, 1470 Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea receive authorization to construct six gates (sbocchatoria) in the aqueducts of Castagno. They are also asked to make three doors (hostia), in the districts of Uopini, Castagno and Vico.

Supradicti domini Quatuor, absente Iohanne, in eorum residentia congregate, etc., anditis Francisco Giorgi et Paulo Andree, operariis buttinorum fontis Campi Fori, deliberaverunt quod ipsi operarii possint murari sex sbocchatoria, videlicet unum in buttino Castagni et unum in contrata Opini et aliud in contrata Cinelli; item fieri faciendo duo hostia, videlict unum in contrata Opini et aliud in contrata Castagni; item actari facere hostium in voltam coste Vici.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 786, Deliberazioni, folio 22r *See Chironi (1991) 472; Bargagli-Petrucci (II) 422 – 423; Weller 340 – 341.

(16) July 27, 1470 Concerning the construction of a new aqueduct channel from the Ospedale de’Uopini to the new well in the same district. This project is also listed in the final account of Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea’s term as operai dei bottini (see document June 23, 1473).

Item, domini Quactuor, convocati cum operariis buctinorum, in numero sufficienti, deliberaverunt locare et locaverunt Francisco... Pagni, alias Busci, presenti et conducenti, ad faciendum unum petium buctini, incipiendo a puteo hospitalis de Huopini per rectam lineam per usque ad boctinum nuper factum per dictum Franciscum et magistrum Sanum Troncionem in dicto loco de Huopini, cum hoc, quod, in medio dicti buctini fiendi, fiat unum smiarglium largitudinis trium bracchiorum, quem buctinum teneatur revidere et sgonbrare altitudinis trium brachiorum cum dimidio et latitudinis unius brachii cum dimidio, pro mercede declaranda per dominos Quattuor in quos dictus Franciscus se remixit.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 704, folio 7v *See Bargagli-Petrucci (II) 423.

433

(17) June 9, 1470 One “Piero da Imola” collects a payment of 40 soldi on behalf of Lotto di Domenico and Francesco di Giorgio, for the latter’s work at the Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala.

A Lotto di Domenico dipentore a dì detto soldi di quaranta contanti per lui a Piero da Imola per detto di Francesco suo conpagnio, e son posti a sua ragione a libro S morello a foglio 315. 1.II.s – d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle I, folio 32v *See Zarrilli 530.

(18) June 28 – October 15, 1470 Pellegrino di Mariano and Agostino di Andrea are named responsible to continue work on the coffered ceiling of the Spedale Santa Maria della Scala, initated by Benvenuto di Giovanni. It is specified that work will proceed according to the design initiated by Francesco di Giorgio and Lotto di Domenico.

Maestro Pellegrino di Mariano dipentore. & Maestro Aghustino di Maestro Andrea dipentore Ricordo come questo dì 28. di Giugno salvogano a dipìgniare t mettare doro & finire di tutto punto tutto il lavoro. che restòa fare Benenuto dipintore di dieci quadri del palcho della nostra Chiesa per fiorini tre d’oro larghi a tutta nostra spesa facendogli ala forma e modo, che gli lavora Lotto, e Francesco dipintori dandoli finite per tutto 10. d’Agosto pross. che viene. A dì 11 d’Agosto Creditore M. Augstino di sei quadri finiti d’accordo con loro a Libro S. Morello a c. 346. A dì 15. d’Ottobre Creditore Pellegino per 4. Quadri finti d’accordo coloro a Lib. S. Morello a c. 372.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, libro di Fra Raffaello Floriani Camarlengo (1468 – 1474) *See G. Della Valle, Lettere sanesi di un socio dell’Accademia di Fossano, sopra le Belle Arti, vol. II (Venice: Presso G. Pasquali, 1782 – 1786): 248 – 249; Zarilli 530.

(19) July 19, 1470 Receipt of payment of 5 lire, 12 soldi made to Lotto di Domenico and Francesco di Giorgio for their work on the soffit of the Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala.

A Lotto di Domenico dipentore a dì detto lire cinque e soldi dodici contanti per lui e per suo detto Francesco di Giorgio suo conpagnio, e sonno a libro S morello a foglio 305. 1.V.s XII d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle I, folio 38r *See Zarrilli 530.

434

(20) August 11, 1470 Receipt of payment of 120 lire made to Lotto di Domenico and Francesco di Giorgio for their work on the soffit of the church of Santa Maria della Scala.

A Lotto di Domeni[co] e Francesco dipentore a dì detto lire centododici contanti in vinti ducati d’oro larghi in mano di Lotto e Francesco, sonno a libro S morello a foglio 330. 1.CXII.s -- d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle I, folio 42r *See Zarrilli 531.

(21) October 25, 1470 Francesco di Giorgio receives payment of two lire for a painted map of Monte Vasone, probably commissioned in connection with a boundary dispute. Mariano Matthias is named as having completed the task of “measurer.”

[In margin:] Pro mensuratore et picture Montis Vasonis.

Et cum dictis Vexilliferis, Magistris vigore auctoritate eis concesso ab eodem collegis et novem de custodia et tribus civibus qui composuerunt litteras Florentini transmessas, decreverunt quod Camerarius Biccherne, die XXV ottobris [sino suo preiudicio aut danno], solvat Mariano Mathie mensuratori, qui mensuravit Montem Vasonem, et Francisco Gerogii pictori, qui designavit et pinxit predictum montem, libras sex denariorum: videlicet dicto mensuratori libras quatuor et dicto pictori libras duas in totum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 624, Deliberazioni, folio 43r *See Chironi (1991) 472; Iorio 220; Milanesi (II) 465; Zarrilli 530.

(22) November 9, 1470 Receipt of payment made to Lotto di Domenico and Francesco di Giorgio for their work on the soffit of the church of Santa Maria della Scala.

A Lotto di Domenico dipentore a dì VIIII di novebre lire undici e soldi quattro contanti in mano di Francesco di Giorgio suo compagni, e sono posti a sua ragione a libro S morello a foglio 365. 1.XI.s IIII d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle I, folio 53v *See Zarrilli 531.

(23) January 19, 1471 Francesco di Giorgio is convicted, along with nine other individuals, of having entered the fortress of San Leonardo di Lecceto at night to carry out dishonest deeds involving the women of the convent. As punishment Francesco chose to pay twenty-five lire as opposed to remain in exile for three-months. He is recorded as having paid the fine immediately.

435

Informati quod infrascripti una cum aliis viris [?] religiosis die V presentis mensis noctis tempore cum armis et scalis scalaverunt et intraverunt fortilitium sancti Leonardi de Lecceto prope civitatem Senarum, et in eo nonnullas inhonestates fecerunt […] formam statute contra bonos mores, et habito suҏ pros [?] maturo colloquio Volentesque duos infrascriptos Iuntrus codtnart de corp delittus […] ne alias talia permicte e perpetarre valent zut [?] aliis sit exemplus habitoque respectu corp tenert etati. Deceverunt multare et condennare omnes infrascriptos, -- et ipsos multando et condennando, relegaverunt extra civitatem Senarum ultra per decem militaria pro tempore trium mensium. Qui debeat Inisse adfa […] infra femini deto disopra et tamque i non Inerint infine deum feminum ut si inerint [...] confrimum ne Buminiorint [?] intelligatum confinati i relegati per tempo sex mesius. Hoc addito et dichiarto per ille que nollet [...] i penuria muata lib. xxv den. Infine terminum detti desopra sub pena duppli decte putitate.

Bernardinus Stegani Antonii Nicolaus Antonii fatii de Mallernis Aloisuis Johanis Serpellinus Bernardinis Cimabrocchi Matheus di Reggio Serdagenius Francisius Georgii Martini pictor Molchior Barthiatis di basile Michaclangeleus Rutori Larbutonsoris Ghellus Francisi Ghelli Johanis Sani trontitonis

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1590, Libro delle condanne, folio 231r *See Chironi 473; Milanesi (II) 465; Papini 275; Weller 341 – 342.

(24) March 6, 1471 Receipt of payment of 11 lire, 4 soldi made to Lotto di Domenico and Francesco di Giorgio for their work on the soffit of the the S.S. Annunziata, church of Santa Maria della Scala.

A Lotto di Domenico dipentore a dì detto [6 marzo 1471] lire undici e soldi quatro contanti in mano di Francesco di Giorgio, e son posti a libro S morello a foglio 365. 1.XI.s IIII d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, fascicle I, folio 67r *See Zarrilli 531.

(25) March 22, 1471 Receipt of payment of 5 lire, 12 soldi made to Lotto di Domenico and Francesco di Giorgio for their work on the soffit of the S.S. Annunziata.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipentore a dì XXII marzo [1471] lire cinque e soldi dodici contanti a lui, e son posti a sua ragione a libro S morello a foglio 386. 1.V.s XII d. –

436

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle I, folio 69r *See Zarrilli 531.

(26) April 18, 1471 Payment from the Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala to Francesco di Giorgio for 5 lire and 12 soldi. The payment was accepted on Francesco’s behalf by Lotto di Domenico.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipentore a dì XVIII di detto [aprile 1471] lire cinque e soldi dodici contanti in mano di Lotto, e sonno posti a sua ragione a libro S morello a foglio 417. 1.V.s XII d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle I, folio 73v *See Zarrilli 531.

(27) May 22, 1471 Payment from the Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala to Francesco di Giorgio for 5 lire and 12 soldi.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipentore a dì XXII di detto [maggio 1471] lire cinque e soldi dodici contanti, e son posti a sua ragione a libro S morello a foglio 386. 1.V.s XII d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle II, folio 36v *See Zarrilli 531.

(28) June 1, 1471 Payment from the Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala to Francesco di Giorgio for 19 lire and 12 soldi.

A Francescho di Giorgio dipentore a dì detto [1 giungo 1471] lire dicenove e soldi dodici contanti in sua mano, e sonno posti al libro S morello a foglio 386. 1.XVIIII.s XII d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle II, folio 38r *See Zarrilli 531.

(29) July 3, 1471 Payment from the Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala to Francesco di Giorgio for 33 soldi lire and 4 denari.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipentore a dì detto [3 luglio 1471] soldi trentatré e denari quatro contanti per lui, e per suo detto a ser Priamo d’Ambrugio per una stima in gabella, e son posti a libro verde T a foglio 38. 1.I s XIII d. IIII–

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fascicle II, folio 41r *See Zarrilli 531.

437

(30) October 8, 1471 Decision of the Consistory regarding Paolo d’Andrea’s appeal for funding for the construction of gates in the bottini of Uopini, and to repair of two clogged channels. It is decided that the operai, Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo d’Andrea, are permitted to spend whatever necessary to bring the project to perfection.

Item, audito operaio buctinorum, videlicet Paulo Andree, exponente quod est opus facere quamdam foveam sboccatorii buptini de Huopini quod est in campo monialium Sancte Petronille et reattare duos smiraglios buctinorum videlicet unum in campo Gallaccini et aliud in possessione Matosi ad hoc ut aqua veniat clara et sine rena vel terra, deliberaverunt quod dicti operarii teneantur et debeant facere dicta actamina in bona perfectione et possint expendere illud quod esset necesse sine eorum preiudicio aut danno circa predicta omni modo, etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistorio, Deliberazioni, vol. 630, folio 16 *See Bargagli-Petrucci (II) 427

(31) October 30, 1471 Giacomo Cozzarelli and Antonio di Capitolo recieve payment of 11 lire, 4 soldi from the Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala on behalf of Francesco di Giorgio.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipentore a dì detto [30 ottobre 1471] lire undici e soldi quatro contanti in mano di Iacomo di Bartalomeio Gozarelli e Antonio di Chapitolo andò con lui che era amalato, a libro verde T a foglio 38. 1.XI.s IIII d. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala, 858, fasc. II, c. 53r *See Weller 342; Zarrilli 531.

(32) 1471 Record of payments made to Francesco di Giorgio for his fresco of the Coronation of the Virgin in the apsidal chapel of the church of Santa Maria della Scala.

Archivio di Spedale del Santa Maria, Conti Correnti, libro verde T (document lost) *See Chironi (1991) 473; Romagnoli (IV) 746; Weller 342; Zarrilli 530, 536.

(33) 1471 Record of payment made to Francesco di Giorgio of 3200 lire for his work as operaio dei bottini.

Francesco di Giorgio di Martino hoperaio della fonte del Campo de dare lire tre miglia dugento a sommo per tanti signigicanti per sua necscho devo chi S. passato come apare al suo ope [?] a folio 129. E sommo al Comune di Siena in credito ...... a folio 166

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 329, entrata-uscita, folio 57v, 85v *See Chironi (1991) 473; Promis 15; Romagnoli (IV) 744.

438

(34) 1472 Record of 3200 lire payment made to Francesco di Giorgio for his work as operaio dei bottini.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 330, entrata-uscita, folio 78r, 110r *See Chironi (1991) 473; Romagnoli (IV) 749 – 750.

(35) March 24, 1472 Payment of the Abbey of Monteoliveto Maggiore to Francesco di Giorgio for a panel painting for the chapel of Santa Caterina and San Sebastiano. The payment (28 soldi) covers the tax on the gold used by Francesco di Giorgio.

A dì decto [24 marzo 1472] soldi vintiotto pagai per gabella e passaggio di 500 pannelle d’oro, come appare a ragione di Francesco dipinctore a libro H a foglio 2.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Conventi 264, folio 271v *See Zarrilli 531.

(36) Document: July 3, 1472 Francesco di Giorgio, “painter of Siena,” is recorded as having purchased a house in the district of San Martino for 125 florins. The property was previously owned by Pasquino di Francesco Pasquini. Francesco promises to pay the entire amount within eight-months time. The agreement is witnessed by Paolo d’Andrea and the baker, Niccolò Nardi.

In Dei nomine amen. Anno Domini ab ipsius salutifera incarnatione MCCCCxxii, indictione v, die vero iii iulii.

Pasquinus olim Francisci Pasquini, rigatterius de Senis, per se suosque heredes et successors, iure dominii et plene proprietatis et possessionis, cum infrascripta reservatione dominii, dedit vendidit et trandidit Francisco Georgii, pictori de Senis presenti, recipienti et ementi per se et suis heredibus et successoribus, unam domum sitam Senis in terzerio Sancti Martini et contrada Salicotti, cui ante et retro via Comunis, ex alio Francisci de Martinengho partibus Lombardie, et ex alio Petri Gabrielis tonsoris de Senis, et si qui alii sunt etc., ad habendum, tendendum etc. Senis, et si qui alii sunt etc., ad habendum, tenendum etc., cum omnibus et singulis iuribus et pertinentiis suis et cum omnibus et singulis que infra predictos continentur confines vel alios si qui forent, cum accessibus, ingressibus et egressibus suis etc., et cum omnibus et singulis que dicta domus habet et continent etc., in integrum omnique iure etc. Pro pretio et nomine pretii florenorum centum viginti quinque de libris 4 pro floreno denariorium Senensium, quod pretium dictus Franciscus emptor promisit dare et solvere dicto Pasquino venditori, ut supra presenti recipiendi et stipulandi, his modis et terminis videlicet: floreni triginta ad dictam rationem hinc ad otto dies proxime secuturas, et residuum dicti pretii, videlicet floreni nonaginta quinque ad rationem predictam, hinc ad otto menses proxime secuturos et ab inde in antea ad omnem petitionem et voluntatem dicti venditoris. In quibus quidem centum viginti quinque florenis ad rationem predictam dictus emptor constituit se

439

principalem debitorem et pagatorem dicto venditori, ut supra presenti et recipienti. Quorum solutionem facere promisit senis, Florentie etc., omni iuris et facti exceptione remota, cum integra refectione omnium et singulorum dannorum etc. Et donec et quosque dictus Franciscus solvere distulerit dicto Pasquino dictos centum viginti quinque florens pro pretio predicto, ipso Pasquinus reservavit sibi et suis heredibus dominum dicte domus ut supra vendite, presente consentiente et volente dicto Francisco; et facta solutionem per dicto Franciscum vel alium pro eo dicto Pasquinio de dictis CXXV florenis aut heridibus suis, ex nunc omne dominium dicte domus ut supra vendite sit et esse intelligatur translatum in dictum Franciscum, et ex nunc prout ex tunc idem Pasquinus dedit transtulit et concessit dominium predictum et vouluit haberi, perinde ac si nulla reservatio de predictis facta foret, et ita actum extitit et conventum inter partes predictas. Et quod plus valuerit dicta res vendita dicto pretio etc. Et dedit licentiam dicto emptori presenti et recipient ut supra, intrandi et accipiendi tenutatam etc. sua propria auctoritate etc. Quam etiam dare et tradere promisit eidem liberam, vacuam, etc.Et nihilominusetc. Et promisit dicto venditor dicto emptori, ut supra presenti recipienti et stipulanti, de predictis vel aliquo predictorum non facere vel movere aliquem litem etc., et facienti etc., sed dictam domum venditam legitime et in totum perpetuo defendere etc., et statim pro predictis mota lite etc., ipsamque lite, causam etc. pro predictis ominbus ipsius venditoris sumptibus etc. Et ex dictis causa et titulo et pro dicto pretio dictus venditor dedit cessit et concessit dicto emptori presenti et recipienti ut supra, et in eo penitus transtulit et mandavit omnia et singula iura et actiones etc., et omnes alias que etc. Constituens ipsum emptorem pro predictis dominum et procuratorem etc., et ponens ipsum etc., ita ut admodo pro predictis actionibus utilibus et directis possit agree etc. et que facere poterat dictus venditor ante presentem venditionem et contractum, salva tamen supradicti dominii reservatione. Asserens et affirmans dictus venditor dicto emptori ut supra presenti et recipienti, ius suum pro predictis nulli alii fore datum etc., quod si contra factum fuerit etc. Que omnia et singula supradicta dictus venditor promisit dicto emptori ut supra presenti recipienti et stipulanti, attendere et observare etc., sub pena et ad penm dupli dicti pretii et dupli eius unde seu de quo etc. Quam penam dare et solvere promisit etc., et dicta pena comissa etc. Item reficere etc. Pro quibus omnibus et singulis observandis firmisque tenendis dicti contrahentes sibi ad invicem inter se, congrua congruis referendo, obligaverunt sese et eorum heredes etc. Et renuntiaverunt dicti contrahentes, congrua congruis referendo, exceptioni non factaram dicte venditionis, date licentie constitutionis, iuris cessionis assertioni, et non factaraum dictarum promissionum et obligationum, et non factorum dictorum promissionum et obligationum, et non factorum dictorum exceptioni non habiti et non recepti dicti pretii et non numerate pecunie dictorum centum XXV florenorum etc. Et iuravit sponte dictus Pasquinus ad sacra Dei Evangelia, corporaliter manu tactis scripturis, omnia et singula suprascripta vera esse etc., sed ea attendere et observare prout superius continetur et scriptum est. Et dictus Franciscus non iuravit quia habebat patrem, ex forma legis. Quibus quidem partibus, presentibus volentibus et sponte omnia et singula suprascripta vera esse confitentibus, precepi ego Priamus notarius et iudex ordinarius infrascriptus, nomine sacramenti et guarantigie secundum formam statuti Senarum, quatenus omnia et singula suprascripta attendant et observent prout superius continetur et scriptum est. Rogantes me notarium ante et infrascriptum, quod de predictis publicum conficiam instrumentum.

440

Actum Senis in apotheca dicti Pasquini sita prope Campum Fori in vico Siricorum coram Paulo Andree Pauli pictore et Nicolao Nardi fornaio de Santo Germano, civibus senensibus, testibus presentibus et cetera.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 601, Ser Priamo di Ambrogio Cecchini (May 13, 1465 – January 23, 1473), folios 125r – 128v *See Iorio 250 – 252; and G. Chironi, “Appendice documentaria,” Francesco di Giorgio Architetto, ed. F. P. Fiore and M. Tafuri (Milan: Electa, 1993): 402, hereafter “Chironi 1993.”

(37) October 17, 1472 Leonardo di Pietro di Antonio of Montemassi declares himself indebted to Francesco di Giorgio in the amount of 200 lire, and promises to pay one-third of this every year for three years. The document does not specify why the debt was owed, but it notes that the governor of Montemassi, Giovanni di Filippo, had agreed to take responsibility for the debt, paying in full on Leonardo’s behalf, if necessary.

Leonardus olim Petri de Montemas`si, comitatus Senarum, sponte, etc., fecit et constituit se principalem debitorem et pagatorem Francisco Georgii Martini pictori de Senis presenti etc., in libris ducentis denariorum senesium, quos fuit confessus et recognovit dicto Francisco presenti sibi dare et solver debere ex causa mutui sibi gratis et amore facti. Quam summam librarum CC dictus Leonardus dare et solver promisit dicto Francisco presenti et ut sopra recipient et stipulanti in termino trium annorum proxime futurorum in tribus pagis, videlicet quolibet anno tertiam partem et ab inde in antea etc. Quorum solutuionem etc., cum refectione etc., volens idibem etc. In super Iohannes olim Filippi de Montemassi predicto ut sindicus et procurator et vice et nomine comunitatis dicti Castri Montismassi, pro quo de rato et rati habiturus, suo nomine proprio et principaliter se obligando, sponte etc. promisit et convenit supradicto Francisco presenti et ut supra recipient et stipulanti, se facturum et curaturum ita et taliter et cum effectum quod dictus Leonardus solvet cum effectu supradictam summam in terminis predictis, alias solver dictam summam denariorum de sua propria pecunia propriis bonis, dictis nominibus, volens pro predictis se dictis nominibus posse conveniri principaliter et tam quam principalem debitorem et in solidum, omni exceptione remota. Pro quibus omnibus suprascriptis dicti Leonardus et Iohannes dictis nominibus obligaverunt et quilibet in solidum obligavit se suosque heredes et bona omnia presentia et future iure pignoris et ipotece eidem Francisco presenti et ut supra recipient. Renumptiantes dicti Leonardus et Iohannes dictis nominibus, in et pro predictis, exceptione non facte dicte nominibus, in et pro predictis, exceptione non facte dicte obligationis et possessionis, rei dicto modo non geste vela liter geste, non sic facti vel celebrati contractus, benficio fideiussoris, nove constitutioni de pluribus rei debentis etc. Iuraverunt etc. cum guarantigia etc. Rogantes etc.

Actum Senis, in domo residentie universitatis Artis Lane, presentibus domino Iohannis de Rossis Monaco et Filippo ser Gregorii de Senis, testibus etc.

[In the left margin:] pro Francisco Georgii

441

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 506, Ser Domenico di Cristoforo Francescuoli (1472), doc. 127 *See Iorio 253 – 254.

(38) October 27, 1472 Pietro di Nanni Bessi sells Francesco di Giorgio a house in the district of San Giovanni for 250 florins.

Ser Petrus olim Nanni Bessi de Senis, pro se et suos heredes, iure proprio etc., vendidit Franciscus Georgii Martini de Senis, presenti et ementi pro se et suos heredes et successors, unam ipsius ser Petri domum sitam Senis, in terzerio Civitatis et populo Sancti Iohannis, cui ante et retro via Comunis… pro pretio florenorum ducentorum quinquaginta de libris 4 pro floreno. De quo pretio dictus emptor dedit et solvit dicto venditori florenos viginti quinque et soldos 16 pecunia numerata, in presentia mei notarii et testium infrascriptum, in ducatis 18 auri largis; er residuum, videlicet floreni 224 et livre 3 et soldi 4, idem emptor dare et sovere promisit dicto venditori in his terminis videlicet: floreni 100 in termine trium mensium proxime futurorum, et residuum videlicet floreni 124 libre 3 soldi 4, in termino unius anni a die quo dictus venditor exgomberavit et exicerit dicta domo. Et ab inde in antea, ad omnem ipsius ser Petri requisitionem et voluntatem etc. In quibus florenis 224 libris 3 soldis 4 ut supra, pro residuo predicto solvendis, idem emptor se principalem debitorem et pagatorem constituit dicto venditori presenti etc. Quorum solutionem etc. Cum pacto inter ipsas partes declarato in principio, medio et fine presentis contractus, quod si dictus venditor exgomberaret et exiret de dicta domo antequam dicti tres menses finiatur,quod dictus emptor teneatur solvere dictos florenos 100 statim post consignationem clavis dicte domus, sine aliqua exceptione. Item hoc declarato inter ipsas partes quod dictus ser Petrus possit et sibi liceat habitare dictam domum prout habitat ad presens durantis dictis tribus mensibus, sine solutione alicuius pensionis, ita quod remaneat in voluntate sua tenere et habitare dictam domum per dictos tre menses, et si eam sic retinuerit, dictus emptor habeat tandem ad solvendum dictos florenos 100. Si vero prius eam relapsaret, intelligatur emptorem habere ad solvendum dictos florenos 100 usque ad diem relapsationis et existus dicte domus, et sic inter ipsas partes extitit solemniter actum et conventum. Et si plus valeret etc., titulo donationis etc., et dedit licentiam dictus venditor accipere tentuam etc., quam etc., et donec eam etc., et promisit non tollere etc. et defendere etc., omnibus suis expensis etc. et ex dictis causa et titulo etc. Constituens etc. Pro quibus omnibus etc. dicti contrahentes sibi ad invicem, congrua congruis referendo, obligaverunt etc. Iuravit dictus venditor etc. Quibus cum guarantigia etc. Rogantes. etc.

Insuper Dominicus olim Andree Ciardi de Senis, sciens se ad infrascripta non teneri, sed volens facere magis cautum dictum ser Petrum de solutione supradictorum florenorum 224, librarum 3, soldorum 4, sua libera et spontanea voluntate, precibus et mandato dicti Francisci, promisit et convenit in solidum et principaliter se obligando dicto ser Petri presenti etc. facere et curare ita et taliter et cum effectu quod dictus Franciscus solvet supradictos fl. 224 libr. 4 sold. 4 et observabit omnia supra per ipsum Franciscum promissa, alias de propria pecunia et propriis bonis dicti Dominici solvere et observare

442

omnia supradicta. Pro quibus etc. obligavit etc., renumptiavit beneficio fideissoris, nove constitutionis de pluribus reis debendi etc., iuravit etc., cum guarantigia etc., et promittens dictus Dominicus non allegare non factam dicussionem contra principalem et eius bona, et non allegare quod principalis non poterat se obligare quia filius familias.

Insuper domina Christofora uxor dicti ser Petri et filia olim Stefani magistri Cecchi de Senis, ibidem presens et predictam venditionem et omnia suprascripta intelligens, faciens infrascripta omnia in presentia et cum consensu dicti ser Petri sui mariti ibidem presentis etc., sponte etc. consensit supradicte venditioni et renumptiavit omni iuri suo et in super dica domo vendita, tam ratione et occasione dotium suarum et antifatii, quam aliacumque causa et quomodocumque acquisitio do....[?]suum ius. Remittens etc., promictens etc. Asserens etc. Que omnia etc. et contra non facere etc., sub pena dupli...[?]seu de quo etc., et ipsa pena etc., cum refectione etc. Pro quibus etc. obligavit etc., renumptiavit etc., certiorata primo etc., cum guarantigia etc. Rogans. Etc.

Actum Senis, in dicta domo supra vendita, presentibus Nicolao Masini de Asciano, presbitero et plebano ecclesie S. Iohannis de Senis, Laurentio Angeli ligritterio et Bartolomeo Iohannis basterio de Senis, testibus etc.

Ego Dominicus etc.

[In left upper margin:] Pro Francisco Georgii. Publicatum pro ser Pietro in forma solita, videlicet ista venditio cum promissione infra facta per Dominicum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 506, Ser Domenico di Cristoforo Francescuoli (1472), doc. 134 *See Iorio 254 – 256.

(39) March 9, 1473 Record of bapitism of Francesco di Giorgio’s daughter, Cornelia. Among those present was Dionisio da Viterbo.

Cornelia Philippa di Francesco di Giorgio si battezò a di viiii marzo; fu compare Dionisio di maestro Cecho da Viterbo et ser Michelagnelo d’Antonio da Radicondoli.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 1133, folio 372r *See Ermini 446.

(40) May 26, 1473 Francesco di Giorgio receives an additional 114 lire toward the dowry of his second wife Agnese de’ Landi dal Poggio. This amount was bequeathed to Agnese by her sister Caterina.

Anno Domini MCCCCLXXIII, indictione VI, die vero XXVI maii. Domina Caterina relicta Caroli Nannisde Griffolis et filia olim Antonii Benedicti Neroccii de Senis pro executione sententie late inter eam, ex una, et dictus Antonium eius

443

patrem, de qua patere dixerunt manu ser Iacobi de Humidis, videlicet in ea parte in qua tenetur renuntiare legato facto sibi per quandam dominam Blasiam relictam Iacobi de Tondis de libris 114 de denariis Montis de quibus scripta est dicta domina Blasia, de quo legato patere dicitur manu ser Luce Nannis notarii olim, publici senensis, volens pro parte sua adimplere ea ad que tenetur, faciens omnia et singula infrascripta in presentia et de voluntate Ieronimi eius fratris carnalis et olim filii dicti Antonii, presentis et nomine suo et fratrum et olim filiorum dicti Antonii, pro quibus de rato promisit etc. et se facturum etc., consensit, voluit et declaravit velle quod libre 114 de quibus scripta est super dicto Monte dicta domina Blasia et qui ad ipsam dominam Caterinam pertinent vigore legati seu concessionis alias facte per dictam dominam Blasiam transferantur ad postas dictorum heredum, seu aliter fiat de eis secundum arbitrium et voluntatem dictorum heredum. Et pro executione predictorum, in presentia et de voluntate dicti Ieronimi dictis nominibus voluit et mandavit quod dicte libre 114 dentur et consignentur Agneti, uxori Francisci Georgii pictoris et filie dicti olim Antonii, sorori carnali dicti Ieronimi et dicte domine Caterina. Que quidem libre 114 computari debent in florenis centum denariorum Montis inclusis in dicta dote dicte domine Agnetis, et ad cautelam titulo donationis inter vivos donavit dictas libras 114 dicte domine Agneti, et mihi notario pro ea absente recepienti, cum condictione apposita et de voluntate dicti Ieronimi dictis nominibus quod intelligatur esse incluse dicte libre 114 in dictis centum florenis. Et promisit mihi notario, per se et filios et heredes suos, non facere contra predicta aliquo tempore nec ullam de predictis facere vel movere aliquam litem, causam, petitionem seu questionem, sub pena dupli eius etc. quam etc. et dicta pena etc. Pro quibus etc. Renuntians etc. Cui etc. Rogan etc. Insuper dictus Ieronimus nominibus quibus supra, promittens ut supra, promisit dicto Francisco etc. defendere dictos denarios videlicet libras 114 ipsi Francisco et suis heredibus et seu dicte domine Agneti etc. Et versa vice dictus Franciscus promisit dicto Ieromino nominibus antedictis recepienti et stipulanti, dictas libras 114 habere et computare in dictis florenis centum, declarantes quod in dicta summa florenorum centum intelligantur esse computati et inclusi [sic].Que etc., sub pena dupli etc. qua etc. Pro quibus etc. Renuntiantes etc. Quibus etc.

Actum Senis, in universitate notariorum, coram ser Domenico Cristofori notario et Ieronimo Bonsignoris de Celsa, civibus Senarum, testibus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 554, Ser Mino di Niccolò Trecerchi (March 31, 1472 – March 3, 1473), doc. 191 *See Iorio 256 – 257.

(41) June 12, 1473 Francesco di Giorgio receives a credit of 400 lire toward the dowry of his wife Agnese de’ Landi dal Poggio.

Franciesscho [sic] di Giorgio di Martino dipentore de’ avere adì XII di giugno 1473 lire cientoquattordici, soldi 0, li facciamo buoni per madonna Biagia, donna fu di Iacomo di Franciesccho de’ Tondi, e sonno a llei [sic] che n’ abi auti all’orginale vecchio di Chamollia, foglio 652. E quali li dà per parte di dote di madonna Angniesa, figlioula fu d’Antonio di Benedetto di Neroccio e donna ogi di detto Franciesscho, come n’ avemo

444

decreto de’ IIII Massari del Monte, di mano di ser Michelangniolo di Giovanni di Vico Bindi loro notaio 1. CXIIII s.0

E adì detto, lire dugiento ottanzei, soldi 0, li facciamo buoni per Antonio di Benedetto di Neroccio, a llui che n’ abi auti all’originale di Kamollia, a foglio 202, e quali sonno per parte di dote di madonna Angniesa sua donna e figl[i]uola fu di detto Antonio, e questo per decreto de’ IIII Massari del Monte, di mano di ser 1. CCLXXXVI s. 0

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 442, Libri dei Monti (1460 – 1476), folio 188v *See Iorio 257.

(42) June 23, 1473 Review of the accomplishments of Paolo d’Andrea and Francesco di Giorgio as operai dei bottini, from May 1469 – June 1472. The document details the expenditures of their projects and the materials used. The total amount, 3500 lire, included their salaries, which totaled 203 lire, 24 soldi. Note: 1 canna equals approximately 2 meters.

Troviamo essere venuto a le sue mani – 3500 libr.

Qui appresso sarà scripta tutta la sua uscita; et prima troviamo a sua uscita per marcatura di decto libro – 6 sol.

Et più troviamo alla decta uscita libr. 43, sol. 11, ne le infrscripte cose: et gallettoni et chanapi et stanghe per le fonti, sei fra corbe et corbelli, sei stechioni, una maza di ferro da rompare sassi, et lanterne, una palette di ferro, 30 pezi di tavole d’abeto, in tutto – 43 libr., 11 sol.

Le quali cose giudichiamo le debbino lassare per inventario al suo successore et fare scrivare in sul suo libro mercato dal Comuno, et perchè non potiamo sapere se sonno logre, giudichiamo le S.V. lo’debino dare il giuramento.

Et più troviamo a la decta uscita, avere spesi in libr. Centrocinque di candeli di sevo per bisogno di decti buttini et fonti – 14 libr., 10 sol., 6 den.

Et più troviamo per auuti, toppe, chiavi, confichature di toppe, per una gratichola di rame, piombo et una pietra di macigno concia per lo buttino va al Mercato et Quattro mazuoli di funicella per archipendolare, che in tuto somma – 10 libr., 18 sol., 4 den.

Et più per più scotti et collationi a più persone sonno andati a vedere el buttino et archipendolare, in più volte – 15 libr., 18 sol.

Et più per salario di mesi trenzette et di dì 25, per fare nettare dette fonti – 197 libr., 18 sol.

445

Et più per salario di mesi sei et di dì 10, a nettare le fonti della Badìa Nuova per deliberatione de’Quatro di Bicherna, in tre volte – 2 libr., 2 sol.

Et più troviamo per l’aqua de’ pispinelli di tre anni, cioè 1469-1470-1471 per la festa di Sancta Maria d’agosto, come si costuma – 12 libr.

Et più per chambio di fior. 4 larghi – 1 libr., 5 sol.

Et più per huopere 190 a più prezi et per archipendulatura di buttini più volte et per votatura de la galaza del Campo, oltra al salario libr. cinque, sol. dodici, per tagliatura di un sasso nel buttino di Huopini; le quali spese so’ state facte per maggior parte per deliberatione de ‘Quattro di Bicherna – 152 libr., 19 sol.

Et più libr. due, sol quattro, sol. vintiquattro, in due libri per li bisogni del decto ufitio et sol. vinti a Ser Mathio, notaro a quel tempo de’Regolatori, perchè rogò una allogagione che fecero allora i Regolatori – 2 libr., 4 sol.

Et più per canne cinquantatre ¾ di buttino, troviamo ànno fatto nel poggio di Huopini per libr. tre, sol. quindici la canna, misurato per maestro Pietro del Albacho – 201 libr., sol. 11, 3 den.

Et più per votatura et sgombratura di canne ottantotto di buttino nel buttino del Castagnio, a ragione di sol. tredici la canna, che monta libr. 573, sol. 6, misurato per maestro Pietro del Albacho – 573 libr., 6 sol. Et più per channe 73 ½ di buttino per libr. sei la canna, misurato per maestro Pietro decto – 441 libr.

Et più per channe 52 di buttino, per libr. 6 la canna, misurato per maestro Francesco del Guasta et Giovanni Coiaregli, mandate da’Quattro di Bicherna – 312 libr.

Et più per channe XXXVIIJ di buttino ad deresto della monta di decto buttino, troviamo non fu finite di pagare perchè rimase condennato in Bicherna – 91 libr., 18 sol.

Et più per uno smiraglio fatto a Huopini, fu canne sette, braccia tre, per libr. tre canna – 23 libr., 5 sol.

Et più a maestro Francesco del Guasta et compagni per canne vintuna di buttino et braccia due ½ ànno murato a Huopini, misurato per maestro Pietro del Albacho – 389 libr., 5 sol.

Et più per vettura di some 918 fra rena, mattoni, calcina, et di 800 stechoni per armare detti buttini di Huopini – 36 libr., 14 sol., 8 den.

Et più per mogia 29 di calcina fra albazano et altra calcina a più prezi, che in tutto monta – 85 libr., 9 sol., 8 den.

446

Et per 26700 mattoni per li sopradetti buttini, comprati da più persone, a più prezi, in più partite, che in tutto fa la somma di – 320 lib., 12 sol.

Et più per le infrascritte cose, cioè: uno mazo di assari, per dieci zaffi di legno per le fonti, per 156 molli di più misure per armare e’ buttini di Huopini et per 800 stechoni per le decte armadure et per sei some di scope per fare una capanna et per colonne et un mazo di funi per li detti lavori che montano in tutto – 25 libr., 13 sol.

Et più troviamo di robe avere date a un maestro el quale d’ Quatro l’avevano condennato, chome apare in Bicherna, et avendoli fatta la condennagione li fecero rilassare – 1 libr., 11 sol.

Et più a Nicholò Branchini et a Antonio di Iacomo d’Antonio, Riveditori stati delle ragioai di maestro Castorio, operaio stato de’ buttini, per loro salario – 8 libr.

Et più avere spesi alla cassetta de’Regolatori et sua fameglia – 2 libr.

Et più havere pagati a Giovanni Luchini per comandamento de’Quattro di Bicherna perchè guardi l’uschio della galaza che era stato guasto più volte – 3 libr.

Et più per lo loro salario di tre anni et due mesi, operai stati, come è detto di sopra – 432 libr.

Et più a maestro Castorio, operaio nuovo, per resto di suo residuo di detto offitio – 101 libr., 2 sol., 8 den.

Et perchè troviamo che il Conseglio li fece operai di detti buttini con questi patti che si obrigaro a dare a’detti buttini el terzo più aqua che non avevano quando li presero, et in caso che non la crescessero, come di sopra è detto, debano perdarsi el mezo del salario; et per tanto giudichiamo che le S.V. eleghino maestri intendenti di decta aqua e’quali habiano a vedere se l’ànno cresciuta come si obligati; et in caso che l’acqua non fusse cresciuta chome sonno obligati, giudichiamo habino perduto el loro salario come dice la riformagione: et perchè troviamo quanta più l’uscita che l’entrata libr. due, den. uno, giudichiamo se n’abbi el danno et non ne sia fatto creditore a nissuno luogho.

Anno Domini MCCCCXXXIIJ, indictione IJ, die vero XXIIJ mensis junij, lecta fuit suprascripta ratio et approbata per dominos Regulatores.

We have given them – 3500 lire

Below will be written out how all this was expended and the first amount listed is that of the said book – 6 soldi.

And we find of that 43 lire, 11 soldi were spent on the following things: thumb-screws and ropes and poles for the fountains, six baskets and little baskets, six sticks, one iron

447

mallet to break stones, lanterns, a small shovel of iron, 30 pounds of fir boards, in all, this totals – 43 lire, 11 soldi

These things we judge should be left in an inventory for their successor and record them in the account book for the Commune, and because we cannot know if they are lawful, we decree Your Lordships, [that] they must give oath of it.

And we find that of the said expenses, there have been 105 lire spent on tallow candles, for the needs of the said bottini and fountains – 14 lire, 10 soldi, 6 denari

And we find for avuti [?], patches, keys, hammered patches, a grid of copper, lead and a treated sandstone, [used] for the bottini that runs to the market, and four hammers of twine for suspension, [the cost] in sum – 10 lire, 18 soldi, 4 denari.

And for more for the sheets and collations given to the many people who went to examine the bottini and measure them [using an archipendolo] – on multiple occasions 15 lire, 18 soldi

And as salary for 37 months and 25 days, for cleaning the said fountains – 197 lire, 18 soldi

And also as salary for six months, 10 days, for cleaning the fountains of the Badìa Nuova, as agreed by the Quattro di Biccherna, [given] on three occasions - 2 lire, 2 soldi

And more we find for the water of the fountain of Pispini [or S. Viene] for three years, that is 1469-1470-1471, for the feast of Santa Maria in August, as is customary – 12 lire

And as the exchange: 4 gold florins = 1 lire, 5 soldi

And for 190 workers at various rates, for surveying done in the bottini multiple times, as well as for emptying of the basin of the Campo, in addition to the salary of five lire, 12 soldi for excavating in the channel of Uopini; the costs of which were largely made by the deliberations of the Quattro di Biccherna – 152 lire, 19 soldi

And also, two lire, four soldi, 24 soldi, in two books for the needs of the said office and 20 soldi to Sir Matteo, then notary to the Adjuster, because he drew up an agreement which the Regulators then executed – 2 lire, 4 soldi

And for 53 ¾ canne of channels, which were made in the hill of Uopini, at the rate of 3 lire, 15 soldi per canna, measured by Pietro del Abaco – 201 lire, 11 soldi, 3 denari

And also for emptying and cleaning of 88 canne in the aqueduct of Castagno, at the rate of 13 soldi per canna, which amounts to 573 lire, 6 soldi, measured by the Master Pietro Abaco – 573 lire., 6 sol.

448

And also for 73 ½ canne of channels, at the rate of 6 lire per canna, measured by the same Master Pietro - 441 lire

And also for 52 canne of channels, at the rate of 6 lire per canna, measured by master Francesco del Guasta and Giovanni Coiaregli, ordered by the Quattro di Biccherna – 312 lire

And for 38 canne of channels, for the remainder of the amount of the said aqueduct, the payment was not completed because it remained condemned by the Biccherna – 91 lire, 18 soldi

And also for a pipe made at Uopini, made of seven canne and three braccia, at the rate of 3 lire per unit – 23 lire, 5 soldi.

And to Maestro Francesco del Guasta and his company for the 21 canne and 2.5 braccia of channels they built at Uopini, measured by the Master Pietro Abaco – 389 lire, 5 soldi

And for the 918 total trips for the transport of sand, bricks, mortar, and of 800 skewers to protect the said bottini of Uopini – 36 lire, 14 soldi, 8 denari

And for 29 units of mortar mixed of alabaster and other more expensive limes, which in total cost 85 lire, 9 soldi, 8 denari

And for 26,700 bricks for the aforesaid bottini, bought from many people, at various prices and in various amounts, which in total cost - 320 lire, 12 soldi

And for the following things, that is: a bunch of assari [?], ten wood wedges for the fountains, 156 longer spurs to reinforce the bottini of Uopini, 800 skewers for the said armature, 6 rods to make the shed and for columns, and a bunch of cables for the said work which in total amounts to – 25 lire, 13 soldi

And more for the things given to the master who the Quattro have condemned, as it appears in Biccherna, and having condemned him they gave up – 1 lire, 11 soldi

And for Niccolò Brancini and Antonio di Giacomo d'Antonio, overseers authorized by master Castorius, operaio of the bottini, the salary amount of – 8 lire

And for the small house of the Regulator and his families – 2 lire

And the payment to Giovanni Lucini, as instructed by the Quattro di Biccherna because he guarded the exit of the basin [?] which had failed several times – 3 lire

And for their wages, for three years and two months, when they were the operai as has been said above – 432 lire

449

And for master Castorius, the new operaio for the remainder of his time in the said office – 101 lire, 2 soldi, 8 denari

And because we find that the operai of the said bottini took office with the terms that they were obligated to augment the water of the said bottini by one third more than there had been when they took office, and if the amount did not increase, as mentioned above, they would return half of their salary. And therefore we judge that Your Lordships elected the masters overseers of the said water, which we have to see if in one year it increases as specified. And in the case that the water does not increase as was stipulated, we judge that they will lose their salary as given in the contract. And although we find that 2 lire, 1 denari was overspent, we judge that they must pay this damage or be considered as creditors.

Year 1472, indication II, of the day 13 of the month June, given on the said date and approved by the Regulators.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Regulatiori 9, folio 369 *See Chironi (1991) 473; Petrucci 433 – 435; Weller 343 – 345.

(43) February 15, 1474 The Olivetani monks pay Francesco di Giorgio 27 soldi for a painting.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipintore, a dì detto, sol. 27 per lui contò a frate Marcho da Siena celleraio di Sant’Anna per detto del padre abbate, sono per dipentura di una pacie fecie in nella tenda de la tabola di Santa Katerina.

Archivio di Stato di Siena; Conventi 264, Carte di Monte Oliveto Maggiore, folio 312r *See Chironi (1991) 473; Weller 345.

(44) April 21, 1474 Contract regarding Francesco di Giorgio’s purchase of house in Siena in the district of San Giovanni.

Ser Thommas Nelli de Biringhucciis denuntiat quod: Anno MCCCCLXXIIII, indictione VII, die XXI Aprilis.

Ganus Mannni Mercator senensis vendidit Francisco Georgii pictori de Senis unam domum sitam Senis, in terzerio Civitatis et populo Sancti Iohannis, infra suos confines, pro pretio florenorum quinquaginta di lire 4 [per] fiorino fl. 50 1. 0 di lire 4 fiorino

Solvit die 17 Maii 1474 Crescentio Pietri camerario, folio 96 -- 1. 3 s. 6 d. 8

Solvit die 24 Maii 1474 Crescentio Pietri camerario, folio 96 -- 1 3 s. 6 d. 8

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Gabella dei Contratti 268, folio 122r *See Iorio 258.

450

(45) September 18, 1474 Payment made by the Abbey of Monteoliveto Maggiore for the transport of the panel executed by Francesco di Giorgio for the chapel of Santa Caterina.

A maestro Antonio di Iacomo da Voltina a dì 18 di settembre [1474] lire dicionove, soldi dodici contanti in sua mano qui ne la cella nostra, sono per sua fadiga e magisterio di fare condure da Siena a qui, a Monteoliveto la tavola de la capella di Sancta Katerina da Siena.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Conventi 264, folio 308v *See Zarrilli 531.

(46) December 24, 1474 The Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala pays Francesco di Giorgio 5 lire and 12 soldi, probably for the purchase of materials for a wooden sculpture for the church of Santissima Annunziata.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipentore a dì detto (24 dicembre 1474) lire cinque e soldi dodici contanti e sonno posti a libro verde T a foglio 38.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ospedale Santa Maria della Scala 860, folio 66r *See Zarrilli 531.

(47) February 15, 1475 Payment of the Abbey of Monte Oliveto Maggiore to Francesco di Giorgio for a panel realized for the chapel of Santa Caterina.

A Francesco di Giorgio dipentore a dì detto [15 febbraio 1475] soldi vintisette, e per lui contati a frate Marcho da Siena celleraio di Sanct’ Ana per detto del patre abate, sono per dipentura di pacie fecie nella tenda de la tabola di Sancta K[a]terina. 1. 1 s. 7 d. 0

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Conventi 264, Monte Oliveto Maggiore, folio 312r *See Iorio 238; Weller 345; Zarrilli 531.

(48) April 12, 1475 Francesco di Giorgio contracts with the monastery of Monte Oliveto Maggiore to complete a painting of the Nativity for fifty florins. It is said that Francesco must provide all materials with the exception of the panel, which would be purchased by the monastery. If Francesco completes the Nativity in “bella moda,” and the painting is estimated to be of greater value, he will receive an additional ten florins.

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio fu allogato di 12 Aprile a dipingere una tavola d’altare [cioè]…la Natività di N.S., e debba essere ornate di tutte quelle parti, che ricerca una bella tavola fatta da buono Maestro, e debba esser fornita per tempo d’un anno per primo

451

a venire, a noi li doviamo dare per suo salario fiorini cinquanta, et esso debba mattare tutti li colori, et oro di suo, eccetto lo compro della tavola; la qualo haviamo a pagare noi; ma se la facesse bella in modo, che fusse stimata più che monta lo pregio sopradetto, li doviamo dare più fiorini dieci ec.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Archivio de’ PP Olivetani, AA, folio 42 (not found) *See Chironi (1991) 474; Promis 18; Weller 345.

(49) July 6, 1475 Record of the legal dissolution of Francesco di Giorgio and Neroccio di Bartolomeo de’ Landi’s partnership. The record indicates that Lorenzo di Pietro Vecchietta and Sano di Pietro were elected arbitrate the settlement.

Franciscus Georgii Martini pictor de Senis ex una, et Neroccius Bartholomei Benedicti pictor de Senis ex altera parte, -- compromiserunt in magistrum Laurentium Pietri pictorem de Senis, electum pro parte dicti Francisci, et in magistrum Sanum Pietri, pictorem de Senis, electum pro parte dicti Neroccii – omnes lites – inter eos vertentes occasione societatis quam simul habuerunt in arte pictoria.

Francesco di Giorgio Martini, painter of Siena, on the one side, and Neroccio Bartolomeo Benedetto, painter of Siena, on the other [side], – they are arbitrated by Lorenzo di Pietro, painter of Siena, elected on behalf of the said Francesco, and by master Sano di Pietro, painter of Siena, elected on behalf of the said Nerroccio – all differences – between them ending the alliance that they had in the art of painting.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 610 *See Chironi (1991) 474; Milanesi (II) 465- 466; Weller 345.

(50) January 1, 1476 Francesco di Giorgio’s declaration of assets for 1475. He reports to have 286 lire, plus 114 lire owed to him by Girolamo and Pietro di Antonio di Benedetto Neroccio, as well as a one-hundred florin dowry credit held in the Monte.

Franciescho di Giorgio di Martino dipentore de’ avere adì primo di Giennaio 1475 lire dugiento ottatasei, sonno per tanti levati per suo resto da uma sua ragione dall’originale Terzo di Città foglio 188 1. CCXXXVI s. 0 d. 0

E de’ avere adì detto lire centoquarordici, soldi 0, li facciamo buoni per Girolamo e Pietro d’Antonio de Benedetto di Neroccio; sonno per resto di fiorini 100 li dovevano dare di chapitali di Monte di dote di madonna Agniesa, donna di detto Franciescho e sorella d’esso Girolamo; e sonno a llui all’originale nuovo di Tre Monti di Chamullia, foglio 220. 1. CXIIII s. 0 Posti all’originale di 4 Monti di Città, foglio 225.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 466, Originale de’ Tre Monti (1476), folio 187v

452

*See Iorio 258.

(51) March 23, 1476 Francesco di Giorgio and Giorgio di Giorgio de’ Tommasi select Paolo di Andrea and Melchiore di Barile to arbitrate their dispute. The nature of the dispute is not given.

Francesco di Giorgio Martini pittore e Giorgio di Giorgio de’ Tommasi compromettono il primo in Paolo di maestro Andrea pittore, e il secondo in Melchiore di Barile per la divisione di una loro lite.

[In the left margin:] Peccato che non dicano la cagione della loro contraversia, forse si trattava di un lavoro artistico.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biblioteca Comunale, Milanesi, “Miscellanea,” Ms. P. III 49, folio 505r *See Iorio 259.

(52) June 20, 1476 Francesco di Giorgio sells a plot of cultivated land to Galgano di Meo Moni for 758 lire.

Franciscus olim Georgii Martini, pictor de Senis per se et suos heredes et successores, iure proprio etc., cum infrascripta tamen dominii reservatione, vendidit dedit et tradidit Galgano olim Mei Moni, fornaciario de Sancta Eugenia infra Massas Senarum, presenti recipienti et ementi pro se et suis heredibus et successoribus, unam ipsius Francisci petiam terre partim vineate et partim laborative et olivate, stariorum in totum quinque vel circa, sitam in Comuni Maggiani infra Massas predictas, in loco dicto Corte Romboli, cui ex uno via Comunis, ex alio Frosini de Faleris a pede ecclesie Sancti Martini de Senis, et ex alio dicti emptoris, et si qui sunt alii etc., cum omnibus iuribus et pertinentiis suis etc., et cum accessibus ingressibus etc. in integrum etc., ad habendum, tenendum etc. Pro pretio et nomine pretii librarum setingentarum quinquaginta octo denariorum Senensium, ad totam Kabellam emptoris; et cum pacto apposite et declarato in principio, medio et fine presentis contractus quod dictus emptor teneatur et obligatus sit respondere et dare quolibet anno imperetuum dicte ecclesie Sancti Martini unum cerum unius libre, sub quo onere dicuts venditor aperuit et declaravit dictam possessionem venditam subiacere; et quod ipse emptor facere et curare ita et taliter teneatur quod dictus Franciscus et eius heredes et successores et bona pro predictis non molestenetur, alias ipsum Franciscum et eius heredes et successors et bona semper sine danno conservare. Quod pretium dictus emptor dare et solvere promisit dicto venditori presenti etc., in termino viginti mensium proxime futurorum et ab inde in antea ad omnem dicti venditoris requisitionem et voluntatem, omni exceptione remota. In quibus libris 758 pro pretio predicto ut sopra solvendis dictus emptor se principalem debitorem et pagatorem constituit dicto Francesco presenti et ut supra recipienti, et dictorum denariorum solutionem facere promist Senis, Florentie, Pisis, etc. cum integra refectione expensarum etc., volens ibidem pro predictis posse realiter et personaliter conveniri.Cum hoc pacto inter ipsas partes declarato et apposito in principio, medio et fine presentis contractus, quod dominium dicte rei vendite intelligatur esse et sit reservatum ipsi venditori donec dictum pretium fuerit integraliter

453

solutim, quo pretio integraliter soluto et non aliter, dictum dominium intelligatur translatum in dictum emptorem. Hoc tamen declarato, quod elapso dicto termino idem emptor possit conveniri et cogi ad solutionem dicti pretii et ad satisfactionem expensarum, damnorum et interesse dicti Francisci realiter et personaliter, ad voluntatem dicti venditoris vel suorum heredum, omni exceptione cessant, et hoc casu quo dictus venditor vellet dictum pretium et non rem venditam predictam. Si vero ipse venditor, elapso dicto termino et non soluto pretio predicto, vellet rem venditam predictam, possit et sibi liceat eam accipere vigore dicti reservati dominii, sua propria auctoritate et sine alicuius requisitione. Et si quid plus dicto pretio dicta res vendita valeret, titulo donationis etc. Et dedit licentiam auctoriatem et facultatem dictus venditor eidem emptori presenti et accipeinti tentutam etc. Quam etc. et donec eam adeptus fuerit constituit se interim etc., et promisit non tollere etc. sed defendere etc., omnibus suis expensis etc. et ex dictis causa et titulo etc. Constituens etc. salva tamen supradicta dominii reservatione. Asserens etc. Que omnia et singula supradicta dictus venditor per se et suos heredes et successores perpetuo attendere et observare promisit dicto emptori presenti etc. et contra non facere etc., sub pena dupli dicti pretii etc., et ipsa pena etc., cum refectione etc. Pro quibus etc. dicti contrahentes sibi ad invicem et vicissim, congrua congruis referendo, obligaverunt etc., renuntiaverrunt etc., iuraverunt etc., cum guarantigia etc. Rogantes etc.

Actum Senis, in domo residentie universitatis Artis Lane, presentibus domino Raynaldo Bartolomei Fungarie de Senis et Iohanne Stefani ser Nicloai de Senis, testibus etc.

Ego Dominicus etc.

[In the left margin at top:] Pro Galgano Mei Moni publicatum pro emptore. Sumptum et publicatum pro Francisco per me Benidictum Biliocti notario die 14 Maii 1479.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 510, Ser Domenico di Cristoforo Francescuoli (1476 September 19, 1478), doc. 26 *See Iorio 259 – 261.

(53) July 25, 1476 The Signoria of Siena write to Cristoforo di Guidoccio Giunta, commissioner for the Bruna lake, advising him to call masters “Francius et Sanus” to verify the quality and the state of work on the dam. This is thought to be a reference to Francesco di Giorgio and Sano di Matteo.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1691, Copialettere 95, folios 161v – 162r *See Chironi (1991) 474; Promis 19; Romagnoli (IV) 767.

(54) May 17, 1477 Francesco di Giorgio is named director of work at the castle of Costacciaro near Gubbio, having been appointed by Federico da Montefeltro. The document includes the names individuals from Lombardy who have been hired to work on the project and their terms of contract.

454

In nomine D.ni. Amen Die XVII menis maii [1477] in supradicta domo mei notarii. Presentibus Bartolomeo Antonii Cellis de Villa Vignoli et Fanne Nannis de castro Turris [Calzolariorum] et Rentio Spagne de Villa Submontis comit. Eug. testibus ad infrascripta adhibitis et vocatis. Spectabilis Vir Franciscus Georgi de Senis vice et nomine Ill.mi D.ni N.ri Federici ducis Urbini etc. dedit et locavi infrascriptum opus mag.ro Petro mag.ri Laurentii et mag.ro Galeazzo ser Ferandi de Riva S.ti Vitalis dioc. Cuman provintie Lombardie, presentibus et conducentibus; videlicet quendam murum fabricandum pro castro et ad castrum Costacciarii cum quibusdam fontibus voltatis sub dicto revellino secundum designtionem et ordinationem factam et que fieri contigerit per prefatum spectabilem virum Francischum et eidem Francisco per supradictum intervienent solemniter, promiserunt ipsum opus fabricare et murare fideliter ad usum bonorum magistrorum et ad approbationem ipsius Francisci et hec promiserunt facere omnibus ipsorum magistrorum superstitibus quo ad victum et foedera Omnia fundamenta oportuna secundum quod dixit sive dixerit prefatus Franciscus. Cum hoc, quod Comune et homines de Costacciaro preparent et apportent ad locum predictum calcem, arenariam, lapides et lignamina pro armature, et calcem extinctam prima vice certa facent et facere teneantur ipsi magistri. Et hoc pro mercede quinquagintaocto bonorum veterum quo qualibet canna muri grossitudinis duorum pedum quod dandam et solvendam eis per prefatum Ill.mum D.num. Que omnia dicti conductors observare et adimplere promiserunt etc. sub pena centum ducatorum pro quolibet eorum contrafaciente. Qua pena solute vel non rata et firma pepigerunt predicta omnia iuraverunt insuper dicti conductors; predicta omnia et singula observare et adimplere et non contrafacere aliqua ratione vel causa.

In the name of the Lord, Amen, on the 17th of the month of May [1477] in the above- named house of the notary. Present here, Bartolomeo Antonio Cellis di Villa Vignoli, Fannius Nanni di Castello della Torre, and Rentio Spagnia di Villa Submontis, citizens of Gubbio, employed and called as witnesses to the under-written. The notable man Francesco di Giorgio of Siena, named by the Illustrious Duke Federico of Urbino, has hired and appointed for the underwritten work Master Pietro Laurentius and Master Galeazzo Ferandi di Riva Santi Vitalis, of the diocese of Cumania of the province of Lombardy, here present and willing. [The work], namely of making a certain wall for the castle and defenses of Costacciaro with the water sources [?] under the said ravellin according to the design and ordnance given, which happens to have been provided by the aforementioned remarkable Francesco di Giorgio, and that same Francesco regularly intervenes. They [Pietro Laurentius and Master Galeazzo Ferandi] have promised him to construct the work and to build faithfully for the use of their good masters and to the standard of said Francesco. And they promised to do all these things for their masters, and in return, the pay and reimbursement of the contract is to be set according to what Francesco has said or will say. In addition, [it is given] that the Commune and the men of Costacciaro are to prepare and deliver to the said building-site lime, sand, stones, and wood for scaffolding, and they are to make certain slaked lime for first time, and are bound to obey the masters. And at the rate of 58 traditional bona for each two-foot unit of the wall thickness, they will be granted and paid by the most illustrious Lord Duke. All of these things the said contractors promise to observe and fulfill, under penalty of 100 ducats for each offense. Said contractors agree to the given punishment and give oath to all the

455

above. Each and all of what is given here is to be observed and fulfilled, and is not to be negated for any cause or reason.

Archivio di Stato di Gubbio, Fondo Notarile, Prot. 98, folio 178r *See Chironi (1993) 402; Giangiacomo Martines, “Francesco di Giorgio a Gubbio in tre documenti d’archivio rinvenuti e trascritti da Piero Luigi Menichetti,” Ricerche di storia dell’arte 11 (1980): 68 – 69.

(55) May 22, 1477 Berardino di Nanni di Pietro, painter of Gubbio, is appointed to decorate a grand room at the Palazzo Ducale in Gubbio according to the design provide by Francesco di Giorgio. The contract also specifies that Francesco di Giorgio oversees the entire project and decides on Bernardino’s final salary.

Die xxii mensis maii [1477]. Actum Eugubii in supradicta domo mei notarii presentibus testibus in fine presenti contractus descriptis. Spectabilis vir Franciscus Georgii de Senis, vice et nomine illustrissimi domini nostri Ducis et cetera, locavit et concessit Berardino quondam Nannis Petri pictori de Eugubio, presenti et conducenti opus infrascriptum videlicet quod dictus Berardinus teneatur et debeat depingere de colore azurro fino, valoris quattuor ducatorum pro qualibet libra, quemdam fregium in camera sue illustrissimi domini ad omnes parietes cum litteris aureis, et etiam facere et depingere in tota dicta camera omnia alia laboreria que sunt designate in quodam folio carte ostenso et demonstrato ipsi Berardino per dictum Francischum, in presentia dictorum testium et mei notarii, et de coloribus sibi commissis per ipsum Francischum, et cum auro fino in locis dicte camera secundum quod per dictam designationem apparet in dicto folio et ubicumque apparet color croceus sit aurum cum damaschino alto et basso, cum olio fregio supra circumcircha ad omnes parietes secundum dictam designationem et totum aurum et colores ponere ibi de suo proprio et omnia et singula facere circa predicta que dictus Franciscus sibi dixerit ordinasse et designasse et commisisse et quod dicum opum debeat esse aprobabile iudicio ipsius Francisci. Et dictum opus facere et complere promisit per totum mensem septembirs proxime future. Et hoc pro mercede septuaginta ducatorum auri sibi dandorum et solvendorum per prefatum illustrissimum Dominum nostrum sive per alium pro sua Domino solventem. Quod opus promisit facere bona fide et cetera et ita iuravit et cetera, presentibus donno Sensio Pauli Sensi de Eugubio et Iacopo Pritiani de Senis testibus et cetera.

Archivio di Stato, Gubbio, Fondo Notarile, Prot. 98, folio 183r *See Chironi (1993) 402; Martines 69.

(56) May 25, 1477 Francesco di Giorgio, on behalf of Ottaviano Ubaldini, grants Filippo di Carlo Gabrielli da Gubbio a piece of land next to Filippo’s property, which is also adjacent to the holdings of Ubaldini.

Die xxv dicti mensis [maii 1477]. Actum Eugubii in claustro domus mei notarii siti iuxta vias publicas a duobus lateribus, ab alio domum Rosati tonsoris, ab aliis res mei notarii,

456

presentibus ser Cristoforo de Sancto Angelo in Vado et ser Alouisio, ser Franciscus de Grottis de Eugubio testibus et cetera. Spectabilis vir et ingeniosus architector Franciscus Georgii de Senis, vice et nomine magnifici domini Octaviani de Ubaldinis, affirmans et dicens se ad hoc eodem domino Octaviano commissionem habuisse et habere, salvo et expresse reservato iure comunis Eugubii quod habet in re infrascripta pro datiis et honeribus dicti Comunis secundum formam statuorum et cetera, dedit et donavit et cetera, irrevocabiliter inter vivos stenuo et nobili equiti domino Filippo Caroli de Gabrielibus de Eugubio, presenti et aceptanti ac recipient pro se et suis heredibus et cetera, tantum de situ et spatio terreni et loci contigui domui habitationis ipsius domini Filippi siti in quarterior Sancti Andree civitatis Eugubii iuxta viam publicam, que est ex parte orientis ex una parte stratum militarem, ab alio latere videlicet superior res dicti domini Filippi, ab alio latere videlicet inferiori quam adscendat in mensura ad septem pedes cum dimidio per latitudinem, mensurando a muro domus ipsius domini Filippi et protendendo versus res ipsius magnifici domini Octaviani, per longitudinem vero quantum se porrigit murus dicte domus domini Filippi ab angulo superiori videlicet ad inferiorem, et cuius situs donate et concessi ab uno latere, videlicet superiori, est dicta strata militaris, ab alio dicta domus domini Filipi, ad alio situs et terrenum versus casenum continguum domibus prefati domini Octaviani, ad habendum, tenendum, possidendum scalas et quodcumque edifitium quod ipsi domino Filippo in et super dicto situ et locho donato placuerit faciendum et construendum et fieri et construe faciendum et cetera.

Archivio Stato di Gubbio, Fondo Notarile, Prot. 98, folio 184v – 185r *See Chironi (1993) 402 – 403.

(57) August 23, 1477 Francesco di Giorgio advises the Sienese Balìa on current developments in Urbino. The “Signor Antognio” he mentions is Antonio da Montefeltro, illegitimate son of Federico da Montefeltro who led the papal, Sienese and Aragonese troops against the Florentines.

Magnifici e potenti Signori miei etc. Parmi mio debito, esendo figliuolo e servidore dele Signorie vostre ed ancho tenero dela patria, e quando in detrimento di quella alchune chose sentisi, subito a vostre Signorie significarle. Unde Signori miei in questo dì 22 d’agosto a hore 23 mi dise el Signor Otaviano chome vostre Signorie molto male si portavano del Signor Antognio, e in questo interoti fumo e no’ gli posei fare risposta. Di poi a’ 23 di deto, sua Signoria mi chiamò e mostròmi una letera la quale chi schrita l’avese non so, ma molto forte agrava le Signorie vostre invero del Signor Antognio e masime de’ denari e vetavaglia. Unde esso Signor Otaviano mi sugiune chome el Signor ducha n’era grandemente indegniato e chosì deto. Io gli risposi che le loro Signorie non s’ avìano da maravigliare perché e populi non sono altrimenti fati e masime una chumanità e non tanto la nostra ma etiam tute le altre perché dove è la moltitudine è lla chonfusione e sono diecimilia pareri. Ma che le Signorie loro fusero cietre chome chostì è degli uomini da bene e che intendano e chognioschano quanto è da chogniosciare e che senza dubio interamente sua Signoria sarìa ben proveduto e satisfato. E qui chontai el modo del trare de’ denari e dele longeze de’ chonsegli, schusando chon vive ragioni che io sepi e potei, in modo che sua Signoria mi chonfesò chogniosciare chosì esare el vero. Piacia a

457

vostre Signorie lui si parta chon gratia e ben chontento da quele, perchè avendo la sua Signoria avete anchora quella del Signor ducha suo padre. El quale da mo’ innanzi era parzialissimo dele vostre Signorie e della patria nostra. E di questo ne poso dire più che nisuno imperochè quando chominciò le trame del chonte Charlo, mi trovai ad Agobio e la stantia mia era cho suoi segretari e chancielieri e chontìnovo vidi e intesi lo intrinsecho di tute le letare. Notifichandone ale Signorie vostre chaso non chredo che nisuno della patria nostra ho di vostre Signorie schrivese più chaldo moto [?] ne chon più solecitudine per la salute dela patria nostra che se sa sua Signoria comque [?] ragioni exortando el papa e la maestà de’ re in favore e aiuto dela nostra cità. Siché pertanto, Signori miei, m’è parso mio debito el darne aviso alle Signorie vostre alle quali di chontinovo mi rachomando pregando Idio le felici[ti] in chontinova e perpetua pacie. Adì 25 di questo va el Signor ducha a champo a Montone.

Servitor Franciscus Gorgi pitor senensis Urbini [On verso:] Magnifici Signori di Siena et Signori di Balìa.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2039, lettere, July 25 1477 – March 14, 1478, no. 36 *See Iorio 261 – 262.

(58) September 28, 1477 Duke Federico da Montefeltro writes to the Signoria of Siena, praising the work of Giovanni di Stefano, who has served him as stone-cutter and in the production of armaments.

Magnifici Domini, patres carissimi. Serà exibitore de la presente, Giovanni de maestro Stefano piccapetra [scarpellino] dal quale se è recevuto optimo servitio, si ne l’exercitio suo predicto, come etiam nel trare la bombarda cum diligentia, et solicitudine per modo, che el merita gran comendatione: per tanto quanto più posso lo racomando a le S.V., et le prego li faccino intendere che el servitio suo ne è stato acepto, come è veramente. Ex Castris apud Montonum XXVIII Septembris 1477. Federicus Dux Urbini, Montisferetri ac Durantis Comes etc. Regius Capitaneus generalis, ac S.R. Ecclesie Confalonerius.

[Margin:] Magnificis dominis, patribus carissimis, Dominis Balie civitatis Senarum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Riformagioni, letttere di Duchi e Marchesi, filza 5 *See Milanesi (II) 362.

(59) November 8, 1477 Francesco di Giorgio petitions to the Officials of the Consistory for permission to construct a bridge between his two houses on the piazza San Giovanni. He promises to engineer the structure “very handsomely.” The document also affirms that Francesco is in Urbino in the service of Duke Federico da Montefeltro.

458

Dinanzi da Voi magnifici Signori. Francesco di Giorgio dipentore, vostro citadino, minimo servitore, con reverentia expone: come benchè lui si trovi al presente absente da la cictà vostra. per trovarsi a servigio de l'Illustrissimo duca d'Urbino, ha nientedimeno speranza a qualche tempo repatriare lui e suoi figliuoli; et havendo una sua casa in Siena ne la contrada di Santo Giovanni, che risponde dietro nel chiasso di Ghiacceto dove ha un'altra casella, et disiderarebbe fare uno ponte da la decta sua casa a la decta casella, ad similitudine di quello che v'à facto Francesco Marinelli; per tanto supplica a V.S., che si degni per centia di potere fare decto ponte. Et lui s'ingegnera fare assai bello acconcio, et reputarallo a gratia singulare da la V.M.S. a la quale sempre si raccomanda, pregando Dio etc. etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2125, Ufficiali sopra l’ornato, folio 137r *See Chironi (1991) 474; Milanesi (II) 363; Weller 346.

(60) November 22, 1477 Approval notice of Francesco di Giorgio’s petition to build a bridge connecting his two properties on the piazza San Giovanni.

Anno Domini MCCCCLXXVII, indictione XI, die VIIIa novembris. Lecta et aprobata fuit dicta petitio inter magnificos dominos et capitaneum populi et per eos deliberatum quod ponatur ad ordines civitatis pro ut stat.

Anno et indictione predictis, die XXII novembris. Letta et approbata fuit dicta petitio inter magnificos dominos, capitaneum populi, vexilliferos et ordines civitatis, et per eos deliberatum quod ponatur ad Consilium Generale pro ut stat. Et tassata fuit dicta petitio per tassatores secretos, grossos quattuor, solvendo camerario Montis. Et solvit camerario Concistorii grossos 4, ad eius introitum, folio 24.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2125, Ufficiali sopra l’ornato (1427 - 1480), folio 137r *See Iorio 262.

(61) November 25, 1477 Registration of Francesco di Giorgio’s payment, regarding his petition of November 8, 1477.

Adì XXV di novembre paghò Francesco di Giorgio dipentore soldi XXII per tassa d’una pitizione manda al consiglio generale e so’ a entrata di Tomaxo Tomaxi, Kamerlingo del Monte, a foglio 19. Tomaxo Tomaxi, Kamerlingo del Monte

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2187, Scritture Concistoriali (1477 – 1478) (found in an envelope of miscellaneous payments of 1477) *See Chironi (1991) 474; Iorio 262 – 263.

459

(62) 1478 Francesco di Giorgio declares 625 lire of assets. He is registered as a resident of Valle Piatta.

Franciesco de Giorgio de Martino depintore, lire seicento venicinque, 625.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 68, Libro della Lira (1478), folio 17v *Iorio 263.

(63) July 25, 1478 Letter of Federico da Montefeltro to the Signoria of Siena, in which he asserts to have entrusted a message to Francesco di Giorgio “your citizen and my architect.”

Magnifici et potentes Domini fratres carissimi. Serà exhibitore de la presente Francesco di Giorgio vostro citadino, e mio architecto: qual vi dirà alcune chose per mia parte: prego le S.V. li prestino fede a quanto vi dirà in mio nome. Ex felicibus Castris pontificalibus et regiis, apud Rincinum, xxv Iulii 1478. Federicus Dux Urbini Montisferetrique comes et regius Capitaneus generalis ac sancte romane Ecclesie Confalonerius.

[On reverse:] Ma[gnificis] et Pontentibus Dominis nostris carissimis, Dominis Prioribus et gubernatoribus Comunis et capitaneo populi civitatis [Senarum].

Magnificent and powerful Lords, beloved brothers. [This letter] will be given by the present Francesco di Giorgio, your citizen and my architect, who will say some things on my behalf: I ask Your Lordships to pay him honor as he represents my name. From the prosperous Royal and Papal camp, at Rincine, 25 July 1478. Federico Duke of Urbino and Montefeltro, count and royal captain general of the Holy Roman Church.

[On reverse:] [Magnificent] and powerful Lords, most dear to us, Lord Priors and Governors of the Commune and captain of the people of the city [of Siena].

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2040, n. 73 *See Borghesi and Banchi 250; Chironi (1991) 474; Weller 347.

(64) July 28, 1478 A letter of Federico da Montefeltro to the Signoria of Siena, indicating that he has sent “the distinguished master Francesco” to consult on his behalf. The letter confirms that Francesco di Giorgio was with the duke between July 26 and August 18 during the period of the siege of Castellina in Chianti.

Magnifici et potentes Domini fratres carissimi. El presente latore sera lo egregio maestro Francesco vostro citadino, al quale ho comesso alcune cose debba referire a le V.S. per

460

mia parte, et però prego quelle che li piaccia dare piena fè, commo a mi proprio, de quanto lui exporrà e le prefate V.S.

Datum ex felicissimis Castria Sanctissimi Domini Nostri et Regiis, contra Castellinam, die XXVIII Iulii 1487.

Federicus Dux Urbini Montsferetri ac Durantis Comes, et regius Capitaneus generalis sancteque Romane Ecclesie Confalonerius.

[On reverse:] [Mag]nificis et Pontentibus Dominis Prioribus Gubernatoribus et Capitaneo populi civitatis Senarum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2040, number 81 *See Chironi (1991) 474; Weller 347.

(65) April 4, 1479 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment of three ducats to Francesco di Giorgio.

Ad maestro Francisco pinctore senese: ducati tre sopra soa provisione, facto cuncto con dicto [Cicchella de Felice] scrivan de racione: duc. III.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 48v *See Chironi (1991) 474; Weller 347.

(66) October 17, 1479 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment of three ducats to Francesco di Giorgio for a painted map of Poggio Imperiale.

Ad maestro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati tre d’oro; et forono ad complimento de certa opera che havia pinctata del Pogio Imperiale: duc. III.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 42v *See Weller 347.

(67) December 4, 1479 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment to Francesco di Giorgio of eleven ducats – his stipend for the month of December.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati undici; et forono per la soa provisione per tucto decembro, facto cuncto con dicto scrivan di racione: duc. XI.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 42v *See Weller 348.

461

(68) December 4, 1479 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment to Francesco di Giorgio of two ducats for the cost of new shoes.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati dui: de li quali lo Signore Duca li fe’ gracia per uno paro de calzi, facto cuncto con dicto scrivan de racione: duc. II

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 48v *See Weller 348.

(69) December 4, 1479 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment to Francesco di Giorgio of two ducats. The money was to be used to purchase materials to prepare the map of Poggio Imperiale for shipment to Naples.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati tre per, per comprare quillo bisogna a la pinctura del Pogio Imperiale, per mandarlo al Signor re, facto cuncto con Cichella, scrivan de racione: duc. III.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 48v *See Weller 348.

(70) January 1, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for a four-ducat salary payment to Francesco di Giorgio.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati quactro d’oro sopra soa provisione, facto cuncto con dicto scrivan de racione: duc. IV.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 48v *See Weller 348.

(71) January 30, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment to Francesco di Giorgio of 6 ducats. The amount was to serve as stipend for the architect and his two assistants, Cristofalino and Antonio di Capua.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese; et ad Cristofalino: ducati sei; et per essi ad Antonio de Capoa per certo panno, facto cuncto per lo scrivano sopra loro provisione: duc. VI.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 54 *See Weller 348.

(72) January 30, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment to Francesco di Giorgio of 4 ducats, 1 tarì – his stipend for the month of February.

462

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati quactro, tari uno, ad complimento de soa provisione per tucto frebaro presente, facto cuncto con Ciccella, scrivan de racione: duc. IV.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 55 *See Weller 348.

(73) February 2, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment of a 4 ducats, 1 tarì, 12 grani stipend to Francesco di Giorgio.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati quactro, tarì, uno, grana dudici, ad complimento de soa provisione de la presente mesata, facto cuncto con dicto scrivan de racione: duc. IV, tari I, gr. XII.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 55v

*See Weller 349.

(74) March 27, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment of a three-ducat stipend to Francesco di Giorgio.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati tre d’oro, per occorrimento sopra soa provisione, facto cuncto con Ciccella, scrivan de racione: duc. III.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 59 *See Weller 349.

(75) April 14, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for payment to Francesco di Giorgio of a 1 ducat, 10 grani stipend.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducat uno, grani dece, sopra soa provisione: facto cuncto con dicto scrivan de racione: duc. I, gr. X.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 61v *See Weller 349.

(76) May 31, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for a four-ducat payment made to Francesco di Giorgio for mirror he made for Duke Alfonso II of Calabria.

Ad mastro Francesco, pinctore senese: ducati quattro d’oro; et forono per uno speccio vindiò al Signo Duca, facto cuncto con Ciccella, scrivan de racione: duc. IV.

463

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 65v *See Weller 349.

(77) June 2, 1480 Neapolitan treasury receipt for a 3 ducat, 3 tarì, 2 grani payment made to Francesco di Giorgio – his stipend for the months of April and May.

Ad dicto mastro Francesco: ducati tre, tarì tre, grani dui; et forono complimento de soa provisione de aprile per tucto magio paxato, facto cuncto con dicto scrivan de racione: duc. III, t. III, gr. II.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 76, folio 66 *See Weller 349.

(78) July 26, 1480 Federico da Montefeltro writes to the Balìa, asking that Francesco di Giorgio be added to the regiment and elected to the positions of the state.

Magnifici et potentes Domini fratres carissimi. Io ho qui alli servizii mei Francesco di Giorgio vostro citadino et mio dilettissimo archietecto qual desideria fosse messo in quello magnifico Regimento, perchè così recerca l’ingegno, bontà, prudentia et virtù sue. Pertanto prego Vostre Mag. tie che li piaccia de eleggerlo a cio, et a numerarlo cum li altri dello Stato, che da quelle lo riceverò in singular piaxere come più largamente referirà el vostro M.o Ambaxiatore per mia parte. Et rèndanose certe le S.V. che se io non fosse certo che de lui non se pò mai sperare altro che bene fedelità et utile de quello stato, Io non lo materia inanzi ne pregarìa per lui. Et ultra ciò recomando a le V.S. Berardino di lando et li fratelli, che se non possono obtener el stato, al meno non sieno confinati, che l’uno et l’altro receverià in gratia di V.S. et mi serà grato quanto cosa che per uno tracto lo podesse riciver da Quelle, a le quali mi offero et raccomando.

Ex Durante XXVI Iulii 1480 Federicus Dux Urbini Montisfereti ac Durantis comes, et Regius Capitaneus generalis, ac Sancte Romane Ecclesie Gonfalonerius.

[On reverse:] Magnificis et potentibus dominis fratribus carissimis, Dominis Officialibus Baglie Civitatis Senarum.

Magnificent and powerful Lords, dearest brothers. I have here in my services Francesco di Giorgio, your citizen and my most beloved architect, who desires to be placed in that magnificent regiment, because of his ingenuity, goodness, prudence and virtue. Therefore, I ask your Lordships that you elect him to that [office], and to count him with others of the state, as this would bring me singular pleasure as he most munificently serves your Lordships as ambassador on my behalf. And I make certain to Your Lordships that if I were not certain of him, and if I never sought to be anything but faithful and helpful to that state, I would not introduce the issue or ask for him. And more, I recommend to Your Lordships Bernardino di Landi and his brothers, who if they

464

cannot achieve citizenship, at least should not be banished, so that both receive the favor of Your Lordships, and I would be so grateful if they could receive such from You, to whom I offer and recommend myself.

From Durante 26 July 1480 Federico Duke of Urbino Montefeltro and lord of Durante, and Captain General, and Gonfalonier of the Holy Roman Church.

[On reverse:] Magnificent and powerful lords, dearest brothers, Lord Officials of the Balìa of the City of Siena.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa, Lettere ad annum 502, No. 20 *See Chironi (1991) 474; Weller 349 – 350.

(79) Document: July 30, 1480 The Balìa elects Francesco di Giorgio, in compliance with the request of Federico da Montefeltro, to join the Consiglio del Popolo of Siena.

Franciscum Georgii aggregaverunt Consilio populi et decreverunt quod gaudeat cunctis privilegiis et immunitatibus quibus gaudent reliqui, qui risederunt ad officium Magnficorum Dominorum Priorum civtatis Sen.

They have added Francesco di Giorgio to the Consiglio del Popolo and decreed that he will enjoy all privileges and immunities as those who hold the office of the Magnificent Lord Priors of the City of Siena.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 20, Deliberazioni, folio 53v *See Weller 350.

(80) January 1, 1481 Francesco di Giorgio’s report of assets, as given on January 1, 1481. He is registered as “dipentore,” and is said to possess a total of 697 lire. The document also notes that he received fifty-seven lire, 8 soldi for his service in the last war.

Franciescho di Giorgio di Martino dipentore de’ avere adì primo di giennaio 1480 lire quatrociento, soldi 0, per tanti n’ è creditore a l’originale di Tre Monti del Terzo di Città, a foglio 187. 1. CCCC s. –

E adì detto lire cinquantasette, soldi otto, per tanti n’ à paghati nela ghuerra passata; apare al sommario di Città, a foglio 268 1. LVII s. VIII

E adì detto lire quarantaquattro, soldi due, per tanti n’ era creditore in questo a foglio 668 1. XLIIII s. II

E de’ avere lire cinque, soldi 0, per tanti n’ à paghati chol quarto; apare al foglio delo stratto biancho del Terzo di Città, a foglio 5 1. V s. –

465

E de’ avere lire sedici, soldi dieci, per tanti n’ à paghati chol quarto Giorgio suo padre; apare al foglio delo stratto biancho, a foglio 131 1. XVI s. X

E de’ avere lire cientosettantaquattro per lire XLIII, soldi X, sbatutoli di suo provisioni al lire di Città, 1488, a foglio 138, messi qui a 4 per uno per diliberatione di Balìa; e sso’ al Comuno di Siena in questo, foglio 918 1. CLXXIIII s. – 697. 0 –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 448, Libro dei Monti (1480), folio 255v *See Iorio 263 – 264.

(81) June 21, 1481 Federico da Montefeltro writes to the Balìa along with a message that he has entrusted to Francesco di Giorgio, who he refers to as “my architect.”

Magnifici Domini, Fratres carissimi. Io ho commesso a Francesco da Siena mio architectore, presente portatore, che per mia parte dica alcune cose a le S.V. Piaccia a quelle crederli et darli piena fede quanto a mi. Apparecchiato a li piaceri delle S.V. Eugubii, xxj Iunii 1481.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 503, no. 43 *See Chironi (1991) 475; Weller 350.

(82) June 25, 1481 Francesco di Giorgio is invited to visit the site of Casole d’Elsa and other fortifications.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 24, deliberazioni, folio 62v *See Chironi (1991) 475; Romagnoli (IV) 789.

(83) November 27, 1481 Marino Tomacelli of Naples writes to the Signoria of Lucca, asking that they give Neroccio di Bartolomeo (Landi) an extension on a work they have commissioned from him, as he was working on behalf of the Duke of Calabria.

Magnifici Domini, tamquam patres, recommendatione etc. Magnifici Signori. Mostra Maestro Nerozo di Siena habbia pigliato a dipignere una tavola dello Abate de’Bernardi dell’ordine di San Benedetto, quale era obligato a darla in un certo tempo: et perchè questo maestro ha a fare certe opere dello Ill.mo Sig. Duca di Calabria, prego V.S. li voglia piacere, per servitio dello Ill.mo Sig. Duca, adoperare con lo Abate li habbia a prolungare il tempo du’ o tre mesi. Et di questo quelle ne compiaceranno molto allo Ill.mo Signor Duca. Prego la S.V. li voglia piacere donarmi adviso della voluntà di quelle, alle quali mi offero. Senis, xxvij novemb. 1481

Archivio di Stato di Lucca, Copiario n. 553, folio 14 *See Borghesi and Banchi 259.

466

(84) October 1481 Francesco di Giorgio’s report of assets, as given in October 1481. He confirms to own two properties on San Giovanni, and states that he has five daughters, one son, and a pregnant wife.

X. 1481. Dina[n]zi a voi spetabili citadini eletti a fare la nuova lire dicesi per me Francesco di Giorgio di Martino avere li intrascritti beni e charichi e però: Una chasa de la mia abitazione nel terzo di Cità in su la piaza di San Giovanni; uno maghazino dietro a detta chasa al quale tiene Batista Pianelaio per funari; item cinque figliuole femine, et una di queste d’anni xii, et uno fanciullo maschio di sei mesi et la donna gravida. Rachomandomi a le vostre spetabilità.

October 1481. Before you, esteemed elected citizens, for the new Lira record, I Francesco di Giorgio Martini report to have the following goods and expenses, and so: A house in which I reside within the City on the piazza San Giovanni; A warehouse behind the said home which is rented to Battista Pianelaio for funerary works; [I have] also five daughters, one who is twelve years old, and one son who is six months and a pregnant wife. I recommend myself to your lordships.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 186, no. 70 *See Chironi (1991) 475; Chironi (1993) 403; Weller 351.

(85) 1481 Francesco di Giorgio’s report of assets for 1481.

Francesco di Giorgio di Martino, lire cinquecento, 500 1. – s. – d. 5

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 74, Libro della Lira (1481), folio 16v *See Iorio 263.

(86) 1481 Francesco di Giorgio is sent to examine the Keep of Casole d’Elsa.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Deliberazioni, XXII, folio 62v (document lost) *See Iorio 263; Romagnoli (IV) 789.

(87) July 10, 1482 Francesco di Giorgio advises the Sienese Capitano del Popolo from Urbino about recent military campaigns in Umbria and Abruzzo.

Magnifici e potenti Signori miei, è stato qua Paghanino mandato di vostra Signoria, a domandare dove el Signor Antognio si trovava. Sua Signoria non s’è mai partito da Urbino. Apresso per dare qualche aviso a vostre Signorie dele chose di qua, io chredo siano informate de l’auta di Chastello e chome tre roche erano in patti, e sono state mese

467

nelle mani degli huomini del Signore duchae sichondo sua Signoria giudicharà se ne dìe fare. Io voglio che vostre Signorie sapino che se non fusi io, le roche entravano in mano de’ fiorentini e se ‘l Signor Ghostanzo seguiva quanto aveva horendato, vi moriva tanta giente che era chosa da non chredare, perchè avevo tuto el chanpo de’ Feltreshi al proposito mio, et misère Nicholò tuto el popolo di Chastello. Di che veduto la chosa perparata volse mantello e sono hora in ne’ termini che vostre Signorie àno inteso. El chanpo nostro chon queli del Signor Gostanzo sono iti a una forteze che si chiama Cielle, e dopo quello vanno a Citerna; stimasi in pochi dì arano l’uno e l’altro, perchè àno molte artigliarie et masime 3 bonbarde che Perugia non si volti e ieri i perguini gli mandòno a dire si levasse d’ in sul tereno loro. L’armata dela Signoria ven[n]e in Abruzo al porto di San Vito e smontorno in tera e ferno una grande preda, funo soli ala rinchontra quegli di Lanciano e tolse lo’ la preda e assai ve ne mori. Confortarei vostre Signorie che hora stregnisero el chiodo. Se salvo chanbio dovete avere di quelle tere de’ fiorentini, solecitarle adesso che loro àno bisognio none easare molestatti, e semai fu el tenpo a riuscirvi, è adesso, che se le chose s’ asetano vostre Signore sano quale è la natura del fiorentino, e chrediate che sarano quele tere, che senpre sarano una chontinuoa lebra a chotesta città; ma mi rendo cierto che volendo le vostre Signorie fare quello che si può, verà in effetto el desiderio vostro, e chome ho ditto non è da indugiare. E questo non vi scrivo senza quale, perchè ancho a me mi stringie più la chamicia che lla gonella. Altro non mi hochore. So che le vostre Signorie sono prudentissime e pigliarano quell partito chredaranno sia el migliore. Rachomandomi a quele, pregando Idio le felicity. In Urbino, adì 10 lugio 1482.

My magnificent and powerful Lords, Paganino was here, sent by your Lordship, to ask where Lord Antonio was to be found. His Lordship [Antonio] has never departed from Urbino. Here below I give some notice to your Lordships of the situation here, [as] I believe you should be informed of the aid of the court, as three fortifications are under negotiation, and they [the forts] are placed in the hands of the men of the Signore Duke, and will be dealt with according to Your Lordship’s judgment. I wish that your Lordships know that if it were not for me, the fortresses would have entered into the hands of the Florentines, and if Lord Costanzo [Sforza] had followed as had been ordered, an unbelievable number of men would have died there, because I had the entire Montefeltro camp under my direction, and poor Niccolò had the entire population of Castello [under his direction]. It was here that I saw the plot unfold and I am now in the condition as your Lordships have understood. Our camp and that of Signor Costanzo are together in a fortress called Cielle, and after they go to Citerna; they will remain there for a few days, because they have much artillery and three great cannons which Perugia has not yet faced, and yesterday the Perugians sent here to say that they should take them on their territory. The army of the Lord came to Abruzzi at the port of San Vito and viciously cut down a large number of victims, and they reunited then in Lanciano and took there the victims and those that had died. Your Lordships should take comfort that now the strategy is played. If I have saved you from having to exchange those territories to the Florentines, I ask you now that they need no longer be a concern, and if ever it was time to succeed, it is now, as if the things they covet, as your Lordship knows is the nature of the Florentines, and you should believe that they are in that area, which continues to lie

468

in the contested city. But I am certain that your Lordships wish to do what you can, true in your desire, and as I said, do not to linger. And this I do not write to you without that [need], because I am also under threat. Anything else would not be honorable. I know that your Lordships are most prudent and will choose those troops which you believe are the best. I recommend myself to you and pray God for blessing. In Urbino, 10 July in 1482.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2049, Letters (July 1, 1482 – September 20, 1482), no. 17 *Iorio 264 – 265.

(88) September 2, 1482 Report of the completion of the roof over main altar of the church of San Francesco, executed by two of Francesco di Giorgio’s assistants, according to his design.

A di 2 dì Settembre si finì di tirar su la quinta trave a capo l’Altar Maggiore di S. Francesco, e furon messe più alta di quelle di prima, perchè pareva basso, e tutto l’altro tetto fu alzato… braccia al pari del nuovo, fatto senza sconficcare alcuna cosa, e fu ingegno di Francesco di Giorgio di Martino nostro Cittadino el quale sta col Duca d’Urbino, ma mandocci due suoi garzoni e nostri cittadini. Quelle, che furono alzate, furono quella della sagrestia in su a capo l’Altar Maggiore; e fu l’anno 1482.

Pierantonio Allegretti, Diario di Siena, anno 1475, col. 776 *See Borghesi and Banchi 258; Romagnoli (IV) 789; Weller 351.

(89) September 7, 1483 An autograph letter sent by Francesco di Giorgio to the Signoria of Siena from Urbino, in which the architect emphatically denies having designed a fortification for the enemies of the Republic.

Magnifici et Excelsi Signori mei. Io ho inteso una cosa, che da una parte non mi poria più dispiacere: per intendere che al basti l’animo ad uno d’esser tanto maligno, che el voglia calunniare a torto una tanta innocentia, quanta è la mia: de l’altra parte, io ne so’ contento; che volendomi male, ello se faccia cognoscere per cativo de le Signorie Vostre sapientissime. Er questo non porìa essere più a mio proposito, nè saperìa dimandare da Dio più iusta vendetta. Questo ho dicto, perchè io ho inteso che uno pocho savio et mancho bono, ha hauto ad dire et preporre innanze a le Signorie Vostre, che io ho facto non so che desegno de roccha per testa inclita Città et patria mia. El che non se trovarà mia. Et se non fusse, che io mi contento in questa mia scusa, de fare cognoscere la termerità sua: io me vergognerìa de farla: perchè io credo, che la vita mia per el passasto si stata tale, che ogn’homo ha possuto comprehendere, che tutti li mei penseri siano stati, quanto le facultà mia se sonno extese, de exultare, et non repriemere la patria mia. Et non credo, ne in questo, ne in altro havere hai reportato vergogna a casa, ma honore si, quanto se recercha ad uno mio paro. Et per dire breve, io me offero a le Signorie Vostre, se quest se trova con verità, de volere spontaneamente portari ogni supplico, come recercarìa tal delicto. Nè maii pensai, ne mai me ne fu parlato; ne credo che homo vivente,

469

cognoscendomi, havesse hauta audatia de parlarmine. Et de questo, ne voglio starte ad ogni paragone. Bene supplicarìa le Signorie Vostre che, trovato el vero, se degnassero punire el cativo. Nientedimeno di questo io no voglio alto que quello che piace a le Signorie Vostre, et perdonare le ingiurie, se quelle me lo comando. Et se gli è intrato suspetto, che io habbia a cercare luocho, che lui desiderasse; le Signorie Vostre sanno che lui ha torto: perchè io non l’ho cercato: et de la sorte mia io mi acontento; et stò in luoccho, et apresso a chi non ama mancho la patria mia, che le cose sue proprie. Ben sono obligato, et voglio essere a chi ne havesse parlato, per haverli io rechiesti. Recomandomi a le Signorie Vostre, le quali non dubito, come sapientissime, vendendo tanta iniquità et insidie contra di me, più presto acresceranno la gratia loro verso me, che altramenti: et terranno el calunniatore per homo cativo et da pocho, come ello è. Urbini VII Seprembris 1483. Magnifice et Excelse Dominationi Vestre. Servitor Franciscus Georgij De Senis

[On reverse:] Magnific et excelcis Dominis meis, Capitano populi et Prioribus officii Baylie civitatis Senarum.

My magnificent and exalted Lords: I have learned something which could not displease me more: namely, the discovery that a certain man has the heart to be so malicious that he wishes to wrongly vilify so great an innocence as mine: but, on the other hand, I am content with the matter, because, in wishing me ill, this person makes himself known to your most wise Lordships as an evil individual. And this could not be more to my advantage, nor should I know how to ask of God a more just vengeance. I have said this because I have learned that someone of little wisdom and little kindness has informed your Lordships that I have made I know not what design for a fortress for use against my native city. But this design will never be found. And were it not that I am content to excuse myself thus by making known his temerity, I should be ashamed to make an apology because I believe that my life in the past has been such that every man must have been able to understand that all my ideas to the extent of my powers have been used to exalt and not debase my native city. I do not believe that in this case nor in any other I have brought shame upon my house, but rather honor such as is fitting in a man of my character. And to speak briefly, if this wrong is found to be true, I offer myself to your Lordships, as willing to undergo every punishment which such delinquency merits. I never devised this thing, nor has it ever been mentioned to me, nor do I think there is a man living who, knowing me, would have the audacity to speak to me of it. And of this I wish to stand up to every test. I supplicate your Lordships that, once the truth is known, you deign to punish the culprit. Nevertheless, in this matter I desire only what pleases your Lordships and to pardon the injuries if you so command me. And if he introduces the suspicion that I am sought a place, as he claims, your Lordships know that he is wrong because I have not sought it: and I am content with my lot and remain here [in Urbino] near to the one who loves no less my city than if it were his own. I am greatly obliged and wish to be so also to the one who has spoken of this matter, in accordance with my request. I commend myself to your Lordships, who, I do not doubt, as very wise men, will dismiss such iniquity and malice made against me, and will instead quickly

470

augment your grace toward me: and that you will hold the calumniator for a wicked and petty man, as he is. Urbino, September 7, 1483. Magnificent and all powerful Lords, I am your humble servant, Francesco di Giorgio of Siena.

Archivo di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2053, no. 35 *See Chironi (1991) 475; Milanesi (II) 400 – 402; Weller 14, 351 – 352.

(90) 1483 Report of the assets of Giacomo Cozzarelli. The report is presented by Cozzarelli’s brother-in-law, because Cozzarelli was then in Urbino as a collaborator with Francesco di Giorgio.

Dinanzi a voi, etc. Iachomo di Bartalomeio di Marcho Chozaregli vostro servitore dicie avere gli frascritti beni. Una pocisione vigniata e tere lavoratie ne la Massa di Chamulia ne le piagie di Vicho, la quale v’ò debito suso fiorini 50 a Renaldo di Nanni di Sozo Talomei, vale al tenpo d’ogi fiorini trecento quando non ci fuse la pigione ogni ano de’detti 50 fiorini, e non ci ò nissuno altro bene. E perchè no mi posso règiare qua a Siena so’ stato e sto a Urbino da poi v’andò Francesco di Giorgio, sì che mi rachomando a voi. Ed io Francescho di Pietro di Gherardo suo chogniato ò fata la sopra detta iscritta chome suo fatore perchè lui ène a Urbino. Rachomandevelo perchè n’à bisogno. Che Christo vi rifilici quanto disiderate.

[On reverse:] Terzo di Chamulia ne la Chonpagnia de la Magione.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 213, Denunzie, No. 19 *See Chironi (1991) 475; Weller 352.

(91) February 18, 1484 Letter from the Marquis of Mantua, Federico Gonzaga, to Urbino, requesting that the architect who has engineered the fireplaces of the famed Palazzo Ducale, which “[take] no wind, nor throw out fumes,” come to Mantua to consult on the smoking fireplaces of the Gonzaga palace.

La fama et el celebre nome che ha el palazo de Urbino che ha facto fare la f.m. de qullo Duca, omne cose da S. Ill.ma S.ria erano conducte a la integra perfetione per sua virtu et maxime per la industria et ingegno de li architecti, unde nui, facendo fabricare al presente el nostro palazo, desideressimo intendere da voi la foggia de camini facti in quel palazo, li quali, secundo le informationi che haveno, per vento nisuno non ributta mai di sotto fume, et perhò ve pregaressemo ad nostra complacentia voliate esser contento trasferirve fin qua, certificandove che vi useremo tale discretione che quando sarete venuto sarete contento.

471

*See Howard Burns, “The Gonzaga and Renaissance architecture” Splendours of the Gonzaga (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1982): 31; Clinio Cottafavi, “Saggi inediti su edifici della Corte di Mantova,” Atti e memorie della Accademia Virgiliana di Mantova 34 (1963): 14 - 15.

(92) March 12, 1484 Letter from Francesco di Giorgio to Federico Gonzaga. Francesco declines the invitation to come to Mantua, but sends a drawing of the fireplaces, “advising your most Illustrious Lordship that in past years they too used to smoke, but I fixed them in such a way that they function very usefully without the least appearance of smoke.”

Archive di Stato di Mantua, b. 847, n. 215 *See Burns “The Gonzaga and Renaissance architecture” 31.

(93) June 15, 1484 Account of Giovanni Antonio Summonte concerning the initiation of construction on the walls of Naples. In the final line he notes that King Ferrante appointed Francesco Spinelli chief of works, and “Master Francesco of Siena” was the project’s “chief engineer.”

1484 alli 15 del mese di giugno giovedi Re Ferrante d’Aragona pose la prima pietra a principiare le mura della sua città di Napoli, e fu posta e fabricata dinanzi la chiesa, cioè allo dritto della sua tribuna di santa Maria dello Carmine alla porta del Mercato, e fu posta con gran sollennità con la processione con l’Arcivescovo di Napoli e tutti li Signori gentil’huomini e citadini di d.a città. Fu benedetta la prima pietra delle predette mura, e dalla prima insino all’ultima pietra tutto la circuito delle pred.e mura. Fu posta una certa midaglia Sirena di peso di sei ducati d’oro, et alle torri similmente monete d’argento, e furo seguenti le mura, con le facciate di fora la terra di piperno, e lassaro le corde con le lenze tese, e circondate con li pali di passo in passo, e sua Maestà impose all’Illus.mo Francesco Spinelli gentil’huomo del Seggio di Nido per capo, e soprastante l’ingeniere capo Maestro Francesco da Siena.

*See Hersey 44; L. Salazar, ed. “Racconti di storia napoletana,” Archivio Storico per le province napoletane XXXIII (1908): 507 – 508.

(94) June 17, 1484 Luca Signorelli travels to Gubbio to ask Francesco di Giorgio to design the church of Santa Maria delle Grazie al Calcinaio.

Libro di entrata e uscita redatto dal Camerlengo Toto di Gulino, folio 118v *See Pietro Matracchi, La chiesa di Santa Maria delle Grazie al Calcinaio presso Cortona e l’opera di Francesco di Giorgio (Cortona: Calosci, 1991): 15.

(95) July 1, 1484 Francesco di Giorgio receives 75 lire for his design and model for the church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio in Cortona. Construction on the church, however, was delayed, as it

472

was not until November 22, 1484 that church gained the necessary financial backing from the city of Cortona.

A Maestro Francesco da Siena che stava in Gubbio a di primo di luglio lire 75 per disegno e modello per edificare la chiesa.

Deliberazione del Pubblico di Cortona, Libro I, folio 118 *See Davies 684-685; Weller 352.

(96) April 5 & 18, 1485 Record of two payments, of twenty-three lire and thirty lire, ten soldi, paid by the Commune of Cortona to Francesco di Giorgio for his design and model of the church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio.

E più spese detto Simone di Giovanni d’Angelo creato cammarlingo per questa opera a dì aprile 1485. Lir. 23, ventuna delle quali a maestro Francesco, che disegnò la Chiesa, e due Lire per farli onore. E più spese detto Simone a dì 18 aprile Lir. 30.10, che diede per nostra pulizia al medesimo Maestro.

Archivio Comunale di Cortona, Deliberazione del Pubblico, Libro I, folio 118 *See Matracchi 16; Weller 352.

(97) April 30, 1485 Francesco di Giorgio receives an additional 12 lire for his design of the church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio.

E più spese detto Simone lire 12, che diede per nostra pulizia al Maestro Francesco.

Archivio Comunale di Cortona, Deliberazione del Pubblico, Libro I, folio 118 *See Matarcchi 16; Weller 353.

(98) June 6, 1485 Testimony of the laying of the first stone of the Church of Santa Maria del Calcinaio in Cortona. The document credits “Francesco of Siena, singular architect, resident in service to the most illustrious Lord Federico Duke of Urbino” for “constructing the form of the temple as a wood model” according to “the site and the foundation in place.”

Die lune dicti mensis Iuni. Ad laudem omnipotentis Dei eiusque gloriose Matris Marie, semper Virginis et totius celestis curei Paradisi; et ad eternam rei memoriam fir mentio, qualiter existentes quadam figura Virginis Marie picta in angulo Calcinarii existentis extra muros civitatis Cartone, loco dicto Querciaguazza, qua figura per plura tempora precedentia fecit miracula, et divinas fuit largita gratias eisdem recurrentibis cum pietate mentis et sinceritate cordis: que ferunt in (non) parva fama. Successit deinde, concedente Domino, major devotio Populi ad dictam figuram que in die prima Pasce Resurrectionis Domini Nostri Yhesu

473

Christi, in anno Domini millesimo quadringentisimo octuagesimoquarto quarto, manifestissimas gratias, universo Populo concurrente exhibuit. Crevitque successive in tantum devotio populorum ad dictum figuram non solum civitatis et comitatus Cortone, sed etiam omnium circumstantium: adeoque multitudo populorum diversorum oppidorum et villarum comitatus civtatis Persuii, Aretti, Civitatis Castelli et multorum aliorum locorum, collegialiter suplicantium cum oblationibus conflussit. Et cum talis locus esset consortii artis calzolariorum dicte civitatis Cortone, ipsi calzolarii ceperunt habere curam loci et ablationum: et se contulerunt sedi apostolicae, residente suumo pontiffice Sixto iiijo, de civitate Savone ordinis Minorum Sancti Francisci, umiliter supplicante, ut sinceret eius Sanctitas eisdem, ut patronis habere curam et administractionem devotionis loci et oblationum: et sic permisit eisdem, confectis desuper litteris apostolicis. Et his divulgata est forma devotionis predicte fere per omnem Italiam, et chotidie evenerunt miracula in vere penitentibus, qui gratias receperunt de diversis infirmitatibus et periculis.

Successit exinde, quod dicti calzolarii bonis respectibus moti, volerunt Commune dicte civitatis Cortone habere preheminentiam et administrationem in dicto locho pro medietate cum ipso consortio , que conventio prout ad chartas c.5 in eodem. Et ipsa conventione conclusa et peracta, fereunt electi per dictum commune tres cives cortonenses, videlicet unus pro quolibet terzerio, in suprastantes et gubernatores dicti Loci: quorum nomina habentur supra ad cartas7. Et ipsis gubernatoribus cupientibus constructionem templi in dicto loco honorem omnipotentes Dei et eius Matris, quidam Franciscus de Senis, singularis architector, residens ad servitia I11.mi Domini Phederigi ducis Urbini, venit in eorum notitiam, qui ad eorum requistionem se contulit ad dictam civitatem Cortone, et viso locho et situ edifitii fundandi, construxit formam templi scultam in ligno, secundum cujus formam, suprascripta die fuit fundatum dictum templum, modo et ordine infrascripto. Existentibus choadunatis in ecclesia Sancti Andree fratribus quator religionum videlicet, Sancti Dominici, Sancti Francisci, Sancti Augustini, et Sancte Marie Servorum, et sotietatis Ihesu et sancti Nicholai, et ipsis profesionaliter precedentibus cum universo populo, se contulerunt ad dictum locum. Cui solemnitati non interfuit clerus presibterorum, inhibente eidem domino Christoporo Ugolini de Marchionibus de Pratella episcopo cortonese, residente castellano in arce civitatis Spoleti pro domino Ecclesie, residente Innocentio octavo yhanuensi summo pontiffice. Et celebratis cermoniis ecclesiasticis debitis et requisitis, et divino officio peracto, existente ministratore reverendo patre fratre Augustino magistri Egidii, Spice Alisei de Cortona in sacra theologia magistro ordinis Sancti Dominici.

Silvester Iuliani de Ciaffinis de Florentia, pro excelso dominio Florentino capitaneus dicte civitatis Cortone, habens in suis manibus quandam petrammarmoris albam, spatii unius quarti brachii longitudinis, volens eam pro prima petra fundamenti templi pridie in terram mictere, ablata fuit ipsa petra de manibus suis a circumstantibus, quam obsculata, fuit magnia pars multitudinis gentium in locho choadunatorum, et deinde sibi reddita in suis manibus, ipsam inmisit in dictis fundamentis in angulo sinistro, tendente versus planitem.

Archivio Storico Comunale di Cortona, Deliberazioni 1484 – 1490, folios 47v-49r *See Chironi (1993) 424; Weller 353 – 354. .

474

(99) June 12, 1485 Letter written by the signoria to Francesco di Giorgio in Urbino, request to that he return to Siena “in order to work on some public buildings and other projects.”

Francisco Georgii Architettori sive Ingegnerio Urbini ineffectu sriptum est quod conferat se huc, cum opus eius opera sit nonnullis hedificiis publicis agendis et compenendis.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1697, copialettere, folio 53v *See Borghesi and Banchi 258; Chironi (1991) 475; Weller 353.

(100) October 21, 1485 Account of expenditures which cites the involvement of “master Francesco di Giorgio” in the repair of the bridge at Maciareto. Francesco’s frequent collaborator Antonio Barili is credited for making a model of the bridge.

Die XXI Octubris Quator Bicherne habentes auctoritatem super materiam reparationis pontis Maciarerti, deliberaverunt, quod Cam: Bicherne—solvat Leonardo Pauli Utinelli qui ivit—una cum magistro Francisco Georgii ad videndum defectus dicti pontis et modum reparationis ipsius cum uno famulo sol: 50. Item; soldi quinquginta quinque pro victu et expensis factis dicto magistro Francisco, et aliis expensis pro videndis defectibus. Item; magistro Antonio Barilis qui fecit modellum dicti pontis libre III denariorum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 714, Deliberazioni, folio 17r *See Chironi (1991) 475; Milanesi (II) 411; Weller 354 – 355.

(101) December 21, 1485 Decree of the Balìa to invite “the most excellent architect Francesco di Giorgio” to repatriate to Siena. The document confirms that the commune will forgive Francesco of his previous offenses, and in return for his service as civil architect, will pay him a salary of 174 lire, 41 soldi.

Consilio Populi, et Popularium magnifice civitatis Senarum solenniter – convocato – servatis etc. et in eo facta proposita super provisione fienda retinendi in vestra Civitate Franciscum Georgii architettorem excellentum, et super ea – misso partito – fuit victum – quod res, et materia predicta Francisci auctoritate presentis Consilii sit plene remissa in spectatissimos Officiales Balie qui teneantur – per totum presentem mensem providere – quod precitatus Franciscus repatrietur, habitetur et moram trahat in civitate Senarum, per lupinos albos CLXXIIII redditis pro sic, XLI nigris pro non in contrarium redditis, non obstantibus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Deliberazioni del Consiglio della Campana, 240, folio 66r *See Chironi (1991) 475; Weller 355

475

(102) December 26, 1485 The Balìa orders Francesco di Giorgio to preform services for the Commune of Siena, in exchange for his repatriation to Siena and the return of his previously confiscated property (“beni incamerati”). The document also stipulates that he must return to live in Siena within a period of 6 months.

Certi cittadini etc. Providdero et ordinaro che maestro Francesco di Giorgio sia condocto a li servitii del Comune di Siena, cioè della camera della città di Siena per bisogni de quella et a li bisogni de le terre et roche et altre occorrentie pubbliche de la città, contado et jurisdictione di Siena mentre che vive, secondochè per li M.S., o officiali di Balìa, o officiali de la Guardia che per li tempi saranno li sara ordinato. Et sia obligato a andare per lo contado et iurisdictione di Siena dove e quante volte per alcuno de’ decti Magistrati li fusse ordenato senza alchuno paghamento. Et per substentatione sua et de la sua fameglia et per provisione di dicta obligatione, a lui s’intenda ex nunc dato et attribuito possessioni e beni stabili incamerati, o che s’incamerassero per lo comune di Siena di valuta di fior: 800 in mille di lire 4 fior: non obstante qualunque cosa etc. – Et decto Francesco debbi tornare a stare a Siena familiarmente in tempo di mesi sei proximi.

To certain citizens, etc. It is given and ordered that master Francesco di Giorgio is brought to the service of the Commune of Siena, that is, for the Camera of the city of Siena, according to their needs and those of the lands, fortifications and other public necessities of the city, contado and jurisdiction of Siena while he is alive, according to the Supreme Magistrate, or the officials of the Balìa, or the officials of the Guard, who have ordered it of him for this time. And he is obligated to go to the contado and jurisdiction of Siena, wherever and how ever often he is ordered to do so by the said Magistrate, without payment. And for his compensation, and for his family, as payment for the said obligation, it is intended that the assets of his confiscated possessions will be returned to him, or those assets confiscated by the Commune valued between 800 and 1000 florins, at the exchange rate of one lire to 4 florins, notwithstanding whatever else etc. – And the said Francesco must return to stay in Siena permanently within a period of six months.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Deliberazioni della Balìa 34, folio 37v *See Chironi (1991) 475; Papini 282; Weller 355.

(103) February 26, 1486 Payment to Francesco di Giorgio for the expenses incurred in his trip to Jesi, where he was occupied in the realization of the new project of the Communal Palace.

Archivio Comunale di Jesi (additional details not given) *See Chironi (1991) 475; Papini 282.

(104) April 9, 1486 The wood-worker Domenico d’Antonio Indivini realizes a model of the palace designed by Francesco di Giorgio.

476

Archivio Comunale di Jesi (additional details not given) *See Chironi (1991) 475; Antonio Gianandrea, Il palazzo del Comune di Jesi (Jesi: Rocchetti, 1887): 14 –15.

(105) May 27, 1486 Contract for the construction of the new Communal Palace of Jesi. Building is entrusted to Giovanni Domenico di M. Antonio di Vico and Pietro Antonio di Castiglione da Ancona, who are to work according to the model made by “master Francesco of Siena.”

In Dei nomine amen. Anno Domini MCCCIxxxvi, indictione quarta, tempore serenissimi in Christo patris et domini nostri domini Innocentii divina providentia pape viii, pontificatus sui anno secundo, die vero xxvii maii.

Magnifici domini confalonerius et priores videlicet ser Bonfilius de Ripantibus, Antonius Iacobus Peri, Iohannes Niccolai, Antonius ser Victorii et Pellegrinus Antonuctii de Musiano, priores civitatis Esii, ser Nicolaus Coloctii, Iohannes Isilerius, ser Ripantes de Ripantibus, Antonius alias Muricone et Laurentius Antonii suprastantes electi super fabrica palatii civitatis Esii, auctoritate ipsis a Consilio generali tradita, dictam fabricam accoptumarunt vice et nomine dicte civitatis magistro Iohanni Dominico magistri Antonii de Vico et magistro Petro Antoni de Castigliono habitatori Ancone architectis presentibus, stipulantibus et recipientibus pro se et suis heredibus et successoribus, in solidum cum pactis, conventionibus et capitulis ac obligationibus infrascriptis videlicet.

Li sopra dicti accoptumatori in nome de la dicta communità accoptumano la dicta fabrica del palazzo a li prefati mag.ri Io. Domenico et mag.ro Pietro, li quali promectono in solido buttar in terra il dicto palazzo vecchio et murarlo et rifarlo da fundamento, secondo il modello facto da magistro Francesco da Sena, et promectono murare la canna del muro a la mesura de Esi [Jesi] per bologn. sexantacinque ad uso de bon mag.ro et a maton et testa: grosso cioè di tre teste.

Item che siano obligati dicti magistri fornir dicta fabrica secondo il disegno de mag.ro Francesco ad uo de bon mag.ro a muro rustico.

Archivio Comunale di Jesi, Registri 1485 – 1490, folio 26 *See Chironi (1993) 404 – 405; Gianandrea 16; Weller 356 – 357.

(106) July 8, 1486 Francesco di Giorgio and Antonio Barili, overseers of building of the bridge at Maciareto, receive a patent for the continuation of their work.

Die VIII Julii Franciscus Georgii et Antonius Barilis conductores fabrice pontis Maciareti seu eius actaminis his litteras patentes continentes in effectu quod quilibet de hominibus nobis subditis qui ab eisdem fuerint requisites ad dictum opus laborandum et fabricandum iusta et competenti mercede recepta eis et eroum mandatariis pareat subincursu et hoc quia sic

477

informa dicte conductionis a res publice nostra impetraverunt et ita fuit mandatum officialibus commissariis et comunitatis quod ad predicta exequendum faveant predictis.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1698, Copialettere, folio 64v *See Chironi (1991) 475; Iorio 265 – 266.

(107) July 31, September 3, 18 & 22, 1486 Record of the payments made to Francesco di Giorgio and Antonio Barili for their work on the bridge at Mersa.

Il volume 134 della classe C anno 1486 mi dice: maestro Francesco di Giorgio e Antonio Barile conduttori del ponte a Merza dieno dare adì 31 Luglio Lire 70 per puliza di Consistoro di mano di ser Girolamo di Nanni a foglio 36… adì 3 Settembre Lire 73 pagammo al sopradecto a per loro a Domenico [Puliti] despositario a foglio 36…adì 18 Settembre Lire 36 soldi 2 denari 8 passammo a Domenico Puliti a foglio 36. Adì detto pagammo lire 31 a Mariano Venturi e per esso a foglio 37… adì detto passammo a Antonio Barile e per esso a Domenico Puliti depositario della presta a foglio 37. Adì 22 Settembre lire 549 a ser Mino e Domenico Puliti per essi a foglio 37: adì detto lire 245 a foglio 287.

*See Iorio 266; Romagnoli (IV) 807 – 808.

(108) October 29, 1486 The Balìa formerly requests that Francesco di Giorgio return to Siena to complete necessary public building projects. In return for his service, the commune promises to repatriate him and to return his previously confiscated property. The language here is quite similar to that of the document of December 21, 1485.

MCCCCLXXXVI. 29 Ottobre. Providdero et ordinaro che Maestro Francescho di Giorgio sia condocto ali servitii del comune di Siena, ciò e dela camera della Città di Siena, per li bisogni di quella et ali bisogni dele terre et roche et altre occorrentie pubbliche dela città, contado et iurisdictione di Siena, mentre che cive, secundo che per li Magnifici Signori o officiali di Balìa o officiali de la guardia, che per li tempi saranno, li sarà ordenato. Et sia obligato a andare per lo contado et iurisdictione di Siena, dove et quante volte per alcuno de’ dicti magistrati li fusse ordinato, senza alchuno paghamento. Et per substentatione sua et de la sua fameglia, et per provisione di dicta obligatione a lui si intende ex nunc dato et attribuito possessioni e beni stabili incamerati, o che si incamerassero per lo comune di Siena di valuta di fiorini 800 in mila, di lire 4 fiorino, non obstante qualunque cosa. Deli quali el prezzo habbi a dichiarare la balìa, non passando dicta somma, et quali possessioni et beni habbino a essere [habbino] a dichiarare tre del collegio da eleggersi per lo priore et capitano: et dicto francesho debbi tornare a stare a Siena familiarmente in tempo di mesi sei proximi.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Deliberazioni della Balìa, Vol. 21, folio 37 *See Weller 358.

478

(109) November 27, 1486 Document recording Francesco di Giorgio’s purchase of a farm house in the vicinity of Urbino in Villa Rancitelle for 325 florins.

In nomine Domini amen. Anno 1486 die 27 novembris. Actum in civitate Urbini in domo Federici Thomassi Picini... posita in contrada platee juxta latera... presentibus Petrino d[omi]no Filippo de Felixiis et Nicolao Avanzoli de Urbino testibus. Vicus quondam Berardutij de Villa Rancitelle communitati Urbini, per se et suos hereles... dedit vendidit et tradidit Spectabili Viro magistro Francisco Georgii de Senis architetctori Ill[ustrissi]mi D[omi]ni Ducis Urbini... unum petium terre culte cum domo positum in dicte Villa Rancitelle, pro pretio et nomine pretij trecentorum viginitquinque florenorum.

Archivio Notarile di Urbino, Cas. 31, no. 279, folio 59 *See Cornelio Budinich, Il Palazzo Ducale d’Urbino. Studio sturico-artistico illustrato da nuovi documenti (Trieste: Stabilimento Tipolitografico Emilio Sambo, 1904): 101; Chironi (1991) 475; Weller 358.

(110) Document: 1486 Document urging the expedition of work on the bridge at Mersa, so as not to incur more expenses. The contractors of the project are Francesco di Giorgio, Paolo Vannoccio and Mariano di Tile.

El ponte a Mersa benché sia già ad buon porto è da sollecitare si finisca acciò con lo indugiare non si creschi [?] la spesa. Conductori sono Francesco di Giorgio, Pauolo di Vannoccio e Mariano di Tile [?].

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2362 – 2363, Notule pei Successori (March 1441 – 1499), unnumbered pages *See Iorio 266.

(111) May 10, 1487 Guidobaldo da Montefeltro asks the Signoria of Siena to nominate a substitute for Francesco di Giorgio for the position of podestà of Porto Ercole.

Magnifici domini frates amatissimi. Maestro Francesco di Giorgio de lì, mio architector, mi fa intendere haver adviso de lì esser stato eletto potestà di Porto Hercule, et esser ricercato di venire a lo officio. Et perchè molti lavori che io faccio secondo li suoi disegni, et anco per valermi di lui in molte mie occorrentie, la absentia sua mi sarìa molto dannosa; prego le Signorie Vostre che voglino ad mia singular compiacentia esser contenti che lui possa mectar un suo sostituto, che lo sarà di persona di cui si restarà bene servito. Che tal piaxer lo riceverò facto in me proprio. Offerendomi at vostri beneplacidi. Urbini X Maji 1487. Guido Ubaldi dux Urbini Montisferetri ac Durantis comes.

Magnificent Lords, beloved brothers.

479

Master Francesco di Giorgio of there, my architect, has told me that he has been elected as podestà of Porto Ercole, and is wanted to fill this office. But because many projects I undertake follow his designs, and also because I avail myself to his services in many situations, his absence from me would be very harmful. I pray your Lordships that for my singular favor you are content that he provides a substitute, who will be a person who will well serve you. This would bring me great pleasure. I offer myself for your well- being. Urbino 10 May 1487. Guidobaldo, Duke of Urbino Count of Montefeltro and Durante

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Riformagioni, Concistoro 2063, Lettere, Filza segnata “Lettere di Principi, Imperadori, etc.,” no. 36 – 37 *See Chironi (1991) 475; Milanesi (II) 414; Weller 359.

(112) July 9, 1487 Francesco di Giorgio advises the Balìa on the fortification of Chiusi. The language he uses here is comparable to that of the Trattato di Architettura.

Magnifici Signori miei, benefattori singularissimi, etc. Esendo stato qui alla vostra città di Chiuci e chol Signor Ranucio insieme, e circundato tuta la tera e visto tuti li manchamenti d’essa, avisando le Signorie vostre che chon picola fatiga e speca si farà fortissima. Ma io ne existimo non se ne farà chosa alchuna per la impossibilità loro, e non è ponendoci mano ho aiuti le S. vostre, loro ancho va presumo si aitarano. E dicho tanto alle S. V. che per bene che qua ci sia stato per transito piu volte, no lo mai tanto chonsiderato quanto al presenta, parmi sia molto importante e che quando questa si perdesse si perdarìa una gran parte di questo stato [.] questo luogo è un porto a da averci grande respeto per più cagioni, le quali a bocha dirò a vostre S. alle quali di chontìnovo mi rachomando. In Chiuci, a dì 9 di luglio 1487.

Servitore di Vostre S, Francesco di Giorgio

My magnificent Lords, most distinguished patrons, etc. Having been here in your city Chiusi together with Lord Ranucio, and having toured the entire territory and seen all of its weaknesses, I advise your Lordships that with little effort and expense, it can be strengthened. But I do not think they will do anything due to their stubbornness, and it is not by intervening that I help Your Lordships, they also should be expected to assist. And I say this to your Lordships, that for good of the place I have passed here many times, never considered so much as at present, it seems to me very important and that when this is lost, I know you will lose a large part of this state. This place is a port which is to be given great respect for several reasons, which I will tell Your Lordships in person, to whom I continue to recommend myself. In Chiusi, on July 7, 1487.

Servant to Your Lordships, Francesco di Giorgio

480

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 531, Lettere (June 16, 1487 – July 31, 1487), no. 62 *See Iorio 266 – 267.

(113) July 14, 1487 Document confirming Francesco di Giorgio’s appointment of Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, Rainaldo Bernardino Fungai and Giorgio Vieri as his legal representatives. These three individuals are granted full authority to act on the architect’s behalf in his absence.

Anno Domini 1487, indictione V, die XIIII mensis Julii. Magister Franciscus Georgii Martini, omni modo etc., constituit et ordinavit suos veros et legitimos procuratores etc. dominus Raynaldus Bartholomei Fungharius, et Pauli Vannocci, et Gregorious Pretiani de Vieris, et quemlibet eorum in solidum etc., ad lites et causas etc. ad agendum et defendendum etc. Item ad exigendum etc. Item ad quietandum etc. Item ad restituendum etc., ad iurandum in anima constituentis etc. Dans etc., promittens etc., cum revelatione etc.

Actum Senis, in apotheca Bartholomei de [Biringucci], coram Iacobo Raynaldi et Ghello Johannis ser Simi de Lucha, testibus etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 967, Ser Cristoforo Fungai (October 6, 1484 – February 15, 1492), fascicle 1 *See Iorio 267.

(114) July 14, 1487 Francesco di Giorgio and his collaborators receive 523 lire for work involved in the construction of the Maciareto Bridge.

Magnifici et excelsi domini Prioes Gubernatores Comunis et Capitaneus...., cum spectatissimis Vexilliferis magistris, decreverunt Francisco Georgii et sociis, conductoribus pontis Maciareti fieri apodixa presentie libr. 523, directa Depositario prestarum de denariis residuorum prestarum, secundam obligationem eis factam, de qua constat man user Galgani ser Antonii notarii publici senensis.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 725, deliberazioni, folio 11v *See Chironi (1991) 475; Weller 359.

(115) July 16, 1487 Deliberations on the payment of 800 lire to Francesco di Giorgio and Antonio Barili for the restoration of the bridge at Maciareto.

Magnifici et excellentissimi domini Priores Gubernatores Comunis etc. attendo quod ex ordine Noccolai Iohannis ser Ghardi olim depositarii prestarum, vigore cuisdam decreti Consistorii, manu ser Ghalgani ser Antonii fuerunt per Exactores prestarum consignate quedam dette.

481

Francisco Georgii et Antonio Barilis conductoribus pontis Maciareti in numero 68 debitorum pro libris 800 den., ut patet in stractu residui preste 6 flor. pro militario, fo 181 et 182, et alie scripture ex dicta causa facte non sunt; idcirco, servatis servandis decreverunt quod depositarius presens prestarum ponat sibi ad introitum a dicto libro, seu a dictis dectis, dictas libras 800 pro totidem pro eo solutis seu consignatis Francisco et Antonio predictis ex causa pontis predicti et ex decreto presenti, scomputandos in pretio dicte locationis, faciendo eos de predictis debitores, ut moris etc. Et quia decte predicte transcendunt summam predictam, exactis ex eis libris 800 pro dictis Francisco et Antonio, residuum redeat ad Comune Senense et pro ea exigatur; ita quod ex eis dicti Francischus et Antonius non habeant nisi dictas libras 800. Et quod pro predictis exequendis Depositarius prestarum et alii, si qui essent, ad quos pertineret, faciant oportunas et predicta exequantur sine eorum preiudicio aut danno, vigore nostri presentis decreti, non obstantibus quisbuscumque et omni modo etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 725, deliberazioni, folio 14r *See Chironi (1991) 475; Weller 359 – 360.

(116) July 30, 1487 Copy of letter to Francesco di Giorgio from the new Nove governors of Siena, asking him to build a fortress at Casole d’Elsa.

Francisco Georgii architectori Urbini scriptum fuit. Cum nuper decreverimus edificare arcem in terra nostra Casularum, in qua re summopere optamus iudicium suum; i circo placebit nobis si statim se conferet ad nos ut eam componat. Erit nobis acceptissimum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1699, Copialettere No. 111, folio 85r *See Chironi (1991) 475; Milanesi (II) 416; Weller 360.

(117) October 8, 1487 The Balìa writes to Francesco di Giorgio, informing him that he is to come to Siena right away in order to receive instructions, presumably regarding the boundary dispute between Montepulciano and Chianciano.

Francisco Georgii ita scriptum fuit. Mandiamo proprio cavallaro acciò costì non perda più tempo, et con epso subito a noi ti conferisca; perchè habbiamo deliberato iudicato meglio a bocha posserti del tucto informare: et così tu con più perfectione potrai poi in opera mettere quanto da te desideriamo.

Francesco di Giorgio was written. We send our own horse right away so as to not lose more time, so that we may confer with you; because we have found it is better to confer with you in person, so that you may bring to absolute perfection the work as we desire you to do.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 407, Copialettere, folio 87v *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 416; Weller 360.

482

(118) October 14, 1487 Record of Communal provision: Francesco di Giorgio and Filuccio Giovanni are sent to Montepulciano regarding the territorial dispute with Chianciano.

Die XIIII Octobris. Ser Filiuccius Iohannis et Franciscus Georgii architector messi sunt ad fines Clanciani cum Montispolitiani designandos, et habuerunt liberas commissionis, etc., obedientie.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1699, Copialettere, folio 123v *See Chironi (1991) 476; Iorio 285.

(119) October 15, 1487 Letter of the Balìa to the Eight of Florence, which confirms that Francesco di Giorgio was sent to draw the territory in dispute between Chianciano and Montepulciano

Die XV octobris. Octo Viris practice civitatis Florentie. Per eseguire quanto è stato conposto infra noi habiamo mandato per la parte nostra lo architectore [Francesco di Giorgio] a desegnare el loco della lita infra li vostri montepulcianesi et chiancianesi nostri, similter crediamo le Signorie vostre havere facto. Et perché la triegua infra loro spira a mezo del presente mese, vi ricordiamo voliate procurare per uno o due mesi più sia tale triegua prorogate acciò di nuovo scandali non habino ad succedere, et si proceda a la decisione di questa causa per bene esse d’ambedu le parti come Vostre Excellentie et noi siamo despostissimi. Bene valete etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 407, Copialettere, folio 89v *See Iorio 267.

(120) October 16, 1487 The Eight of Florence write to the Sienese, indicating that their architect has gone directly to Montepulciano to consult with Francesco di Giorgio on the map regarding the dispute over the territory.

Magnifici Domini fratres Soci, et amici nostri carissimi: Lo architectore nostro parte domattina senza mancho per essere subito col vostro per fare la opera del disegno. La prorogatione del compresso non possiamo fare noi come sanno le S.V. ma bisognala facciano Montepulcianesi: Et pero habbiamo scripto loro et aspecteremone la risposta la quale come havemo significheremo alle S.V. ad cioche la prorogatione si faccia hin inde in quel modo che si conoscere. In somma noi siamo parati non mancare in cosa alcuna dal canto nostro per lo assecto di questa contraversia. Ex Palatio Flor.o Die XVj Octobris MCCCCLXXXVIj

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 532, lettere, n. 58 *See Chironi (1991) 476; Romagnoli (IV) 819 – 20.

483

(121) October 16, 1487 Filuccio di Giovanni and Francesco di Giorgio write to the Balìa, informing them of the situation in Chianciano. The architect appointed by the Florentines has not yet arrived. The situation in Chianciano is tense, with armed guards and infantry in the streets. Filuccio and Francesco also relay information regarding the activities in Montepulciano, where the people have constructed guard towers to monitor the activities at Chianciano.

Spectabilissimi domini officiales Balie patres et Domini mei precipui post humilem comendationem. Questo dì a hore diciotto siamo arrivati ad Chianciano, et non havendo notitia del commissario fiorentino, subbito scrivemo et mandamo uno fante ad Montepulciano, et dirazzamo letre al Podestà, el quale imediate rispose, che là non era arrivato comissario, et che, come venisse, se ne derebbe notitia. Et examinando interim con questi homini lo stato di questa lite, habbiamo preso ghattivo concepto d’accordo alcuno: et inter cetera la casa fata per li Montepulcianesi, e doi po guasta per li Chiancianesi e quasi rifacta; et habiamo di certo che vi sonno muraiuole airca sedici et evvi continuo fantia et homini d’arme ad guardi: et per uno figliuolo di Giovannai Britii, che hiersera aberghò ad Montepulciano, habbiamo che là ad Montepulciano si dice che murano per vedere quello fanno questi homini, et per giorgnarli; et molte altre cose intendiamo ad simile effecto, per le quali s’intende mala dispositione delli adversarrii et delli superiorio loro. Et per non stare qua ad perdare tempo, c’è parso di tutto advisare V.S., et che non venendo altrimenti questo commissario fiorentino, vedremo da noi fare el modello, et ritornarne a le Signorie Vostre, a le quali ci raccomandiamo. Que bene valeant. Ex Clanciano die XVI Octobr: 1487 Raccomandiamo el fante a le Signorie Vostre. V.D. devote filii Franciscus Georgii; Filucius Iohannis Commmissarii

[On reverse:] Spectabilibus dominis officialbus Balie Magnifice Civitatis Senarum dominis et patribus meis precipius.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Opera del Duomo, Lettere, Filza 56 (lost) *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 416 – 417; Weller 360 – 361.

(122) October 17, 1487 The Balìa orders Filuccio Giovanni and Francesco di Giorgio to wait in Chianciano for the arrival of the Florentine architect.

Die XVII octobris Ser Filiuccio Iohannis et Francisco Georgii Clanciani existentibus scriptum fuit quod non discendant illine donec venia architector florentinus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 407, Copialettere, folio 90v *See Iorio 268.

484

(123) October 25, 1487 The Biccherna elects Francesco di Giorgio, along with Antonio di Conte of Capaccio, Giovanni Cozzarelli and M. Ambrogio of Lombardy to restore the bridge at Maciareto. The document stipulates that the three latter men are to live at the worksite. Spectabilissimi domini Quator [Bicherne] antedicti convocati—actento quod per Camerarium Bicherne mihi notario libras octo denar: depositate fuerunt, pro ut supra per eos decretum fuit, pro expnsis fiendid in eundo as vivendum pontem ad Mersam, seu actamina in eo ponte facata per Franciscum Martini ingegnerium et socios, prout ipsis sominis Quator pertinent, ex forma instrumenti locationis dictis Francisco, et sociis facte a magnifico Cumuni Sen: et pro ut per dictos Franciscum, et socios dictis dominus Quator notificatum fuit.—Deliberaverunt eligere pro eundo ad vivendum dicta actima, et dictum pontem, et eligerunt Antonium Contis de Chapaccis euorum quartum collegam et Johannem…di Chozarellis carpentarium de Senis, et magistrum Ambrosium…lombardum magistrum petre duos expertos magistros in tali exercitio, ad vivendum dicta actamina et Jeronium magistri Petri mensuratorem Comunis ad ipsa actamina mensuranda, et quod referant ipsis dominis Quator omni meliori modo.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 799, Deliberazioni, folio 67v *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 417- 418; Weller 361.

(124) October 29, 1487 The Balìa writes to the Commune of Chianciano, in response to a letter they had sent on October 27. The Balìa advises that the Commune of Chianciano exercise prudence and caution, and indicates that they have seen the model (or possibly a map) ordered by Francesco di Giorgio.

Claciani comunitati scriptum fuit ita. Habiamo le letere vostre deli dì 27 del presente per le quali intendiamo li sospecti affirmate haverne et che novamente [da] Montepulciano sono venuti balestrieri a cavallo et soldati, dela qual cosa quantanche ci persuadiamo che che [sic] novità alcuna no vi habi ad essere; nientedimanco vi commendiamo assai attindinte [sic] con diligentia rendervi in ogni caso senui [sic] et salvi, che ci pare cosi sia officio di prudentia. Apresso habiamo visto el modello costì per Francesco di Giorgio ordenato, non pretermettaremo alcuna cosa dal canto nostro a la compositione di questa controversia et che tal causa si termini con più honore et vantagio nostro et nostro [sic] sarà possibile, la quale vi potete fermamente persuadere asai esserci a core per bene essere, salute et contento nostro. El contestabile nostro con presteza sarà expedito et quam primum sarà costì.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 407, Copialettere, folios 92v – 93r *See Iorio 268.

(125) October 31, 1487 Letter written from the Balìa to the Eight of Florence regarding Francesco di Giorgio’s collaboration with a Florentine architect “to make a model together” which would resolve the territorial dispute between Montepulciano and Chianciano.

485

Die ultimo ottobris. Otto viris practice rei publice florentine his verbis scriptum fuit. Per mandare ad effecto quanto per le Excellentie Vostre et noi fu ordenato, mandamo a li giorni passati per la parte nostra lo architectore [Francesco di Giorgio] a la terra di Chianciano, dove essendosi aboccato con lo vostro a loco della lite et essendo ricerco dal nostro di fare el modello insieme, li rispose da le Signorie Vostre non havere tale commissione; per la qual cosa fu uno modello composto et ordenato, el quale al tempo vi mandaremo. Et perché sommamente desyderiamo la finale compositione et terminatione di tale lite, preghiamo Vostre Signorie lo piaccia provedere che li montepulcianesi quanto più presto si po’ mandino a le Excellentie Vostre li mandatori loro con pieno mandato per tale compositione sì circa li confini, come etiam circa la tregua et pace da farsi, tutto in quello modo parrà a le Signorie Vostre; et a quelle piaccia prohibire ad espi montepulcianesi in isto interim non faccino alcune novità, che invero intendiamo di continuo cercare nove cose. Et quando Vostre Signorie credano sia el bisogno essere costì, ce ne voglino dare notitia et constituire el tempo in quale provedaremo sarà lo oratore nostro et etiam sindico di Chianciano con piena auctoritate, et lo modello facto per la parte nostra similter mandaremo; et però iterum preghiamo Vostre Signorie con quanta celerità si po’ voglino a la terminatione di tale differentia procurare per tollare via ogni contentione di litigio, et che li vostri con li nostri quietamente possino vivare, come speriamo essere la firma contentione di Vostre Signorie.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 407, Copialettere, folios 93v – 94r *See Iorio 268 – 269.

(126) November 1- 2, 1487 Francesco di Giorgio and Paolo Salvetti are sent to Siena’s maritime region in order to execute a project, and carrying with them the customary commissionary letters.

Franciscus Georgii architector et Paulus Salvettus missi sunt commissarii ad partes maritime ob non nulla exequenda, et habuerunt litteras commissionis et obediente in forma consueta.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1699, Copialettere, folio 136r *See Chironi (1991) 476; Weller 361.

(127) November 3, 1487 Report of the committee assigned to the control the quality of work at the bridge at Maciareto, in which the work of Francesco di Giorgio and his associates is said to have been completed “very well, and have made it most strong and artfully.”

Die dicta [III] Novembris [1487] Spectabilis Vir Antonius Contis de Chapaccis de Senis unus ex quator civibus, et officialibus Quator Bicherne civitatis predicte, nec non egregii viri Johannes…. de Chozarellis, magister Ambrosius lombardus, et Jeronimus magistri Petri de Albaco mensurator Comunis – coram dominis Quator supracscriptis referentes qualiter iverunt,

486

et se contulerunt ad videndum actamina pontis ad Mersam facta per Franciscum Georgii Martini, et socios: retulerunt – vidisse dicta actamina dicti pontis. Et ipsis actaminibus bene, al omni qua decet diligentia optime perspectis, non semel tantum, sed pluries et pluries, et tandem invenisse, vidisse, ac eis notificatum fuisse a pluribus predictos Franciscum Georgii et socios qui fecerunt dicta actamina, ipsa bene, optime, et fortiter, composite et acte fecisse, fabrichasse, et composuisse com bonis reparationibus, cum bonis trabibus, iaia chalce, tabulis, lignis, et aliis quibuscumque in similbus actis et opportunis; et hoc secendum eorum conscientiam, ingenium, et artem.—Dictus autem Jeronimus magistri Petri mensurator Comunis retulit – mensurasse dicta actamina dicti pontis, – et de qua mensuratione patet in filza mei notarii manu ipsius Jeronimi – omni modo etc.

Archivo di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 799, deliberazioni, folio 70r *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 418; Weller 361 – 362.

(128) November 10, 1487 The Quattro di Biccherna review and approve the work done by “master Antonio Barili, and his associate Francesco di Giorgio, engineer of Siena,” on the bridge at Mersa.

Die X mensis Novembris. Spectabilissimi domini quator Provisores generalis Bicherne – audito magistro Antonio Barilis carpentario, et socio Francisci Georgii ingegnerio de Senis in actamine pontis ad Mersam, et quod habuerunt conductam de actando ipsum pontem de quibusdam actaminibus necessariis; exponentes qualiter superioribus diebus ducta actamina perfecerunt et finierunt, prout obligati erant ex forma dicta conducte manu Ser Angeli Mei Gucci notarii publici Sen: Et cum sit, quod in dicto instrumento dicti magister Antonius, et socii tenerentur, et obligati essent dictum laborerium approbari facere pro bene et legitime factum, per dictos dominos Quator: hinc est, quod domini Quator antedicti ad hoc ut dicta approbatio melius, ac restius fieret, et jus Comunis Sen: rectius posset videri, misso per eos ad dictum pontem uno ex eorum honarabilibus collegis cum duobus magistris in simili exceritio expertis, et auditis etiam aliis pluribus de predictis actaminibus notiam habentibus et audita predictorum bona relatione, et actenta etiam relatione facta per mensuratorem Comunis de mensuratione per eum facta in dicto laborerio, et qualiter est ad perfectam, et juxtam mensuram, et pro ut obligati sunt ex forma dicte locationis. – Deliberaverunt approbare, et approbaverunt dictum laborerium factum per predictos in dicto ponte, sicut bene, legiptime, idonee, et fortiter factum, et secundum dictam eorum locationem. –

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 799, Deliberazioni, folio 70r *See Chironi (1991) 476; Weller 362.

(129) November 20, 1487 The Florentine representatives write to Siena, asking that a map of the territory in dispute between Chianciano and Montepulciano be sent to them so that they could compare it with the plan devised by their architect.

487

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 532, letters, no. 87 *See Chironi (1991) 476; Romagnoli (IV) 823 – 824.

(130) February 1, 1488 Response of the Balìa to Francesco di Giorgio, in which they ask him to keep them informed with the situation between Chianciano and Montepulciano. Franciscus Georgi responsum est ipsum commendando…(?) et volumus ut occureentiis…. (?) et si quid dignum intellexerit nos astutum certiores reddat. Et famulo qui suas nobis attulit donavemus aurem.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 408, Copialettere, folio 11v *See Iorio 270; Romagnoli (IV) 829.

(131) April 5, 1488 Francesco di Giorgio writes to Siena, confirming that he is alive.

Die V Aprilis Francisco Georgii scriptum in effectu que si stat.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 408, Copialettere, folio 36v *See Iorio 270.

(132) November 18, 1488 Record of approval of petition filed by Francesco di Giorgio. The subject of the petition is not fully disclosed, but it confirms that he has committed to complete a certain number of public works within a five-year term limit.

Magnifici domini offitiales Balìe civitatis Senarum convocati etc…. Audita… infascripta petitione Francisci Georgii ingegneri et ea examinata, concorditer decreverunt adprobare et adprobaverunt dictam infrascriptam petitionem et quod fiat et exequatur in omnibus et per omnia prout in ea continetur, cum ista conditione quod teneatur facere dicta edificia contenta in dicta petitione infra terminum quinque annorum proxime futurorum: Dinanzi da voi etc. Francesco di Giorgio vostro umilissimo servidore.

Magnificent lords officials of the Balìa of the city of Siena, convened, etc. .... The following petition of Francesco di Giorgio, engineer, was heard and examined, and it was unanimously decided to approve the following petition, and that done and executed in all things concerned, as far as given, with the condition that he be obliged to complete the said structures of the said petition within a time frame of five years. Before you, etc. Francesco di Giorgio, your most humble servant.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 36, Deliberazioni, folio 51r

488

*See Chironi (1991) 476; Fabio Bargagli Petrucci, “Francesco di Giorgio Operaio dei Bottini in Siena,” Bollettino senese di storia patria IX (1902): 233; Weller 363.

(133) 1488 Francesco di Giorgio’s report of assets for 1488, at the time he repatriated to Siena.

Dinanzi da voi S. alliratori sopra affare la nuova lira, diciesi per me, Francesco di Giorgio, vostro minimo servidore, dicie et expone avere gli infrascripti beni, et prima: Una casa della mia abitazione posta in San Giovanni, la stima della quale rimetto nele vostre Signorie. Et deo a’eredi Ghalghano di Meo di Mone, lire Trecento incircha. Truovomi 6 figliuoli, 4 femmine e due maschi. Rachomando loro et me ale vostre Signorie.

Before your Signoria to report on the account of the new tax, as given by me, Francesco di Giorgio, your lowest servant, I affirm and exhibit to have the following goods, and first: One house where I live in San Giovanni, the estimate of which is sent to your Lordships. And I am owed around three hundred lire by the heirs of Galgano di Meo Moni. We have 6 children, 4 girls and two boys. I recommend them and myself to your Lordships.

Archivio di Stato di Siena; Denunzie, Lira 216 *See Iorio 269; Milanesi (III) 294; Fabrizio Nevola, “Lost of Napkins and a Few Surprises: Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s House, Goods, and Social Standing in Late- Fifteenth-Century Siena,” Annali di architettura 18 –19 (2006 – 2007): 78; Weller 363.

(134) 1488 Report of the assets of Giacomo Cozzarelli, who was still residing in Urbino “with Francesco di Giorgio.” He notes that he has been in Urbino already ten years.

Archivio di Stato di Siena; Denunzie, Lira 223 *See Chironi (1991) 476; Weller 363 – 364.

(135) 1488 Francesco di Giorgio’s Lira report for 1488. His name is listed among those of the district of Porta Salaria of Siena.

Francesco di Goorgio di Martino sculptor, lire trecento.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 89, Libro della lira (1488), folio 16v *See Iorio 270.

(136) January 20, 1489 The Balìa writes to Francesco di Giorgio that he should return home.

Archivo di Stato di Siena, Balìa 409, Copialettere, folio 26r

489

*See Chironi (1991) 476; Romagnoli (IV) 829. Chironi incorrectly dates document as January 26, 1489.

(137) January 23, 1489 The Balìa decrees that 1,000 florins, secured on the assets of the rebels, are to be paid to Francesco di Giorgio. The document also recalls the obligation of Francesco to return to reside in Siena with his family within six months.

Magnifici domini offitiales Balie civitatis Senarum convocati etc. decreverunt quod… Franciscus Georgii pro florenis mille sibi dono promissis per Comune Senarum super bonis rebellium decreverunt quod habeat dictos mille florenos de libris 4 pro floreno in Libro restitutionum Comunis Senarum et de denariis in quibus est creditor comune Senarum in dicto libro, et in eis accendatur dictus Franciscus Georgii qui participet in distributionibus ut alii creditors; et teneatur ipse Franciscus revertere ad habitandum cum familia sua in civitate Senarum per tempus sex mensium proxime futurorum.

The magnificent lord officials of the Balìa of the city of Siena convened [here], etc., have decided that ... Francesco di Giorgio is to receive as a gift one-thousand florins by the Commune of Siena from the property of the rebels, and they have decided that he should have the said one-thousand florins at the rate of 4 lire per florin, [as given in the Book of the restitution and payments of the Commune of Siena in which he is named creditor to the Commune of Siena. And they treat said Francesco di Giorgio in the process of distribution like all other creditors. And Francesco himself is obliged to return to dwell in the city of Siena with his family within the period of six months.

Archivo di Stato di Siena, Deliberazioni, Vol. 34, folio 87v *See Borghesi e Banchi 258; Chironi (1991) 476; Petrucci “Francesco di Giorgio Operaio dei Bottini in Siena” 234; Weller 363.

(138) January 28, 1489 Francesco di Giorgio writes from Gubbio of the movement of troops toward Perugia.

Come zelante della patria m’è parso dare notitia a Vostre Spectabilità, come vènere a note hore cinque fu dato aviso al signor Duca chome a Perugia si feva a cierta radunata di giente d’arme e fantarie, e che ognora venieno più moltiplichando, e che questi vanno a chosa fatte. Sonoci dipoi altri avisi: alcuni dichano ereare tratato con Città di Castello, perche el papa e Lorenzo disiderano fare e gienero che sarebe molto a suo proposito. Altri dichano esare per volere imbrigliare Perugia, il che non è verisimile fesanao lì la radunta, e che loro lo soportasero. Ancho dichano di Siena; e questo lo’ va più a pelo che nisuna di questre altre; asegniandone più ragioni. E che mai e fiorentini ebero meglio el modo a riuscirlo che adesso, masime trovandosi è re in istrani termini, et per divertare da se, starebe tacito; e trovandosi Lorenzo fare e dispore de papa quello che vole, è choncrudano questo: che Lorenzo à hogi più avisi lui degli stati d’Italia che nisuno altro potentato. Apreso darò acieno da Gubio, dove questa note a di 26 so’arivato e fatto qui molte provisioni secrete; e questa matina è tornato miser Giovani da Spuleto, et quale è molto chosa del governatore; dicie ch’el governatore aspetava miser Domenicho d’Oria e

490

che voleva venire a Perugia. Come vostre spetbilità sano, adesso non è tempo da chanpegiare, ma porìa esare qualche tratato.

Io mi chredo ch’el sia molto meglio lo esare gieloso che chornuto. E per esare informato apieno del tuto ho mandato a Perugia e a Chastello, e sichondo le chose suciedarano, ne darò aviso. So le Spetatbilità Vostre sarano prudentisimea stare vigilanti; per bene che io stimo una chosa si schoperta non sia nulla; pure el temere e provendere non si puo erare. Se io ho tediato le Spetabilità Vostre, mi perdonarono, rachomandandomi sempre a quelle. In Agobio a di 28 di Gienaio 1488. D.V.S. Francesco di Giorgio

[On reverse]: Agli spectabili Hofitiagli di Balìa magnifica città di Siena.

Because I am loyal to my homeland, it seemed to me [right] to give notice to Your Respectable Ones, as it happened at 5:00 at night, notice was given to the Lord Duke that at Perugia, some groups of armed men and infantry are gathered, and that every hour they multiply, and that these men come to do something. I then warn you: some say that they form an alliance with Città di Castello, because the Pope and Lorenzo desire to do this and it would be greatly to their advantage. Others say, there is a desire to take Perugia, which is not likely seeing that they have gathered there, and they would wait. Others speak of Siena; and this is more bothersome than any of the others, giving them more reasons. And more than ever before the Florentines have now the best means to succeed, and moreover as they find themselves in foreign territories, and they will be careful to divert attention from themselves. And as they find Lorenzo doing and arranging what the Pope wishes, one may conclude this: that Lorenzo has today more news of the states of Italy than any other ruler. And knowing this, I give emphasis from Gubbio, where this message on the 26th day arrived and where many secret provisions were made. And this morning Lord Giovanni returned from Spoleto, where he did many things for the governor; he says that the governor waited for Lord Domenico d’Oria and wanted to go to Perugia. As your Lordships know, now is not the time to fight, but only to come to some agreement.

I believe that it is much better to be meticulous than to be cuckold. And so that you are informed of everything I have written of Perugia and Castello, and according to how things progress, I will advise. I know Your Lordships are most prudent to remain diligent; for well I estimate the thing that is discovered will come to nothing; [but] truly caution and preparation cannot err. If I have bored Your Lordships, may you please excuse me, I recommend myself always to you. In Gubbio on the 28th of January 1488. Your Loyal Servant Francesco di Giorgio

[On reverse:] To the respectable officers of the Balìa of the Magnificent city of Siena.

Archivo di Stato di Siena, Balìa 537, lettere, no. 97 *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 423 – 424; Weller 364.

491

(139) January 28, 1489 The Balìa nominates Francesco di Giorgio “operaio” of the Fonte di Follonica. The document also absolves him from the penalty he incurred as chamberlain of the Consistory.

Magnifici domini offitiales Balìe convocati etc… Decreverunt…quod fons Follonice et situs dicte fontis cum omnibus suis iuribus et pertinentiis, videlicet totum quod pertinent Comuni Senarum, non tangendo bona particularium personarum, intelligatur, data, concessa et donata pleno iure Francisco Georgii, qui de ea disponat ad libitum sue voluntatis faciendo ibi quecunque hedificia que sibi videbuntur et placebit. Ac etiam decreverunt absolvere et absolverunt dictum Franciscum ab omni pena sui offitti, quando fuit camerarius Consistorii, sibi facta per censores, non obstantibus quibuscunque, dummodo solvat penam statim quantitatibus in quibus est condepnatus.

Magnificent officials of the Balìa convened, etc. ... They have decreed… that the Fonte di Follonica and the site of the said fountain with all its rights and appurtenances, that is to say, all that is related to the Commune of Siena and not touching particular personal properties, is given and conceded in full rights to Francesco di Giorgio, and [it is decreed that] here he may do with it and build whatever he desire according to his own will. And it was also decided that the said Francesco would be absolved and acquitted from every penalty of office that was incurred when he was chamberlain of the Consistory, despite whatsoever, as long as he immediately pays the amount owed.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 36, Deliberazioni, folio 89r *See F. Bargagli-Petrucci, “Francesco di Giorgio Operaio dei Bottini in Siena,” Bollettino senese di storia patria IX (1902): 234; Weller 364 – 365.

(140) February 11, 1489 Francesco di Giorgio is granted the right to build a mill and other structures at the Fonte di Follonica. He elects Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo Salvetti, and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio as his partners in this enterprise. The contract stipulates that Petrucci, Salvetti, and Biringuccio are responsible for all the expenses, but that profits are to be divided equally among the four partners.

Anno Domini MCCCCLXXXVII, indictione VII, die vero XI februarii.

Cum hoc sit quod Franciscus olim Georgii de Senis obtinuit a magnificis officialibus Balie civitatis Senarum habentibus a comuni Senarum plenissimam auctoritatem, quod possit facere per se et suos socios per eum nominandos in aquis et fluviis civitatis et comitatus Senarum edificia molendinorum et alia diversa edificia, cum certis modis et formis ut in petitione dicti Francisci obtenta in dicta Balìa continetur; ac etiam cum situs fontis Follonici cum omnibus suis iuribus et pertinentiis, videlicet id quod pertinere ad Comunem Senarum fuerit concessus per dictam Baliam dicto Francisco, in quo possit edificare et facere quicquid sibi placuerit ut de predictis concessionibus et gratiis constare

492

fuit confessus manu ser Thome Martini Casulani notarii dicte Balie. Propterea dictus Franciscus ex nunc vigore auctoritatis sibi date ut prefertur, nominavit, elegit et assumpsit et nominat et assumet in socios et pro sociis in dictis gratiis et concessionibus sibi factis Pandolfum Bartolomei Giacoppi de Petrucciis, Paulum Salvetti et Paulum Vannoccii, cives Senarum, una cum dicto Franciscus nominante equa portione. Idcirco prefati Pandulfus, Franciscus, Paulus Salvetti et Paulus Vannoccii de eorum comuni concordia et voluntate fecerunt et contraxerunt inter se veram et puram societatem in predictis et circa predicta et in omnibus edificiis faciendis per dictum Franciscum ubique locorum tam in civitata comutatu Senarum quam extra dictum comitatum; item quod omnia edificia facienda per ipsum Franciscum et seu generis edificiorium de quibus in dicta concessione Balie continetur sint et esse intelligantur in presenti societate et ad ipsam societatem pertinere; itaque nullis talis edificii per aliquem eorum fieri possit nisi pro dicta societate et sic in dicta societate intelligatur esse quodcumque edificium tale fieret vel fiat per quemcumque eorum; hoc acto inter dictas partes quod expense faciende in predictis fiant et fieri debeant per dictos Pandolphum, Paulum Vannoccii et Paulum Salvetti et inter eos tres equa portione et de eorum tamen propriis pecuniis. Item quod omnia lucra et proventus dictorum edificiorum que et qui per Dei gratiam percipientur ex dictis edificiis et ex dicta societat comuniter inter dictos quattuor socios, videlicet Pandolfum, Franciscum, Paulum Vannoccii et Paulum Salvetti dividere equa portione et pura fide et sine ulla cavillatione ut bonos socios decet, et quod dicuts Francischus Georgii teneatur et obligatus super dicta edificia ad industriam eius ordinationem hedificiorum faciendorum et dicti Pandolfus, Paulus Vannoccii et Paulus Salvetti teneantur ut supra in capitolo ad omnibus expensis.

Item quod nemo ex dictis quattuor sociis possit nominare vel assumere aliquem socium vel aliquem admittere ad societatem predictam vel societatem contrahere similium hedificorium, vel licentiam concedere alicui faciendi vel construendi aliqua edificia sine comuni consensu et voluntate omnium dictorium quattuor sociorum.

Item dicte partes fuerint concordes quod casu quo reciperetur in socium aliquem alium ad dicta edificia quod talis socius superveniens teneatur et obligatus pro rata eius ad omnes expensas edificiorium predictorum prout teneantur dicti Paulus, Pandolfus et Paulus.

Que omnia, etc. attendere et observare sub pena mille ducatorum pro quolibet quam penam etc., et dicta pena etc. Actum Senis in tercio Sancti Martini, in apoteca Pauli Vannocci, coram Francisco Guidi Pietri alia Petrucco et Iohanne Francisco Niccolai Paghirdoppie ligriterio testibus.

Ego Christoforus Fungarius subscripsi.

[Added in the hand of the notary, to where a previous heading had been crossed out:] Item sunt concords partes supradicte quod omnia edificia facienda et que fierent quoquo modo per supradictos socios vel aliquem ipsorum, in locis de quibus in dictis concessionibus vel alibi, sint et esse intelligantur dictorum sociorum, et omnes et quemcumque utilitates que quoquo modo percipientur ex edificiis predictis sint et esse

493

intelligantur aplicati equali portione dicte societati et ita sint dividende, omni exceptione remota.

In the year of the Lord 1489, indiction 7, on the 11th of February.

As it is that Francesco di Giorgio of Siena obtained from the magnificent officials of the Balìa of the city of Siena, who has full authority on behalf of the Commune of Siena, the right for himself and for his named associates to build mills and other various structures on the rivers and waters of Siena and its Commune, with certain ways and forms as contained in the petition made by the said Francesco to the said Balìa. Likewise, [Francesco has these rights] also in regards to the seat of the Fountain Follonica, with all its rights and appurtenances, that is to say that which is said to belong to the Commune of Siena has been granted by the said Balìa to the said Francesco, in which he may make and build whatever he may as he desires, as is given in the aforementioned concession and favor, and acknowledged by the hand of a servant of Tommasso Martini Casulani notary of the said Balìa. Therefore, the said Francesco from this point is given the strength of authority, as aforesaid, and he has named, chosen, assumed and shall take on as partners and associates in the aforesaid grant and concessions made to him, Pandolfo Bartolomeo Giacomo Petrucci, Paolo Salvetti and Paolo Vannoccio [Biringuccio], Sienese citizens, along with the named Francesco in equal portion. For this reason, the said Pandolfo, Francesco, Paolo Salvetti and Paolo Vannoccio, upon common agreement and will, have made and formed among themselves a true and pure fellowship in the aforesaid [undertaking] and concerning the aforementioned matters and in the construction of all buildings by the said Francesco, where ever they are located within the Commune of Siena or the surrounding areas. Also, that all building must be done by the said Francesco and his companions, as is given by the said grant of the Balìa and they are to be recognized within the present society and are to be members of the society itself. And so, no building can be done by anyone except those of the said society, and so in the said society it is to be understood that all buildings should be made by one among them. That among the said parties expenses are to be made, as in the aforesaid agreement of Pandolfo, Paolo Salvetti and Paolo Vannoccio [Biringuccio], and each of these three will pay an equal portion from their own money. And also, that all gains and revenues from the said buildings, which are given by God’s grace, are to be divided between the said four partners, namely, Pandolfo, Francesco, Paolo Salvetti, Paolo Vannoccio [Biringuccio], divided into equal portions and fairly, without any quibbling as befits good partners, and that it has been said that Francesco di Giorgio is required and obliged to organize the construction and operation of the said buildings and that the said Pandolfo, Paolo Salvetti, and Paolo Vannoccio [Biringuccio], are bound to cover all expenses.

Also that no one of the four of the society is able to name or assume any partner or to admit an associate to the aforesaid society or to contract on similar buildings, or to grant permission to anyone to do or to construct any buildings without common consent and will of all four members of the society.

494

Also, that the said parties be found in agreement that in case that they receive into the society an additional person for the said buildings that the society is bound to oversee and obliged to proportionally pay the costs of all expenses of building, as committed to by the said Paolo, Pandolfo and Paolo.

All here agree and observe on the penalty of one-thousand ducats for each individual This is given in Siena in the district of St. Martino, in the apothecary of Paolo Vannoccio, before Francesco Guido Petrucci, Giovanni Francesco Niccolò Paghirdoppie [?] as witnesses.

I Cristoforo Fungari have written the above.

[Added in the hand of the notary:] Again, the aforesaid are agreed and understand that all building completed and intended to be made in whatever manner by the aforesaid associates or other individuals, is to be done in the area stipulated in the contract or elsewhere, and all and whomsoever else receives utility from the aforesaid buildings understand that it is to be divided in equal portion among the said society without exception.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 967, Ser Cristoforo Fungai (October 6, 1484 – February 15, 1492), fascicle 1, unnumbered documents *See G. Chironi “Politici e ingegneri” 385; Iorio 270 – 272.

(141) February 21, 1489 Francesco di Giorgio, Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, and Paolo Salvetti elect five associates to join their partnership in the development of the Fonte di Follonica and other projects within the Commune of Siena. The associates are: Luzio Bellanti, Giorgio Vieri, Pietro Mariano di Meo di Santi, Bartolomeo Giovanni, and Jacopo Bartolomeo Cozzarelli.

Anno Domini 1488, indictione VIII, die vero XXI februarii.

Cum hoc sit quod Francischus Georgii, Paulus Vannocci et Pandolfus Petruccius et Paulus Salvetti contraxerunt quandam societatem ad plura hedificia et maxime ad hedificium fontis Follonici prout de dicta societate constat manu mei notarii infrascripti et cum hoc sit quod in dicta societate contineatur quoddam capitulum quod supradicti possint alios in socios nominare in dicta societate, unde constituti prefati in presentia mei notarii et testium infrascriptorum, supradicti concorditer et unanimiter nominaverunt in socios infrascriptos ad hedificium tantum fontis Follonici et ad societatem dicti hedificii in uno caritere in dicta societate pro quolibet, cum ho[c] tamen quod infrascripti nominati teneantur et obligati sint ad expensas dicti hedificii pro uno caretere et uno tertio, quoniam quatuor careteri sunt franchi pro dicto Francisco Georgio et duobus aliis vagantur pro duobus magistris nominandis per magistrum Francischum, qui quidem duo magistri nominandi teneantur mictere in dicto hedificio operas et industrias eorum. Nomina quorum sunt infrascripta videlicet: magistrum Lutium de Bellantibus

495

Georgium Pritiani de Vieriis Pietrum ser Mariani Mei Santis Bartholomeus ser Iohannis Et magister Francischus nominavit in uno charate magistrum Iacobum Bartholomeo de Cozzarellis.

Qui quidem socii dictam societam acceptaverunt et contraxerint cum supradictas, et promiserunt dictam societatem fideliter exercere et expensis pro uno carate et uno tertio in dicto hedificio pro quolibet facere et promiserunt attendere et observare sub pena mille ducatorum pro quolibet que omnia etc. pro quibus etc., omnibus etc., cum gravamine etc., Rogantes etc.

Insuper fuerunt concordes dicti socii quod quando casus occurret quod aliquis dictorum sociorum recusaret facere et dare eius spensas pro eius rata tangente quod facte per dictos alios socios ei protestet quod solveret eius ratam et non solvendo per tempus 8 dierum incoandorum a die protestationis facte, dictus talis socius intelligantur exclusus a dicta societate et expense facte per eum intelligantur amisse.

Actum Senis in tercerio Sancti Martini in apotecha dicti Pauli Vannoccii, ser Guidone Laurentii de Castello et Iohanne Francisco Niccolai de la Doppia testibus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 967, Ser Cristoforo Fungai (October 6, 1484 – February 15, 1492), fascicle 1, unnumbered documents *See Chironi (1993) 387 – 388; Iorio 272 – 273.

(142) May 26, 1489 Payment record for work on the Moat of Manfredonia, which notes involvement of “Master Jorgi of Siena.” a di XXVI di Magio: pagati ad Mastro Jorgi Senese et Mastro da Rosano et compani li quali hanno cavato allo fosso canni septet e meza ad ragione de ducati sei la canna so in moneta ducati quaranta cinque dico duc 45, gr.0

*See Dechert, “The Military Architecture of Francesco di Giorgio in Southern Italy” 171.

(143) June 25, 1489 Payment record for the design of two bronze angels for the high altar of the Duomo of Siena. In total, there were to be four angels, the expenses for which are recorded in a set of thirteen entries, dated November 26, 1488 to October 22, 1489.

E dì XXV di giungno soldi quarantatré sonno per tre quarti di farina e per libre 26 di stoppa paghata per ordine di maestro Francesco di Giorgio per l’anima de li due angioli debba fare.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana, 457, folio 81v *See Zarrilli 532.

496

(144) July 6, 1489 Payment record related to facture of the two bronze angels designed by Francesco di Giorgio for the high altar of the Duomo of Siena.

E dì VI di luglo lire sei, soldi otto contanti a Girolamo di Bartolomeo Fonghai sonno per braccia 20 di tela in uno lenzuolo sottile per fare li panni a li detti angioli, fa lo detto maestro Francesco di Giorgio.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana, 457, folio 81v *See Zarrilli 532.

(145) July 10, 1489 Payment of 37 lire, 4 soldi to Francesco di Giorgio for the design of two bronze angels for the altar of the Siena Duomo.

M.o Francesco di Giorgio schultore e ingiegniere die sare a di x di luglio lire trenta sette, soldi quattro chontanti al lui per detto di misser [Alberto di misser Francesco degnissimo Operaio] nostro, e quale se li prestano per parte della fattura di due angiolette deba fare di rame, ànno a stare dinanze all’altare magiore in Duomo, e sonno a uscita di Iacopo Mignanelli camarlingo, f.o.44.

Arvhivio di Opera Metropolitana di Siena 718, folio 297v *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 466; Weller 365.

(146) 1489 Francesco di Giorgio, having received notice of the clearing of the Bruna Lake dam, agrees to undertake the necessary work, and advises that the commune invest 4000 lire in two years’ time, so that the project is completed in a timely fashion. The exact nature of the project is not specified.

Dinanzi da Voi magnifici ofitiali di Balìa diciesi per me Franciesco di Giorgio che avendo inteso e bandi dello sghombrare il lago mandati per le Vostre Signorie quando piacia…hol farò volenti ... tore a sghombrare ditto lago…. quatro milia è darlo netto in tuto per due anni, avendo el denaio in modo che al detto tempo fare si potesse.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2190, scritture *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 424; Weller 365.

(147) 1489 Receipt of payment to Francesco di Giorgio for 214 lire, 14 soldi. The reason for the payment is not given.

Mo Francesco di Giorgio di rinchontra [scritto di contro] die’ avere lire dugiento quattrodici, soldi quattrodici per rinchontro [la partita a debito scritta di contro] di tanto posto creditore in questo f.o. 336 Lire cc.o xxiiiy.o, sol. xiiijo. den. –.

497

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana di Siena 718, folio 297 *See Chironi (1991) 476; Weller 376.

(148) March 20, 1490 The Commune of Lucignano, in the valley of Chiana, writes to the Balìa asking that Francesco di Giorgio be sent to consult on the fortifications of the town. The officials stipulate that Francesco must stay in Lucignano for just two days, during which time “he can prepare a plan for us as to how we are to proceed.”

Magnifici et potentes domini, Domini nostri singularissimi humili et devota recomendatione premissa.Più volte abiamo scripto ad Vostre magnifiche Singorie come essendo noi preparati a murare et fortificare questa vostra terra, quelle si degnino di mandare qua Francesco di Giorgio architettore per due dì, che ci dia il disegno in che modo abbiamo a fare; che per noi siamo intelligenti a tali cose. Non è anco venuto, unde iterum preghiamo umilmente esse V.S. M. Che si degnino di mandarlo più presto si può; peroche sanno esse. V.M.S. la natura de li populi, che chome cominciano a indulgiare una impresa, el più de le volte s’abandona: et semper nocuit mora differre paratos. Raccomandandosi sempre a esse V.M.S. le quali Dio conservi in buono e felice stato. Ex terra vestra Lucignano Vallis Calanarum die XX mensis Martii 1489.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 542, lettere, no. 86 *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi (II) 426; Weller 365.

(149) April 13, 1490 The officers of the Duomo of Milan name Giovanni Antonio Amadeo and Giovanni Gioacomo Dulcebuono as overseers of cathedral construction. Francesco di Giorgio and Luca Fancelli are elected to judge the model produced by Amadeo and Dulcebuono. The official who wrote the document was evidently unclear whether he should call Amadeo and Dulcebuono architects or engineers, and thus used both terms (“quos predictos architectos, seu ingeniarios”).

[…] in dictis partibus ullum invenisse ingegniarium idoneum et sufficientem ad ipsum tiburium perficiendum. Quopopter predicti domini pluries inter eos habita matura consultatione, sumptisque opportunis informationibus de sufficientia, rectitudine et experientia architectorum, seu ingeniariorum hac civitate et ducatu Mediolani comorantium, ipsorumque disputationibus auditis, existimarunt magistrum Jo: Ant: Amadeum, et magistrum Jo: Ja: Dulcebonum ceteris omnibus prevalere: quos predictos architectos, seu ingeniarios eligerunt ad ipsum tiburium ecclesiamque perficiendum. Declarantes tum ac volentes quod ipsi ambo ingegniarii, seu architecti eligant modelum eis prelaudabilius ex modelis in ipsa fabrica existentibus, quem reducant ad illam perfectionem prout eorum prudentis videbitur. Iniungentes ac deliberantes et presentium tenore ordinantes et deliberantes modelum ipsum videri et judicari debere cum ad perfectionem erit reductum, vel non per magisterium Franciscum de Georgiis de Urbino instantem in civitate Sene, et per magistrum Lucam florentinum instantem in civitate

498

Mantue, quos ex tenore presentium eligerunt et eligunt in judices et scrutatores ipsius modelli.

Archivio della fabbrica del Duomo di Milano, liber Rubeus, folio 200 *See Chironi (1991) 476; Milanesi II 434 – 435; Weller 366.

(150) April 15, 1490 Reimbursement to Francesco di Giorgio for the cost of 2,500 bricks for the construction of an oven. This was to be used for foundry work involved in the facture of the bronze angels for the altar of the Siena Duomo. See also document July 10, 1489. This oven may be the same as that rented by Francesco in 1501. See documents of November 13, 1501.

E diè dare [mo Francesco di Giorgio] per insino a di xv d’aprile 1490 lire ventuna soldi dieci e quali sonno per duomila cinquanta mattoni auti per noi da Bartolomeio d’Antonio di Saracino fornaciajo al lui in questo, f.o. 250. E diè avere a dì xv d’aprile 1490 lire vintuna soldi dieci e quali sonno per la monta di duomila cinquanta mattoni chomuni, à mandato per noi e per detto di Misser nostro a m.o Francesco di Giorgio per fare uno fornello per fòndare, e di tutti ne sonno al lui in questo, f.o. 297.

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana di Siena 718, folio 297 *See Chironi (1991) 477; Weller 366.

(151) April 19, 1490 Galeazzo Maria Sforza requests Francesco di Giorgio’s consultation on the Duomo of Milan. The duke notes that the Milanese have previously had “many in the profession of building presented models or archetypes” for the cathedral which proved unsatisfactory. But learning of the extraordinary skill of “master Francesco di Giorgio of Urbino” – who is “most excellent in the art of architecture” – the Milanese now ask that he assist them in finding a solution for the cathedral’s vault.

Magnifici Domini tanquam fratres nostri charissimi. Arbitramur Magnificentias Vestras non latere a maioribus nostris Edem dive Marie in urbe nostra Mediolano dicatem, et amplitudine et eleganti structura memorandam, inchoatam fuisse: a qua cum nunquam cessatum sit, eo nunc perducta est, ut parum ab absolution abesse videatur; tantunque ut fornix, seu quemadmodum vulgo dicitur tiburium, extruatur restat: que quo plus ipsi temple diniatis et ornamenti est allatura, eo et ceteris membris eat difficilior, maiusque ingegnium desiderat. Hanc vero cum in presentia faciendam locare decreverimus, multique qui in architectura presentates habentur, archetypum seu modellum ad nos attulerint; statuimus omnino ex aliis etiam locis architectos arcessere, quo et ex sententia magis, et ex loci dignitate perfici possit. Quare cum intellexerimus magistrum Franciscum Georgium, urbinatem, in arte architectonice plurimum excellere, visum est de eo cum Magnificentiis Vestris agere; quas hortamur et rogamus, ut non solum ipsi magistro Francisco ad nos veniendi comeatum ac facultatem dare, verum etiam iubere velint.

499

Cui, si eius iudicium in huiusmodi fornice deducenda ceteris prestantius censebitur id negocii quam libentissime dabitur, sique tractabitur, ut nunquam futurum sit, ut eum huc venisse peniteat. Hoc nobis ita gratum cadet, ut hoc tempore gratius nihil a vobis proficisci possit. Viglevani die XVIII Aprilis 1490. Ionanes Galeaz Maria Sfortia Vicecomes Dux Mediolani B. Chalcus.

[On reverse:] Magnificis dominis tanquam fratribus nostris charissimis dominis Prioribus Gubernatoribus comunis, Capitaneo Populi Senarum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2070, lettere, no. 6 *See Chironi (1991) 477; Milanesi (II) 429 – 430; Weller 366 – 367.

(152) May 15, 1490 The Signoria of Siena respond to the request of Galeazzo Maria Sforza. They agree to send Francesco di Giorgio to Milan, but clarify that he is “not of Urbino, but of Siena, our beloved fellow-citizen, the best architect of our age.” The signoria also comment that because “every day we use his art of architecture, we ask Your Illustrious Lordship, that when the work is completed, you send him home to us, as we believe that his quick wit and ingenuity will quickly provide a solution.”

XV Maii 1490. Mediolani Duci scriptum est. Tanta est enim Vestre Illustrissime Dominationi multis probate argumentis erga nos benivolentia, ut non modo ei aliquid denegare phas esse non arbitremur; verum so quid gratum fecare contigerit nobis, nostris in servire commodis iure videremur; quapropter vestris acceptis licteris, que magnam semper nobis afferent iocunditatem, illico Franciscum, haud urbinatem, verum senensem, concivem nostrum dilectum, nostreque etatis optimum architectum, accersiri iussimus…nes nobis dubium est V.I.D [Vestre Illustrissime Dominationi], ut ipsa suis licteris pollicetur, magnam liberalitatem experietur. Cuius architecti virtutem, etsi per se ipsam comendetur, pro ea tamen, qua cives nostros complectiumur charitate, V.I.D. summopere commendamus. Sed quum multa inchoate reliquit, ac nobis quoque eius architectonica ars quottidie usui evenit, V.I.D. plurium oramus, ut virum ad nos, peracto opere, remittere dignetur; quod sui acumine celeritateque ingenii ipsum brevi, quoad suum erit, vobis effectum daturum credimus. Sed hoc nihil est enim pre nostri gratificandi animi desiderio; quum quidem quanti V.I.D. faciamus semperque fecerimus, quantive nos ab ea fieri intellexerimus, nos ipsi testes sumus. Quam ob rem tantum eius erga nos affectum summamque benivolentiam nulla unquam poterit delere vetustas. Cui, que prestare possimus, ea semper cum libenter tum etiam periocunde efficiemus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1702, Copialettere, folio 32v *See Chironi (1991) 477; Milanesi (II) 429 – 430; Weller 367.

(153) May 20, 1490 Giovanni Antonio da Gessate is asked to host Francesco di Giorgio during his stay in Milan, or to procure for him honorable housing.

500

Preterea lectis licteris per Ioannem Antonium de Glassate emenatis a civitate Sen., ordinatum est quod loquatur [?] Franciscum de Glasiati fratrem dicti Ioannis Antonii exortando eum quod velit hospitari magistrum Franciscum de Georgiis venturum Mediolani una dicto Ioanni Antonio sumtis predicte Fabrice; et quando noluerit ipsum hopsitare, querat hospitare ad aliquod hospitium honorabile.

Archivio della fabrica del Duomo di Milano, liber Rubeus, folio 205 *See Chironi (1991) 477; Weller 368.

(154) May 21, 1490 Record of payment of 4000 soldi to Francesco di Giorgio as part of his annual salary as Communal Architect to Siena.

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio, engiegniere, adì XXI magio lire quatroceinto soldi 0, pagati per polizia di Balìa di mano di ser Tomaso da Casole, sonno per partte del suo salario del primo anno della sua condotta, e per noi acordò Giovanni Colonbini, camarlingo di cabella de’ denari del pane vendreccio, e ag… (?) in questo a foglio 30, e a uscita di Nicolò di Ben…(?) Kamarlingo di Bicherna, foglio 60. 1. CCCC s. 0

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 344, Entrate-Uscite (January 1490 – December 1490), folio 4v (not found) *See Iorio 274.

(155) May 21, 1490 Francesco di Giorgio elects his legal representatives, including Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio.

Anno Domini 1490, indictione viii, die xxi mai. Magister Francisus Georgii omni modo etc. fecit suos procurators et cetera, Paulum Vannoccii et (….) Bernardini et ser Laurentium Francisci etc. in solidum (ad omnes causas ad agendum et cetera), item ad substituendum, item ad exigendum, item ad compromitendum, etc, item ad (…) et cetera, promiserunt non relevare et cetera. Actum Senis in Bicherna, coram et presentibus Nicholao Iacobi Val de Lamone, ser Paolo Bartaluccio testibus.

Archivio di Stato di Stato, Notarile 983, Ser Sebastiano di Bartaluccio (March 26, 1485 – March 18, 1497), doc. 145 *See Chironi (1993) 405; Iorio 274.

(156) June 1, 1490 The archbishop and the advisors of the Duomo of Milan confirm Francesco di Giorgio’s satisfactory accommodation with Giovanni da Gessate. They also report that Francesco is content to work with Giovanni Antonio Amadeo, who will pay him two lire per day for his consultation on the cupola.

501

L’archivescovo e Consigliere della Fabbrica del Duomo di Milano fatto chiamare M.o Francesco de Georgiis, ingegnere senese, “interrogatus fuit so hospitium Domini Ioannis de Glassate ets ei gratum vel ne. Qui magister Franciscus responsum dedit non solum ei esses gratum sed gratissimum. Qua responsione sic habita exhortarunt magistrum Franciscum ad bene considerandum eumque ad perfectionem operes tiburti (cupoloa) rogarunt. Predicti Somini Deputati habito coloquio cum dicto magistro Francisco, qui lentanter retulit de societate ipsius domini Ioannis Antonii contentari.” Dopo ciò determinarono la mercede delle spese che detto Giovanni Antonio doveva fare per detto maestro Francesco di Georgio, e per il suo servo, a Lire due al giorno.

Archivio della fabrica del Duomo di Milano *See Borgesi and Banchi, 258; Chironi (1991) 477; Weller 368.

(157) June 10, 1490 Bartolomeo Calco writes to Lodovico il Moro, informing him that Francesco di Giorgio has begun work on a model for the tribunal of the Duomo of Milan, which he hopes to finish within eight days. But in the case that the project requires more attention, Francesco agrees to adhere to the request of the archbishop and vestry, and will not leave Milan before the model is completed.

Ill mo S. re mio observan. no Se è facto intendere alli deputati de la fabrica del Domo qui, et cosi ad R.mo mons.re l’arcivescovo, quale pare habia tolto precipua cura de far trovare qualche forma alla perfectione del Tiburio quanto V.a Ex.tia me ha scripto aciò operi chel Ingeniero Senexe vanga ad vedere al fabrica de la chiesa mazore li; hano reposto essere gia alcuni di ch’epso Ingeniero ha principiato uno modello del dicto Tiburio, el quale desiderando molto sia finito inanti se mova de Milano, tanto che la fantasia li serve bene, et etiam perchè se presto vedere quello se possa sperare de luiy, che tengono per fermo non passarà octo giorni poso [sic] qual termino poterà poi venire a suo piacere: et quando etiam finesse più presto el dicto modello se porria partire, et cosi pregano V. Ex.tia sia contenta.

Havendo significato el medessmo al Ingeniero, me ha reposto in conformità de quello hano dicto il predicti mos.re et Fabriceri: non dimeno che luiy da omne hora è aparechiato exequire la voluntà de V.a S.a Magistro Leonardo Fiorentino me ha dicto sarà sempre aparechiato omne volta sij rechiesto; sichè como se invij el Senese venerà anchora luij. Magistro Jo. Antonio Amadeo dubito non li poterà essere, perchè se ritrova sul laco de Como, per impresa de non picol momento; non dimeno quando V.a Ex.tia volesse omnio chel li fusse, se poterà scriverli chel venga Ricommandandome a quella de continuo. Mediolani X Junij 1490.

Servitor Bartholomeus Chalcus

[On reverse:] Ill.mo Principi et Ex.mo Domieo miho observan.mo Domino Duci Barij etc. Cito.

Archivio di Stato di Milano, Communi, Duomo di Milano

502

*See Chironi (1991) 466; Weller 368 – 69.

(158) June 21, 1490 Receipt of payment made to the landlord of the inn at Saracino, who hosted Leonardo da Vinci and Francesco di Giorgio during their trip to Pavia to advise on the construction of the city’s Duomo.

Item die XXI Junii Johanni Augustino de Berneriis hospiti ad signum Sarcini Papiae pro expensis sibi factis per Dominos Franciscum Senensem et Leonardum Floretinum Ingeniarios cum sociis et famulis suis, et cum equis, qui ambo specialiter vocati fuerunt pro consultatione suprascriptae fabricate in summa lib. XX.

Archivio della Cattedrale di Pavia, registro 1488 – 1504, folio 30v *See Chironi (1991) 477; Weller 369.

(159) June 22, 1490 Receipt of 8 ducat payment made to Francesco di Giorgio for his consultation on the design of the Duomo of Pavia.

Archivio della Cattedrale di Pavia, registro, 1488 – 1504, folio 30v *See Chironi (1991) 477; Papini 288; Weller 369.

(160) June 27, 1490 Before Duke Lodovico Sforza, the archbishops and the vestry, Francesco di Giorgio, Giangiacomo Dulcebono and Giovanni Antonio Amadeo present the plan for their work on the cathedral dome.

MCCCCLXXXX die XXVII Junii. Ogi la excellentia de lo Illustrissimo signor Ludovico essendo a la presentia de la sua Illma Signorìa il magnifico consilglio segreto et li domini Fabriceri de la fabrica del Domo di Milano et molti magistri ingegneri, ha per conclusione de la fabrica del tiburio d’esso Domo ordinato, che magistro Francisco di Giorgi di Siena sia cum magistro Johantonio Amadeo et magistro Johnaniacobo Dolzebono electi per ingignieri de la dicta fabrica ad proponere et ordinare tute le parte necessarie a constituire il dicto tiburio, quale si bello, honorevole et eterno; se le cose del mondo se possano fare eterne. Eta questo havesse ad essere presente Ambrogio Ferraro comissario de li lavoreii. Et per exeguire tale ordine et conclusione esso magistro Francisco insieme cum li predicti de acordo hanno ordinato se debia fare tale fabrica nel modo et forma infra. [....]

Archivio della fabbrica del Duomo di Milano, liber Rubeus, folio 133 *See Chironi (1991) 477; Weller 370 – 371.

(161) July 4, 1490 Review given by the archbishop and the vestry of the Duomo of Milan on Francesco di Giorgio’s work. The architect is paid 100 florins, and receives compensation for his living expenses, as well as for travel back to Siena.

503

In domibus residentie infruscripto Revrendissimi in Christos patris domini Archieipiscopi Mediolani, et existentibus congregates infrascriptis – dominis regiminus venerablis fabrice Ecclesie maioris Mediolani deputatis causa traetandi, deliberandive quid pergendum sit circa remunerationem fiendam magistro Francisco de Georgiis illustrissme dominationis Senarum ingeniario dignissimo: qui attendens modellum ad perficiendum tiburium predicte maiores Ecclesie fecisse, et nonnulla documentia circa ipsum tiburium perficiendum in scriptis aimisse, licentiam ad eius patriam se transferendi requisivit. Demum post multa dicta proposita et allata inter eos, vocibus collectis, per reverendissimum dominum Archiespiscopum seliberatum et ordinatum fuit ipsum magistrum Franciscum remunerari debere et eidem pro eius benemeritis dare debare fiorenos centum Reni, ultra indumentum eidem fiendum et expensas victus ei factas et fiendas usque ad eius patriam.

Archivio della Fabrica del Duomo di Milano, liber Rubeus, folio 208v *See Chironi (1991) 477; Milanesi (II) 435; Weller 372.

(162) July 7, 1490 Note of thanks written by Galeazzo Maria Sforza to the Balìa for Francesco di Giorgio’s services in Milan. The duke comments that Francesco has “solved the most difficult question” of the cathedral dome, and that his great virtue and diligence has “made no small addition to our love toward you.”

Magnificis tamquam frates et amici nostri charissimi. Vidit contemplatusque est diligenter excellentissimum templum nostrum Mediolanense nobilis in architectura vir Franciscus Gerogii, civis vester; et ea in difficillima questione prodidit, que intellexisse nos pluarimum delectavit. Nunc autem revertitur in partiam et ad Vos, cui has nostras dare voluimus, ut et testatum faceremus ita laborasse eum, ne quid in ipso desideraremus, et gratias vobis ageremus accomodati nobis himinis, cuius virtute et industria non negabimus ita nos motas, ut ad veterem nostrum erga vos amorem non parva accession facta videatur. Certe eum vobis etiam atque commendatum esse optamus significantes nos nostraque vestris commodis semper prompta parataque fore.

[On the opposite side of the letter:] Magnificis tanquam fratibus et amicis nostris charissimis dominis officialibus Balìe civitatis Sene.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 543, lettere, no. 59 *See Chironi (1991) 477; Weller 373.

(163) July 7, 1490 Thank you letter from Galeazzo Maria Sforza to the Priors of Siena. The language and content here is similar to that of the previous letter.

Magnifici domini tanquam fratres nostri charissimi. Fuit apud nos nobilis et praestans architectus Franciscus Georgii, cives vester, quem ad visendum templum nostrum Mediolani excellentissimum venire desideravimus, ut in maga enimentissime structure

504

difficultate, quid unus inter multorum fiducia sentiret haberemus. Vidit rem igitur Franciscus et quantum in ipso fuit tam prudenter consuluit ut eius inventa et ingegnium nobis vehementer probentur, nec non fateamur accessisse plurimum vestris erga non meritis. Qui talis viri copiam tam ben ...[?] officioseque fecistis, quo nomine gratias etiam agimus non vulgares, et commendatum vobis homines non propria solum virtute sed nostra etiam causa volumus, cuius industram et nobis perspectam esse lactamur, et ab omnibus magni faciundam putamus. Reliquum est ut nos nostraque vestris commodis prompta parataque semper fore putetis. Papie, die 7 Julii 1490. Ioannes Galeaz[zo] Maria Sfortia Vicecomes Dux Mediolani etc. B. Chalcus

[Base of letter:] presentate die XV Julii

[On verso:] Magnifici dominis tanquam fratribus nostris charissimis, dominis Prioribus, Gubernatoribus Comunis et Capitaneo Populi Senarum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2070, Lettere (April 1, 1490 – March 14, 1491), No. 35 *See Iorio 274 – 75; Romagnoli (IV) 854 – 855.

(164) July 8, 1490 The deputies of civic works in Milan thank the Sienese for Francesco di Giorgio’s consultation on the city’s cathedral. They note that of many architects who were called to Milan, Francesco was unique in his elegance, modesty, talent and judgment. At the close of the letter, the deputies note the political favor the Sienese have accrued in lending Francesco. “For what was done we will always remember your Lordships. It would be a singular grace for us to be able to do something that would be equally pleasing to your Dominions.”

Non nos fefellit opinio, Illustrissimi Domini, si prius amare ceperimus, quam nosce [sic] virum omni laude dignum Franciscum Giorgium, concivem vestrum. Is, intercedente apud Dominationes vestras illustrissimo Principe nostro pro firmando tuburio huiusce admirandi temple; quod per retroacta tempora variantibus hominum ingeniis diversimode ceptum et demolitum est; ad nos iussuvestro venit, et visis videndis in magno civium at architectorum numero qui vocati errant, ita ornate et modeste diseruit, ut, quod impossibile quodammodo videbatur, omnia explanavit; ut iam secure sumus, propitiante gloriosissima Virgine Maria, cuius auspiciis tam preclaro opera initium datum est, constant animo ad perfectionem cum securitate perducti posse. Quo nil gratius nilve iocundius prelabato Principi nostro et huic populo effici posset; et non imerito, cum tam admirandum templum, quod cum omni antiquitate comparari potest, ex turburii varietate imperfectum existeret. Quare non quas debemus, sed possumus Dominationibus Vestris gratias habemus, quod liberaliter ad nos miseritis preclarum hoc ingenium, as cuius arbitrium, precedentibus evidentissimis rationibus suis, tante rei ambiguitas demandata est, cuius consilium sequuturi sumus, eumque ad Dominationes Vestras remittimus; et si

505

eum condignis premiis non donavimus, quemadmodum ingenii magnitude requirebat, equo animo ferat, quia Imaculata Virgo meliores fructus sibi allatura est. Quod reliquum est Dominationibus Vestri nos perpetuo comendatos fecimus. Esset quod singularis gratie posse aliquid efficere quod gratum esset eisdem Dominationibus Vestris. Valete. Ex Campo Sancto prefati sacri temple maioris Mediolani die octavo Julji 1490. E.D.V. Deputati Regimini Fabrice Antedicti Sacri Templi.

[On reverse:] Illustribus Dominis honarandis dominis Prioribus Gubernatoribusque Comunis et Capitaneo populi etc. etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2070, lettere, no. 36 *See Chironi (1991) 477; Milanesi (II) 438 – 439; Weller 373 – 374.

(165) August 22, 1490 The Signoria of Siena grant Francesco di Giorgio permission to travel to Urbino for fifteen-days “to give perfection to some buildings” for Duke Guidobaldo da Montefeltro.

XXII Augusti 1490. Urbini Duci scriptum est: Illustrissime et excellentissime Princeps frater et amice noster carissime. L’antiqua affectione quale ha sempre portata questa Republica ad V.I.S. ne fa che in tucte le occurrentie siamo prontissimi gratificarne ad qualla. Unde intendendo da Francesco di Giorgio nostro concittadino et da noi per le virtù sue non mediocremente amato, desiderare V.S. Illustrissima esso Francesco conferirsi in fino costà per dare perfectione ad alcuni edifitii; con grato animo habiamo concessoli possere venire ad ciò satisfaccia a li desiderii di V.S. Illustrissima, quantunque quotidie ne venghi ad uso nostro et etiam privatamente le opere sue. Però preghiamo quella quimprimum il prefato Francesco habbi servitor a la voluntà di V.I.S. et ubi expediat li permetta ritornare.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1702, Copialettere, No. 117, folio 49r. See also related document: Archivo di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 743, Deliberazioni ad annum, folio 12v. *See Chironi (1991) 478; Milanesi (II) 439; Weller 374.

(166) September 8, 1490 The date for Francesco di Giorgio’s return to Siena from Urbino is extended to the end of September (1490).

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 744, deliberazioni, folio 3r *See Chironi (1991) 478.

(167) October 24, 1490 Giovanni della Rovere, Prefect of Rome, asks the Signoria of Siena for Francesco di Giorgio’s services for one month, or slighty longer.

506

El mi occure al presente un gran bisogno de la presentia di maestro Francesco de Giorgio architecto, vostro citadino. Et perchè lui non po absentarsi de lì senza licentia et consenso de le M.V.S.; havendo io grandissima fede in quelle, le prego quanto so et posso li piaccia ad mia contemplacione concedere al prefato maestro Francesco la decta licentia, chè con bona gratia de V[ostre] prefate S[ignorìa] possa venir ad servirmi per un mese, o un mese et mezo al più alto. Che per una volta le [M.V.S.] non mi poriano fare cosa che più grata mi fusse, restandone ad quelle obligatissimo, et offerendomi sempre a loro piaceri paratissimo. Et ale V. prefate M.S. mi recomando; que bene valeat.

Ex castro Leonis XXII Octbr. 1490 Uti filius Ioannes Ruvere, Urbis prefectus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2070, lettere, no. 66 *See Chironi (1991) 478; Fabio Mariano, Francesco di Giorgio. La Practica Militare. Un’Ipotesi Attributiva per la ‘Cittadella Simbolica’ di S. Costanzo (Urbino: Edizioni QuattroVenti, 1989): 23 – 24; Weller 374 – 375.

(168) November 3, 1490 The Signoria of Siena deny Giovanni della Rovere’s request for Francesco di Giorgio’s services, indicating that he is too busy to leave Siena.

L’affectione qual porta la Republica nostra ad V.S. recerca che in omni occurrentia ad qualla satisfaciamo. Unde inteso il desiderio de la Excellentia Vostra, ci è molesto non posserne ad quella compiacere, per essere maestro Francesco di Giorgio occupato in più opere della Repubblica nostra, quali differire non si possono; adeo che, quando fusse absente esso maestro Francesco ci sarìa necessario il farlo retornare. Et però ci haverà V.S. per iscusati, se come desideraremmo non possiamo ad epsa satisfarue. Que bene valeat.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1702, Copialettere, Vol. 117, folio 65v *See Chironi (1991) 478; Milanesi (II) 440; Weller 375.

(169) November 4, 1490 Gentile Virginio Orsini requests the presence of Francesco di Giorgio to execute a fortification project in Campagnano.

Perchè me occurre fare una forteza in uno Castello de li mei, chiamato Campagniano, havendo inteso che maestro Francescho da Siena se trova in queste bande, per essere lui homo suffitiente in simile exercitii, pregho le V.M.S. ad mia contemplatione li vogliano concedere licentia possa venir fin equà ad vedere questo; perchè ho carissimo intendare el parere et iuditio suo: di che le V.S. mi faranno gratia singularissima; commemorando questo con altri benefitii da quelle receputi. A le quale continuo mi offero et racomando. Brachiani die 4 Novembre 1490. E.V.D. tanquam filius G. Virginius Ursinus domini Aragonie regis armorum generalis capitaneus.

507

[On the reverse side:] Magnificis Dominis tanquam patribus honorandis offitialibus civitatis Senarum.

Because I am currently engaged in making a fortress in one of my castles, called Campagnano, and having heard that Master Francesco from Siena is considered in this field to be a man of expertise, I ask Your Lordships to grant license to my request so that he may come here right away and see this, because I hold his judgment and opinions most dear: and for this, I will be most grateful to Your Lordships; and will remember this along with other benefits I have received from you. Unto whom I continue to offer and recommend myself. Written on November 4, 1490.

E.V.D. as the son of G. Virginio Orsini lords of Aragon, king of arms, leader general.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 544, Lettere, No. 85 *See Chironi (1991) 478; Milanesi II 440 – 441; Weller 375.

(170) November 8, 1490 The Balìa responds positively to Gentile Orsini’s request for Francesco di Giorgio’s services, but asks that the architect return to Siena within ten days.

Domino Virginio Ursino scriptum fuit qualiter, non obstante quod egeamus continuo opera magistro Francisci, architectoris nostri, tamen ut illi morem geramus, concessimus lecentiam ut per aliquot dies [sic]. Et cum hac die destineverimus quosdam cives nostros in nostro comitatu, cum quibus est necesse ut idem magister Franciscus conveniat; hortamur ut in temino X dierum ipsum ad nos remictat.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 410, Copialettere, folio 149v *See Chironi (1991) 478; Weller 376.

(171) November 23, 1490 Letter of thanks on behalf of Gentile Virginio Orsini for Francesco di Giorgio’s assistance in the design of the fortress at Campagnano. Orsini comments that he is more content and satisfied with Francesco’s services than he can possibly express.

Mastro Francesco de Giorgio è stato cqui, et viduto et disignato quella forteza ch’io volea fare ad Campagniano, et anche alchune altre cose a mi necessarie in questi lochi: donde mi trovo tanto satisfacto at content di lui, quanto si possa dire; che in vero le virtù sue son tali, che ad magius maestro ad mi satisfarrìa: et per questo l’ho retenuto questi dì soverchi. Prego V.S. vogliano haverne per excusato, che per fiducia ho in quelle l’ho facto. Raccomendo el prefato maestro Francesco a le V.S., et ringratio infinite volte quelle de havermelo mandata, che certamente per uno servitio non porìa havere havuto el magiure; offerendomi per V.S. paratissimo ad ogni piacere et comodo di quelle, a le quali mi raccomando. Brachiani die XXIII Novembris 1490. G. Virginius Ursinus etc. etc.

508

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 545, Lettere, No. 14 *See Chironi (1991) 478; Milanesi (II) 441 – 442; Weller 376.

(172) 1490 Document indicates Francesco di Giorgio’s presence in Bologna

Document source unknown *See Chironi (1991) 478; Francesco Malaguzzi-Valeri, “Architetti, scultori, pittori, miniatori e orefici ricordati in atti giudiziari di Bologna, sec. XIV – XVII,” Archivio dell’Arte VII (1894): 371; Weller 376.

(173) 1490 (?) Francesco di Giorgio is appointed by the Commune of Siena to rebuild the keep of the Sesta, with the assistance of Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio and Angelo Benassai. He is also nominated as “operaio della fabbrica di Cerreto” together with Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio and Pandolfo Petrucci. Note: this document was dated 1480 by Romagnoli, but taking in account circumstantial evidence it seems that it must belong to 1489 or 1490. Pandolfo Petrucci was just twenty-eight in 1480, whereas by 1490, he was chief officer of Siena’s military operations. Moreover, all other documents concerning work on the fortifications at Cerreto and Sesta date from the 1490s.

[Filza 22:] Francesco di Giorgio per notola dei magnifici Signori fu eletto architetto dal comune senese per rifare il Cassero di Sesta. Operai di questo lavoro come dice la notola furono Pauolo di Vannoccio Biringuccui, e Agnolo Benassai. Segue appresso una memoria che ci dice La fabbrica di Cerreto e guidicata di grande importantia peró si eleggono operaio a quel lavoro Pandolfo Petrucci, Pauolo di Vannoccio, e Francesco di Giorgio.

[Filza 23:] Nota che furono dati dal Comune 500 Fiorini per la fabbrica di Sesta della quale erano operaio il Biringucci, il Benassai e Francesco di Giorgio.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Riformagioni, fascicle 22 and 23 (not found) *See Chironi (1991) 475; Romagnoli (IV) 781 – 82.

(174) January 5, 1491 Document listing the participants and proceedings in competition for the façade design of Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence. All participants presented either designs or models to the selection committee. Francesco di Giorgio is listed as the third architect to present his design.

MCCCCLXXXX Die quinta Januarii Nomina eorum qui fecerunt modellum seu designum, et absentes erant tempore aperitionis eorum, sequuntur et sunt ista, videlicet:

509

Julianus Leonadi de Maiano Duo designa. Hic nunc temporis decesserat. Benedictus eius germanus Unum designum Magister Franciscus senensis Unum designum Phyllipus Fratris Phylippi pictor Unum designum Joannes Verrocchius, sive del bronzo Unum designum Bernarud Ghalluzus, civis florentinus Unum designum. Hic antea decesserat. Antonio Pollaiuolus Unum designum Sequuntur nomina architectorum Franciscus de Fesulis sculptor Unum designum Absens Franciscus aurifex D. Franciscus araldus Magnifice Dominationis Florentine Fecit designum Absens Zenobius Landus Absens Phylippus Baldi Absens Laurentius Vulparia Victorius Bartoluccius Simon Pollaiuolus Franciscus Monciattus Benedictus de Laiano Francione lignarius Absens Jiulianus de Sanghallo Simon Caprina Franciscus de Fesulis Jacopus lignarius, alias Piattola Fecit modellum Absens Meus del Caprina Lorentius Credis pictor Dominicus Grillandarius Cosmus pictor Antonius Covonius Perusinus pictor Absens Joannes Graffione Baldassar faber Absens Scorbachia Andreas de Monte Sancti Sabini Clemens del Tasso Absens Matteus Jacobini Matteus Cioli Andreas de Rubbia Blasius Frigio Bartholomeus claudus Absens Luca Cortonensis Sander Botticelli Amerigus aurifex Bernardettus aurifex Alexus Baldovinettus Joannes pifferus et frater eius

510

Andreas de Fesulis Lapus sculptor Dicta dei.

Archivio dell’Opera del Duomo di Firenze, Deliberazioni dell’anno 1486 all’anno 1491, folio 77 *For full transcription see Chironi (1991) 478; Weller 377 – 378.

(175) February 13, 1491 Duke Alfonso requests Francesco di Giorgio’s service in Naples for a short period.

Magnifici domini amici mei carissimi. Noi haverìamo per alcuni mostri desegni grandemente bisogno per alcuni dì di maestro Francisco architect de questa magnifici città de Sena. Et secundo m’è facto intendere, luy venerìa si non fosse obligato server le Magnificenze vostre, o quando quelle lì donassero licentia. Pregamole dunque et stringemo, quanto più possemo, che per amore nostro vogliano donar licentia al decto mastro Francisco che possa venir qua ad noi in sieme con lo magnifico Neri Placido, che po’ multo presto lì lo remanderemo. Lo che receperemo ad singularissimo piacere de le Magnificenze vostre; a li piacere de le quali mi offerisco. Datum in Castello Capuani Neapolis die XIII Mensis Februarii 1491. Dux Calabrie etc. Alfonsus. Lorenzo de Casalnuovo.

Magnificent lords, my dearest friends, We have the greatest need for several days of Master Francesco architect, of that magnificent city of Siena, to make some show-designs. And as I am to understand, he may come only when he is not obligated to serve Your Lordships, or when you give him license to. We pray you therefore, and urge, as much as we may, that for our love you will grant license to the said Master Francesco so that he may come here to us together with the great Neri Placido, so that more promptly we will return him. We recognize the unrivaled favor of Your Lordships; [and] to you, I offer my favor. Dated in the Castle Capuano of Naples of the 13 of February 1491. Duke of Calabria, Alfonso. Lorenzo di Castelnuovo.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2070, Lettere, No. 21 *See Chironi (1991) 478; Milanesi (II) 442; Weller 378 – 379.

(176) May 13, 1491 Letter of Luca Fancelli to Francesco II Gonzaga, confirming his presence in the Kingdom of Naples, where he has completed a design of the Castle of Capuano for the Aragonese. He notes that in eighteen-days he will follow the troops of the Duke of Calabria to Abruzzo, and remain there for two months before returning to Mantua.

Illustrissimo Signor mio: questa perché perfino ad hora non ò potuto presumere lo spazamento mio di qua e per tal chagione ho diferito lo scrivere, avegnaché per Antonio di Trionfo a bocha io lo pregati notificare a Vostra Eccellentia che io solicitarò a fornir i disegni de chastel Chapuano perché, finiti, aspetarò licenzia, e così credo seguirà ne la

511

partita de la Eccellentia del Signore Duca de Chalabria per andar in Abruzo, qual serà a dì 18 de questo, e stimasi starà circa due mesi a tornare; e se pur mi bisognaxe star anchora qualche giorno drieto, darò avixo a Vostra Signoria, a la quale di continuo di rachomando, e somamente rachomando a quela mio figliolo Antonio. Napoli, 13 maggio 1491. Vostro Servitor Luca taglia prieta fiorentino.

Archivio di Stato di Mantova, Archivio Gonzaga, busta 807 *See Corinna Vasić Vatovec, ed. Luca Fancelli, architetto: epistolario gonzaghesco (Florence: Uniedit, 1979): 422.

(177) May 30, 1491 Receipt of 150 ducat payment made to Francesco di Giorgio by the Duke of Calabria for “designing and overseeing the construction of the forts” in the Kingdom of Naples. The statement is dated “in Lanciano.”

Dux Calabriae Thesarero dilectissimo nostro, Noi volimo, et per parte dela M.te del sig.Re ve ordinamo et comandamo, che qualsivoglia dinari de la regia corte che son in vostro poter, debiate pagar ad mastro Francisco architecto senese ducati cento cinquanta, ad ragione de tarì cinque per ducato, li quali C.L.ta dicta Maestà ha ordinate se li doneno per li serviti che li ha prestati in lo designer et vedere le fabriche, et forteze de questo regno. Recuperando da ipso mastro Francesco polixa de receptor, quali, insiemi con la presente, volimo vi habiano da esser sufficente cautela in lo render de vostri computi. Datum Lanziani, penultimo maii MCCCCLXXXXI – Alfonso: fate lo sopracripto.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Autografi Aragonesi, vol. VII *See Chironi (1991) 478; Martorano 186; Pane 207 – 208.

(178) May 31, 1491 Duke of Calabria, writing from Lanciano (Abruzzi), thanks the Signoria of Siena, noting his great satisfaction with Francesco di Giorgio’s work.

Magnifici domini amici mei carissimi. Essendo stato con noi lo nobile mastro Francisco, architecto de questa cità, certamente ha tanto satisfacto al desiderio nostro, che restamo de lui molto conteni. Rengraciamo le S.V. de l’opera facta in mandarcelo; et retornandosene de presente in questa cità ad satisfare ad quello che è obligato; restando noi tanto bene contenti e satisfati de l’opera sua, come havemo dicto; ne à parso con la presente farne testimonio a le S.V.; pregando quelle, quanto più possemo, vogliano avere lo predicto maestro Francesco sì per le virtù sue, come et per respecto nostro, in precipua comendatione et reguardo in tucte sue occurrentìe. Del che le S.V. ne faranno piacere acceptissimo, et liene haveremo obbligatione. Datum Lanziani ultimo mensis Maii anno 1491.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2070, lettere, no. 21

512

*See Chironi (1991) 478; Milanesi II 442 – 443; Weller 379.

(179) July 30, 1491 The Consistory of Siena nominates the commissioners responsible for the construction of the fort of Sesta Berardenga. The commissioners include Giacoppo Petrucci, Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, and Francesco di Giorgio.

[In margin:] Sexte fabrica construenda cives electi.

Excelsi Domini cum Vexilliferis margistris solenniter voluerunt quod Prior magnificus et magnificus Capitaneus elegant cives commissaries ad videndum fabricam Sexte et eius expedition et elegerunt infrascriptos: Giocoppum Petruccium, Lucam Verium, Bandinum Francisci Bandini, Paulum Vannoccii, Franciscum Sfortiam Petronum, Franciscum Georgii architectorem, ut videant et referant Consistorio.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 749, folio 8v *See Chironi (1993) 405.

(180) August 13, 1491 The Elders of Lucca ask for the services of Francesco di Giorgio, presumably to consult on the city’s defenses. The Elders comment on Francesco’s great fame, and note that for reasons of confidentiality, they “do not communicate all those things with which Francesco will be entrusted.”

Illustrissimi domini patres nostri precipui. Libentissime opera Senensium utamur in omnibus rebus quantuncumque arduis, que ad nostrum rempublicam attinent. Quo fit ut, cum Francisci Georgii, civis vestri (cuius in architectura fama percrebuit) consilium et iudicium habere cupiamus, rogamus Excellentias Vestras, et enixe quidem, ut quantum in ipsis est, et ad eorum negotia publica attinet, ipsi Francisco licentiam ad nos veniendi, et nobiscum permanendi pro diebus admodum paucis concedere velint. Erit enim hoc nobis gratissimum. Quia non cum omnibus ea communicaremus que ipsius Francisco fidei, quia senesi, nostre est intentionis committere. Bene valeant Magnificentie Vestre, quibus nos commendamus. Ex Palatio nostro die XIII Augusti 1491.

Archivio delle Riformagioni di Siena, Balìa 547, Lettere, no. 96 *See Chironi (1991) 478; Milanesi II 443; Weller 379.

(181) August 17, 1491 The Consistory grants Angelo Benassai, Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio and Francesco di Giorgio full authority to re-build the Keep of Sesta Berardenga (today, Castelnuovo Berardenga) according to the design shown in their model. The three men also have full authority to appoint additional individuals to work on the project.

Magnificus capitaneus populi dominus Iacobus Ptholemeus in Consistorio, presentibus omnibus Magnificis, vigore auctoritatis eidem concesse a collegio predicto magnificorum Dominorum pro perficiendo et fabricando fortilitio Sexte Berardenghe, elegit ad id opus

513

exequendum in commissaries intrascriptos spectabilissimos cives, cum plena auctoritate fabricandi et fabricare faciendi et edificandi dictum fortilitium Sexte per modum et secundum designium in modello ostensum, cum plena auctoritate mandandi et mandari posse omnibus comunitatibus et personis locorum circumstantium et habentium favorem de dicto fortilitio Sexte et regionis eiusdem quorumcumque locorum secundum quod discrete indicabunt conveniri operas fossorum fiendorum et ordinatorum et alias quascumque operas, que opere videbuntur dictis operariis seu comissariis iniungende et imponende secundum quod per eos discrete et distributive ordinabitur; item cum ampla et plena auctoritate totius Consistorii magnificorum Dominorum quam habet a collegio Balie ad faciendum et perficiendum et fieri et perfici faciendum quanto citius poterint dictum fortilitium Sexte, item cum additione quod omnes solutions fiende pro omni re dicti edifici ordinentur per dictos commissarios quod fiant per apodixas scriptas manu suprastantis subscriptas per ipsos commissarios et eorum sigillo signatas, puntandas et dimictendas Angelo Benassario depositario ad predicta ordinato, aliter dicte solutiones non sint valide et intelligantur facte de propria pecunia solvents cum salario dictis et infrascriptis commissariis aliter ordinando seu operariis per magnificos Dominos Capitaneum populi et Vexilliferos magistros. Qui commissarii seu operarii prefati in predictis et circa predicta et exequtores predictorum usque ad finem perfectionis totius dicte fabrice et edificii Sexte et totius operis ipsius, habeant tantam auctoritatem quantam habent // ad presens ipsi magnifici Domini et Capitaneus populi cum Vexilliferis magistris vigore auctoritatis concesse ipsis magnificis Dominis a dominis officialibus Balie civitatis Senarum, quorum hec sunt nomina, videlicet: Angelus Angeli Benassarius, Paulus Vannoccii Pauli, magister Franciscus Georgii architector. Supradictus magnificus Capitaneus populi, vigore eiusdem auctoritatis eidem a magnificis Dominis concesse, elegit in superstantem et pro superstante ad fabricam fortilitii Sexte predicte Pietrum Antonii Benedicti de Senis cum salario florenorum quattuor de libris 4 pro floreno quolibet mense, cum hoc quod discedere non possit a dicto laborerio seu fabrica sed assidue ibi stare et permanere et habitaredum laboratur donec perficiatur totum dictum edificium, qui superstans etiam teneatur et debeat facere apodixas solutionum fiendarum ut supra in aliis deliberationibus narratur, quod salarium habeat dum laboratur et dum et quando est in ipsa expeditione et exercitio et non aliter.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 749, folios 13r – 14r *See Chironi (1993) 405.

(182) August 29, 1491 Letter from the Elders of Lucca, thanking the Signoria of Siena for the exemplary services of Francesco di Giorgio, who is said to have made a model for them. As given by the Elders, Francesco “is so wise in architecture, that by our judgment, he is unrivaled in all of Italy.”

Illustrissimi et Excellentissimi domini Patres nostri unici et observandissimi. Concesserunt Excellentie V. per aliquot dies nobis presentem virum Franciscum Georgii, architectorem egregium, quem vidimus libentissime et quia senensem, et quod etiam preter ingenium quod habet in suo exercitio singular et excellens; ut ex modellis per eum factis manifeste apparet; modestum totum, benignum et liberalem animadvertimus. Redit

514

ad V. Excellentias magno quidem amore nostro et totius populi, quem sibi peperit tam ingenii admiratione, quam humanitate mutla. V. Excellentiis gratias agimus, que hominis ingenii partecipes nos esse volerunt. Restat, Excellentissimi Domini, ut vobis et vestre excellentissime reipubblice magnopere gratulamur, que tam bonum tamque modestum habeat civem, et ita in architectura eruditum, ut parem non habeat tota Italia iudicio nostro. Commendamus nos Excellentiis Vestris. Ex nostro Palatio die XXVIIII Agusti 1491. Antiani et Vexillifer Justitie populi et comunis Lucensis.

[On reverse:] Illustrissimis et excellentissimis dominis sominis Officialibus Balìa excelse civitatis Senarum, patribus nostris observanissimis.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 547, Lettere, No. 98 *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 380.

(183) August 30, 1491 Record of payment made to Francesco di Giorgio “for his counsel and the models he made for the fortification of the city of Lucca” (“consiliis et modellis per ipsum traditis pro munitione civitatis lucane”).

Archive di Stato di Lucca, Anzianial tempo della libertà, reg. 136, folio 203 *See Angelo Angelucci, Documenti inediti per la storia delle armi da fuoco italiane (Turin: 1869): 621 – 622; Chironi (1991) 479.

(184) October 21, 1491 The Consistory instructs Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, Francesco di Giorgio and Pandolfo Petrucci to re-construct the Keep of Cerreto according to a previously prepared model. Similar authority was granted to the three men in regards to the Keep of the Sesta (see document August 17, 1491).

Ac etiam cum Vexilliferis magistris, vigore auctoritatis eisdem concesse a collegio Balie magnifice civitatis Senarum per perficiendo et fabricando fortilitio Cerreti Cimpoli, eligerunt ad id opus exequendum in commissarios infrascriptos spectabilissimos cives, cum plena auctoritate fabricandi et fabricre faciendi et edificandi dictum fortilitium Cerreti secundum disignum in modello obstensum, cum plena auctoritate mandandi et mandari posse omnibus comunitatibus et personis locorum circumstantium et habentibus favorem de dicto fortilitio et regionis eiusdem quorumcumque locorum secundum // quod discrete iudicabunt conveniri operas fossorum fiendorum et ordinatorum et alias quascumque operas que opere videbuntur dictis operariis seu commissariis iniungende et imponende secundum quod per eos discrete et distributive ordinabitur; item cum ampla et plena acutoritate totius Consistorii magnificorum Dominorum quam habet a collegio Balie ad faciendum et perficiendum et fieri et perfici faciendum quanto citius potuerunt dictum fortilitium Cerreti Ciampoli.

Operarii et commissarii: Paulus Vannocci Pauli, magister Franciscus Geogii, Pandolfus Petruccius.

515

Simili modo voluerunt quod omnes denarii qui ad presens sunt deputati et ordinati per fortilitio Sexte perficiendo postquam finitum et expletum erit dictum edificium Sexte, intelligantur deputati post fortilitio Cerreti Ciampoli construendo, videlicet denarii qui current et supererunt post factos omnes sumptus dicti fortilitii Sexte.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 750, folio 14r – v *See Chironi (1993) 405 – 406.

(185) October 27, 1491 Record of payment of 7,317 lire, 4 soldi and 8 denari made to Francesco di Giorgio for his services as overseer of Siena’s aqueducts (“diputato sopra l’acqya ed‘butini”).

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio di Martino, diputato sopra l’aqua ed’butini, de’ dare adì XXVII di detto [ottobre] lire settemila treciento diciasette soldi quattro denari otto, paghamo per pòlizia di Balìa di mano di ser Tomasso da Chasole, e per noi acordò Giovanni Finetti, camarlingo di Kabella sopra la chabella del pane vendareccio venduto per II anni; a uscita di Nicolò Pacini, camerlingo di Bicherna, foglio 63; a mia in questo a foglio 140.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 345, Entrate – Uscite (January 1491 – December 1491), folio 37 *See Iorio 275.

(186) November 25, 1491 Francesco di Giorgio purchases an estate in San Giorgio a Papaiano valued at 400 florins from Giovanni di Lodovico Arrighi.

Annon Domini 1491, indictione X, die vero 25 Novembris.

Cum hoc sit, ut asseritur a partibus infrascriptis, quod Laurentius olim Iacobi Machetti de Sancto Ioanne ad Collansi, habitator in Comuni Montis Sindoli infra Massas civitatis Senarum, vigore instrumenti de guarantigia esset creditor olim Lodovici Ioannis de Arrigis de Senis in summa et quantitate libram septingentarum trigintaduarum denariorum senensium ex causis et rationibus in ipso instrumento contentis et expressis et pro dictis libris 732 et ipsarum restitutione et seu satisfactione dictus Laurentius in dicto instrumento haberent obligata et ypotecata omnia singula bona dicti olim Lodovici possessionem sitam in Comuni Sancti Georgii ad Papaianum infra Massam civitatis Senarum, infra sua vocabula et confines, prout di dicto instrumento et omnibus predictis constare dixerunt manu ser Filiucci Ioannis de Monteylcino, notarii publici et civis Senarum. Et cum hoc sit quod post mortem dicti olim Lodovici, et iam est tempus quinque mensium proxime preteritorum, Iohannes filius et heres dicti olim Lodovici vendiderunt dictam possessionem Francisco Georgii Martini, civi senensi, pro pretio florenorum 400 de libris 4 pro quolibet floreno denariorum senensium, et de pretio predicto ipse Ioannes relassaverit in manibus dicti Francisci emptoris libras septingentas denariorum senensium solvendas per eum dicto Laurentio Iacobi Machetti, ad hoc ut solveretur dicta obligatio quam ipse Laurentius habebat super possessione predicta

516

occasione dictorum denariorum, et sic dictus Franciscus per instrumentum dicte emptionis et venditionis appareret verus debitor dicti Laurentii in dicta summa denariorum, prout de dicto instrumento emptionis et venditionis constare dixerunt manu ser Pauli Pietri magistri Iacobi notari publici senesis. Cumque post dictam factam venditionem dictus Laurentius pro dicta summa et quantitate librarum 732 denariorum senensium convenerit et se concordaverit cum dicto Iohanne filio et herede dicti olim Lodovici de Arrigis et seu cum Amideo Nicolai de Neronibus et Daniele et Bartolomeo, fratribus carnalibus et filiis olim Caroli de Griffolis de Senis, et ipsi Amideus et Daniel et Bartolomeus obligaverunt se daturos et soluturos dicto Laurentio dictam summam et quantitatem denariorum, ut de conventione et concordia et seu obligatione predicta constat manu mei notarii infrascripti. Hinc est quod vigore dicte coventionis, concordie et obligationis dicto Laurentie [sic] facte per dictos Amideum, Danielem et Bartolomeum, ipse Laurentius sua libera et spontanea voluntate etc. vocavit se solutum et satisfactum a dicto Francisco olim Georgii Martini, cive senensi, de dicta summa et quantitate dictarum librarum 700 denariorum senensium, et de omnibus ad que tenebatur et obligatus erat sibi vigore dicti instrumenti manu dictu olim ser Filiucci. De quibus quidem libris 700 et aliis quibuscunque in quibus dictus Franciscus quomodolibet teneretur vel obligatus esset dicto Laurenti vigore instrumenti predicti, stans et remanens obligatus dictorum Amidei, Danielis et Bartolomei, ipsum Franciscum presentem etc. quietavit etc. Cassans etc. Asserens etc. Quam quietationem etc. et contra non facere etc., sub pena quibus etc., obligavie etc., renuntiavit etc., iuravit etc., cum guarantigia, etc. Rogans etc. Actum Senis, in domo residentie universitatis Artis Lane, coram et presentibus Nicolao Bartolomei Dominici cartarii et Alberto Nicolai Baptiste de Venturinis de Senis, testibus etc.

Egus Benedictus Biliocti notarius subscripsi.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 659, Ser Bendetto di Stefano Biliotti (1489 – 1492), doc. 60 *See Iorio 276 – 277.

(187) 1491 Francesco di Giorgio’s tax entry for 1491, filed under the district of San Giovanni.

Francesco di Giorgio ingegniere, lire trecento.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 98, Libro della Lira (1491), folio 48r *See Iorio 275; Nevola (2006-2007) 78.

(188) January 18, 1492 The Balìa asks the Duke of Calabria to excuse their delay in granting Francesco di Giorgio permission to go to Naples. They note that there are two important projects underway in Siena for which Francesco must be present – the restoration of the aqueducts, and the completion of the Bruna river dam – and promise that Francesco will be able to travel to Naples by the middle of March.

517

Calabrie Duci scriptum est: La illustrissima S.V. già più mesi per le sue lettere ci ricercò li dovessimo per alcune sue occurrentie servire di maestro Francesco di Giorgio, architectore de la republica nostra, et concederli licentia, che a la S.V. si conferisse. Noi di bono animo tale licentia li concedemo per satisfare ad quella, come è debito nostro. Al presente occorrendo due cose importantissime, cioè: una, che per essere trovati destructi certi aqueducti per li quali si conduce l’acqua ad tucte le fonti de la Città nostra, che non acconciandosi al presente se incurrerìa in non piccolo spesa, e quodammodo sarìa poi impossibile li ridurli, e interim la citta nostra staria senza acqua; l’altra, che siamo per fare serrare lo lago nostro, del quale speriamo V.I.S. havere bona informatione, et senza la presentia del prefato maestro Francesco tale cosa non si porrìa fare; prendaremo sicurtà di quella nel retenerlo per fino ad calende o mezzo Marzo proximo al più, confidandoci che la S.V. non che resti contenta per tali nostre occorrentie, ma per la humanità sua et affectione, quale sappiamo porta a le cose nostre, havendolo in sua podestà ad noi lo manderìa. Ma al tempo antedicto omnino a la S.V. si conferirà, a la quale in tucte le cose ci offeriamo et raccomandiamo.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 411, Copialettere, fols. 18v – 19r *See Chironi (1991) 479; Milanesi (II) 444 – 445; Weller 380 – 381.

(189) January 31, 1492 A letter from the Signoria of Siena to Alfonso II, Duke of Calabria, indicating that Francesco di Giorgio will not be able to travel to Naples until the first of March. The signoria reiterate that Francesco is needed to attend to the city’s fountains and the Bruna river dam.

Die XXXI Januar[ii] Calabrie Duci scriptum est. A li giorni passati scrivemo a la ìllustrissima Signoria Vostra come essendo maestro Francesco di Giorgio architectore nostro charissimo cittadino occupato in alcune importantissime occurentie a la città nostra non poteva conferirsi al presente a la Signoria Vostra per fine a kalen di marzo proximo. Et la causa era perchè nuovamente li aqueducti de la fonte de la città nostra si erano trovati destructi, li quali non reparandosi con celere previsione la città nostra remanerìa senza acqua; et etiam siamo in procinto di fare serrare lo lagho nostro, senza la cuci presentia la cui cosa non si farebbe. Hora havendo rescripto la Signoria Vostra per la venuta sua ad epsa, quello medesimo replichiamo, persuadendoci che in tali occurrentie nostre essendo in potesta sua ad noi lo manderebbe; ma tenghi Vostra Signoria per certo che ad kalen di marzo omino costì si confirirà remossa ogni cagione. Preghiamo adunque Vostra Illustrissima Signoria che questa cosa senza molestia vogli sopportare attese le iuste cause praltigate, a la quale di continuo ci raccomandiamo. Bene valete.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 411, Copialettere (January 1, 1492 – December 26, 1492), folios 28v – 29r *See Iorio 278.

518

(190) February 4, 1492 Alfonso II Duke of Calabria writes to the Balìa, confirming that he has received their message, and stating that he will wait until the end of March for Francesco di Giorgio’s arrival in Naples.

Havemo inteso quanto le Signorìe Vostre ci hanno scripto per le lictere de’ XVIII del passato in excusatione del venire da noi mastro Francisco de Georgio, architect di questa cità, che non porìa essere prima che ad Marzo proximo future, per havere a dare recapito ad alcune cose per bisognio di questa cità….Dato in Castello Capuane Neapolis die IIII mensis Februarii 1492.

[On reverse:] Magnificis Dominis officialibus Balìa civitatis Senarum amicis carissimis.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 549, Lettere, no. 88 *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 381.

(191) February 13, 1492 The Balìa thanks the Duke of Calabria for the patience he demonstrates.

Calabrie duci scriptum est. Habiamo di V. Illustrissima S. ricevute le lictere responsive per la causa de maestro Francesco di Georgio, e vediamo per quelle, che in ogni causa la Ill. S. V.è disposta satisfare ali desiderii nostri. Rendiamone ad quella infinite grazie habbia acceptata la dilazione del prefato maestro Francesco, che certamente di presente qua fa molto al profito nostro; et noi ne daremo opera al constituto tampo si conferisca da Epsa. Ulterius retrovandosi costì lo magnifico Jacomo Ptolomeo, nostro collega come sa V.I.S., desiderriemo per pubblice occurrentie quam primum si trovasse qua, per l’absentia del quale ne patiamo assai; et però ne prechiamo strectamente V.I.S. vogli per nostra intercessione ultra li moeriti soi procurare la celere expeditione sua: che ne sarà facta cosa acceptissima, e in noi propri conferita. Parti del continuo a la remuneration ad opmni bene placito de V. Ex. S. quam diu felicem esse maximopere optamus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 411, Copialettere, folio 39r-v *See Chironi (1991) 479; Milanesi II 445 – 446; Weller 381 – 382.

(192) March 18, 1492 A letter from Guidobaldo da Montefeltro in which he requests the services of Francesco di Giorgio for 10 or 15 days, and offers his favor in return.

Havendo io bisogno de l’opra de maestro Francesco di Giorgio de lì per dieci, o quindici dì, prego I.S.V. che li voglino dare licentia, chel possa venire sino in qui per el dicto tempo; che me ne faranno a piacer singulare. Et potendo io alchuna cosa che li sia grata et le S.V. mel lo faccino intender, lo faro di bona voglia. Et cusi me gli offro.

Since I have need of the work of master Francesco di Giorgio for ten or fifteen days, I ask Your Lordships to give him license, so that he may come here for the said time; this

519

would be a great pleasure to me. And I am able to do anything that is pleasing to Your Lordships and will do this willingly. And so I offer myself to you.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2072, lettere, no. 95 *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 382.

(193) May 9 and June 5, 1492 Record of salary payments made to Francesco di Giorgio for work in Siena’s bottini. On May 9, Francesco received 997 lire, 16 soldi, and 0 denari, which was given to Tomasso di Casole; and on June 5th he was paid 170 lire, 0 soldi.

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio [sic] di Martino, operaio sopra li butini, de’ dare adì VIIII di maggio lire noveciento novantasette soldi sedici denari 0, presentamoli per parte di dicreto di Balìa per mano di ser Tomasso di Casole, per aconcime di butini de’ quali die mostrare buon conto, e per noi gli acordò Nicolò Serghardi, camerlingo di Kabella sopra le chabelle vechie del pane vendareccio sì come conteneva esso dicreto; a uscita di Francesco Sforza camarlingo, foglio 58; a mia in questo, foglio 133. 1. DCCCCLCCCCVII s. XVI

E adì VIIII di giugno lire ciento sessanta soldi 0, paghamo per parte di dicreto di Balìa di mano di ser Tomasso di Chasole, per tanto ne li prestamo per aconcime di butini, da doversene per lui tenere buon conto, e per noi acordò Nicolò Serghardi Kamerlingo di Kabella; a uscita di Francesco Sforza camarlingo, foglio 51; a mia in questo, foglio 135. 1. CLX s. 0

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biccherna 346, Entrate – Uscite (January 1492 – December 1492), folio 25 *See Iorio 278 – 279.

(194) June 2, 1492 Neapolitan payment receipt. Document confirms that Fra Giocondo was given twenty parchment folios, on which “to make some drawings of fortresses of the kingdom and other places, for the services of the illustrious Lord Duke of Calabria.”

A Biase Crescuonno de la Costa uno ducato, 3 tarì et sonno per lo preczo de vinti pergamene dallui comperate questo di e quelle consegnate a fra Jocondo de Verona per fare alcuni disigni di fortezze del reame et altri lochi, per servigio dell’illustrissimo signor duca di Calabria.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 145, folio 137 *See De Marinis, Biblioteca napoletana 2 (Milan, 1947): doc. 826

(195) June 30, 1492 Neapolitan payment receipt. Confirms payment made to the painter Antonello di Capua, collected on behalf of Fra Giocondo, who had prepared 126 drawings for two books of

520

“master Francesco of Siena” – “one on architecture and the other on artillery and things pertinent to war.”

A maestro Antonello de Capua pintore: quattro ducati, tre tarì, undici grani et per luy a Fra Jocondo; et sonno: IIII ducati, II tarì, I grano per lo preczo de CXXVI designi, li quali à fatti a dui libry de maestro Francesco de Siena in carta de papiro scripti ad mano, uno darchitetura et altro dartigliaria et cose apartenenti a guerre, a raho de III grani ½ l’uno; e I tarì, X grani per ligature de dicti duy libri, e quelli consignati a dompno Paulo de Santo Martino.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 145, folio 161 *See De Marinis, Biblioteca napoletana 2 (Milan, 1947): doc. 830; Hersey 89; Weller 382.

(196) July 7, 1492 The Sienese write to Francesco di Giorgio in Naples, asking him to return immediately to attend to the city’s water systems. The document notes that following Francesco’s departure, the water in Siena’s fountains has dropped by half, and with the celebration of Santa Maria dell’Agosto nearing, the citizens do not wish that the fountains look empty, as this would be “a great dishonor to our city.”

Francisco Georgii Neapoli his verbis scriptum fuit. Quantunche noi siamo desiderosi che a li edificii, quali si fanno per la maestà del Re e de lo Illustrissimo S. Duca di Calabria, acciò che quelli se traghino a perfectione [sic]; niente di manco essendo tu qua sopra a li buttini deputato, et a li conducti de la città nostra, et quelli essendo molto mancanti maxime dopo la partita tua, in modo che tutte le fonti sonno manco che meze di aque; vogliamo che dia tale ordine et modo inanzi la festa di S. Maria d’Agosto, acciò che possi reparare a quelle. Perchè dovendoci venire bona quantità di forestieri, non voliamo che le fonti sieno vedute in simil modo vacue, per le quali assai disonore alla città nostra resultaria. Et però procurarai èssare qua, come è detto, acciò che possi ad quanto è conveniente provedere.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 411, Copialettere No. 121, folios 134r/v *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 382 – 383.

(197) September 11, 1492 The Signoria of Siena write again to the Duke of Calabria, asking that Francesco di Giorgio be sent home. They indicate that the city’s aqueducts and the Bruna River dam have suffered “no small detriment” in his absence.

Calabria duci his verbis scriptum est. Come desiderosi in tucte le cose compiacere V.S. Ill., ad requesitione sua mandamo lo diletto nostro cittadino Francesco di Giorgio, architetto, et già più tempo ne dovea ritornare per la expeditione de lo officio suo, el quale in sua absentia ha patito non piccolo detrimento, e maxime in due capi principali e importantissimi a la republica nostra. E l’uno è de le donti, a li quali è mancato molto l’acqua per rispecto deli

521

acquedutti, li quali non cessaro ridurli a la sua perfectione; e l’altro lo lago nostro, el quale appropinquandosi lo verno è di bisgno provedere ad alcune cose per la perfectione di epso. Et per tanto preghiamo V.S. Ill. chi li sia di piacer darli licenzia, che con presteza venga per le cause soprascripte, et qualunche volta piacera ad V.S. Ill li sarà di bona voglia mandato, intermettendo etiam le faccende nostre pubbliche per far cosa grata ad quella, a la quale ci raccomandiamo. Bene valete.

The Duke of Calabria was written the following. As in all things we desire to please Your Lordship, at your request we sent our beloved citizen Francesco di Giorgio, architect to you, and already there for longer [than expected] he must return to his office, which has suffered in his absence no small detriment, especially the two principal and most important features of our republic. The first is the cisterns, in which significant water is lacking due to the aqueducts, which continue to be reduced in their perfection; and the other is our lake, which as winter nears requires some things to be brought to perfection. And for these things, we ask Your Lordships that you please give him license, so that he may quickly come [to Siena] for the reasons said, and at whatever time your Lordship likes, to send him, so that he may complete the works of our city to make it pleasing, and for this we implore you. Farewell.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 411, Copialettere, 153r-v *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 383.

(198) September 24, 1492 Petition of Buonaventura d’Antonio di Berto and his brothers for the fifteen-year post of operai dei bottini of the Fonte del Campo. In the final paragraph it is given that Francesco di Giorgio, “the architect of the Commune of Siena,” maintains consummate authority over the entire bottini system, “with a salary of two hundred florins, so far as it is contained in his contract.”

Magnifici domini Offitiales Balìe, etc., audita etiam infrascripta petitione Bonaventure Antoni Berti et fratrum et ea examinata, concorditer deliberaverunt adprobare et confirmare et adprobaverunt et confirmaverunt dictam infrascriptum petitonem et Omnia et singular iura contenta, salvo, excepto et reservato quod offitium et curam mundationis fontium ex aqua fontis Campi pertineat et expecte Mariano Tinghi prout habet ad presens, etc.:

“Dinanti da Voi magnifici signori Offitiali di Balìa si expone per me Bonaventura d’Antonio di Berto et fratelli, figluoli et servidori della S.V. come per gratia spetiale del Consilio del popolo et Generale, fu concesso ad Antonio di Berto nostro padre, la cura de’buttini del Campo per anni xv, con questa conditione: però che per tempo di tre anni dovesse avere reparato et proveduto al bisogno d’essi, excepto il ramo del Castagno, al quale doviamo avere uno anno più a lavorarvi a le spese del Comuno et da inde in là fuxe obligato per fiorini octanta l’anno per tempo di xv anni a mantenerli a tuste sue spese, come appare per instrumento publico di mano di Ser Benedecto Bigliocti, el quale se ne mostrò a le V.S., al quale decto Buonaventura si referisce; la quale gratia benchè ad noi heredi si estendesse, tamen non ci fu observata. Unde veduto quanto detrimento habbino

522

le fonti d’aqua della vostra ciptà et havendo in animo seguire le vestigia di nostro padre, nel tempo del quale mai segui tale inconveniente, ricorriamo ai piei delle S.V. suplicandole humilmente di concederci di nuovo tale allocatione et cura, quale aveva nostro padre, con le medesime conditioni et emolumenti in tucto et per tucto, come in decto instrumento di mano di Ser Benedecto si contiene, intendendoci cominciare a contare il tempo di presente cioè dal dì della octenuta petitione.

Item perchè ci sono li buttini di Fontebranda e’ quali sono di grandissima fatica a mantenerli perchè sono in grandissimo disordine, come si vede, per le aque, ci offeriamo, quando piaccia a la S.V., pigliare decti buctini per tempo di 15 annio quello parrà a le S.V. con questi pacti: che per fatica di decti buctini dobiamo havere, per ciascuno anno, fiorini trentasei et un terzo, di libr., quatro il fiorino, come era già consueto et li lavori s’abbino affar sicondo sarà necessario in decti buctini, et li Quatro di Bicherna ce li habbino adloghare per lo prezio giusto a le spese del vostro Comune, intendendosi però li pagamenti farsi a le presenti cabelle del pane vendareccio, come nel contracto di sopra si contiene, la quale cosa se conseguiremo, ne tornerà abundantia a tucta la ciptà et ad noi sarà observata la fede et da le S.V. ministrato iustitia et etiam noi vostri servidori lo averremo a gratia spectabilissima da le S.V. quali Iddio feliciti come desiderano.”

Que quidem petitio fuit obtenta inter dictis Quinque de Collegio, non obstante locatione seu cura ipsorum buctinorum data magistro Francisco Giorgi, remanente firma condictione ipsius magistri Francisci pro architectore Comunis Senarum cum salario flor. cucentorum, prout in sua conducta continetur et solum non habeat amplius curam de buctinis dictis super quibus deputati sunt filii dicti Antonii Berti prout superius continetur.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 37, deliberazioni, folio 74r/v *See Chironi (1991) 479; Petrucci, “Fonti” vol. II 477 – 478; Weller 383 – 384.

(199) October 4, 1492 A new letter to the Duke of Calabria asking that Francesco di Giorgio return to Siena. The tone reveals the signoria’s frustration with the Aragonese. The work that Francesco needs to attend to, “will cost us no small amount and damage if he does not come with this request.”

Calbrie Duci ita scriptum est. Per altre lettere nostre scrivemo ad Vostra Illustrissima Signoria quanto era el desiderio nostro che a quella piacesse concedere licentia ad maestro Francesco di Giorgio architecto et nostro charissimo cittadino, attesa la necessità nel provedere ad alcune cose importanti a la repubblica nostra, che in ogni modo serìa parato sempre venire a li comandi di quella et noi contentissimi che in ogni sua occurentia se ne possi valere come di suo servo. Et non essendo perfino ad hora venuto, di nuovo replichiamo le presenti che li sia di piacere dare decta licentia accioché possi provedere qua ad quanto è obligato, et reparare ad alcune cose le quali ci daranno non piccola spesa et danno se con presteza non si proviene ad tale mancamento. Et pertanto preghiamo Vostra Signoria Illustrissima con ogni efficacia che vogli essere contenta di farci questo piacere attese le urgenti cause

523

che ci sono, de le quali havendone Vostra Signoria particolare informatione non possiamo credere che non ci mandasse de li suoi per la affectione quale sappiamo quella portare a la città nostra et cose sue. A la quale ce offeriamo in tutti li soi beneplaciti paratissimi.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 411, Copialettere, folio 162 r/v *See Chironi (1991) 479; Iorio 279; Weller 384.

(200) October 12, 1492 Letter to the Balìa in which Alfonso II responds to the Sienese letter of October 4, 1492. The duke explains that Francesco di Giorgio’s delayed return is due to the threat of Turkish attack.

Magnifici Domini amici nostri carissimi. Havendo noi inteso quello che le S.V. ne haveno replicato per la lettera de’ IIII del presente circa lo mastro Francisco di Giorgio architecto; respondemo quel medesmo che in di passati havemo resposto ad le prime lettere de la S.V.: che per essere dicto mastro Francisco venuto fora del tempo che haveva promissa, le cose nostre multo sbaractate, et anche essendoce accaduta la suspitione se habe del Turcho, lo facemo venire appresso de noi per li bisogni, quali avessero possuto occorrere. Per li quali ce persuademo dato lui, ma omne altro che havessemo recercato. Et così è bisogniato reternerlo più di quello ce credevamo. Adesso actendemo ad farlo expedire, et multo presto ne lo remandaremo, secundo per altre nostre havemo scripto ale S.V.; a li piaceri de le quali ne offerimo.

Magnificent Lords our dear friends. As we understand Your Lordships’ request we reply to your letter from the 4th regarding Master Francesco di Giorgio architect. We respond as we have responded in the past in our first letter to Your Lordship: that the said Francesco came to us as promised, our situation being quite perilous, and also due to the suspicion of the Turks, he came to us for necessary projects, which have been able to progress. For these things we have prevailed upon him, but for all others it has been more difficult. And so it is necessary that we hold him longer than we had originally thought. Now we await to move expeditiously, and to very soon return him to you, as you have written Your Lordships, to you we offer good will.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 542, lettere, no. 62 *See Chironi (1991) 479; R. Pane, “Francesco di Giorgio Martini nell’Italia meridionale. La cappella del Pontano. Le fortificazioni pugliesi,” Il Rinascimento nell’Italia meridonale, vol. II (Milan: Edizioni di Comunità, 1977): 209; Weller (385).

(201) November 23, 1492 Letter from Alfonso II, Duke of Calabria to the Signoria of Siena, in which he asks that Francesco di Giorgio be reinstated to the position of chamberlain of the city’s fountains.

Magnifici Domini amici nostri carissimi. Si Francisco de Georgio, architecto de questa cità, è tardato ad retornare, non è mancato per lui, nè meno per noi; ma è stato casone che venne multo tardo et fora del tempo che lo

524

aspectammo; per la qual cosa se trovarono le coase dissordinate. Et anche essendo successa in la estate passata la suspitione dei Turchi che fo, lo conducemo non noi in Puglia per quello hanavesse possuto bisognare; secundo per altre havemo scripto a le S. Vostre. Da poi perhavuto da fare ed ordinare multe cose, lo havemo tenuto fine adesso; benchè dal canto suo non se fosse mancato omne instancia de retornarsene.

Al presente ancorachè lasse multe cose nostre in habendono et sbaracate, le quale haverìano bisogno de la presentia sua, per satisfactione de le Signorìe Vostre et sua ne lo remandamo, et regratiamo grandemente quelle de la comodità ce haveno facta in haverlo mandato; per havere hauto da lui optimi servicii: et ce lo raconmandamo strictamente et specialmente in fareli restituire lo officio de camerlingo de le fonti de questa cita, lo quale recundo ne ha facto intendere li è stato tolto per essere in questi mesi venuto a li servigi nostri; che non possemo credere sia proceduto de la Signorìa V., persuadendone che de qualunque homo de questa cità havessemo havuto bisogno, et lo havessemo ricercato, come havemo facto de Francisco predicto, non ce lo haverieno denegato. Et quando cel havessero concesso, non solamente non li haveriano facto togliere lo officio et provisione sua, ma augmentatolo; così come fariamo per esse et per le cose loro, a le quale non seriamo per mancare, ma adiutarle et compiacerli, quanto ad noi medesimi. Et perchè, quando dicto Francisco non recuperasse dicto officio, se poterà dolere haverlo perso per lo servicio nostro, et non li poteria essere senza carco del honore suo; però strictamente pregamo le Signorie vostre che per li rispecti predicti et ad nostra singulare complacentia vogliano facelo restituire, et lassarelo godere così, come faceva prima che fosse venuta da noi. Che ultra lo daranno ad homo, che ne è benemerito, ad noi ne compiaceranno summamente; offerendone fare per esse et per questa cità tucte volte occurrere simile et maiore cose. Datum in Castello Capuano Neapolis XXIII Novembris 1492. Vester Dux Calabriae etc. Alfonsus B. Barnaudus.

Magnificent Lords, our dear friends.

If Francesco di Giorgio, architect of this city, is slow to return, it is not for him, nor less for us; but was because he came very late to us and for a time we waited; where after things were found to be in great disorder. And also this past summer there was suspicion of a Turkish attack, which prompted us to transfer him to Puglia as needed, as we have [previously] written Your Lordships. From this point, we had to order and to do many things, which we have continued up to now; though on the other hand he has not missed any opportunity to return to you.

At present even though many things are underway which require his presence, for your satisfaction we return him to Your Lordships, and we thank you greatly for the assistance you have provided in sending him to us, as we had from him the best services. And we strictly and specially recommend that he is reinstated in the office of the chamberlain of the fountains of this city, from which he understands he has been removed in these months he came to serve us.

525

This we cannot believe was carried out by Your Lordships, having been convinced that whomever of that city we needed, and who we had sought, as we did of the said Francesco, would not to be disavowed. And when he is granted not only the same office and provisions, but these things in augmentation, just as we do for those individuals and things which we hope not to lose, this will help and please him, and likewise us. And because, when the said Francesco does not recover the said office, if he has lost it due to his service to us, it will be a burden to his honor; therefore, we directly ask your Lordships that for the respect of the aforesaid individual and for our singular satisfaction you restore him and allow him to enjoy it, as he did before he came to us. What more could be given to a man who is worthy and who has most greatly pleased us; offering to do for him and for this city for all times similar and significant things. Given in the Castle of Capua of Naples 23 November 1492.

Your Duke of Calabria, etc. Alfonso B. Bernardo

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 549, lettere, no. 20 *See Chironi (1991) 479; Milanesi (II) 448 – 449; Weller 385 – 86.

(202) December 4, 1492 Copy of letter sent to Francesco di Giorgio in which he is asked to return home as soon as possible in order to take care of the break in the Bruna River dam.

Francisco Georgii scriptum fuit, et sibi enixe iniunctum fuit, ut quam primum hic sistat, cum multe cause extant urgentissime, et presertim quedam lacus scissura: cui si non occurratur et cum maxima celeritate, ruinare valde minatur; et miramur quod non fuerit adhuc reversus, cum tot littere ad eum delate fuerint. Et tamen denuo scribimus ad Illumum. Calabrie Ducem, ut eum redire permectat: ideo actutum veniat, nam si contra fecerit, id nobis molestum esse ostendemus.

Francesco di Giorgio was written, and is earnestly requested that he return here as soon as possible, as many ongoing things are most urgent, and in particular, a break in the lake, which if not mended with great speed, threatens great ruin. And we are surprised that he has not yet returned, as many letters have been sent to him. And thus again we write to the Illustrious Duke of Calabria, that he might permit [Francesco] to return: for this reason, let him come at once, for if otherwise, our source of annoyance will be shown.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 411, Copialettere, folio 181v *See Chironi (1991) 479; Milanese (II) 449; Weller 386.

(203) 1492 Francesco di Giorgio’s report of assets for 1492.

Francescho di Giorgio ingiegnere, lire seciento, 1. 600 l. 0 s. 0 d. 6

526

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 499, Libro della Lira (1492), folio 48r *See Iorio 277.

(204) 1492 Record of communal commission involving the reconstruction of the defenses of Sesta and Cerreto outside of Siena. Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, Angelo Benassi and Francesco di Giorgio are named operai of Sesta, and Pandolfo Petrucci, Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, and Francesco di Giorgio are named operai of Cerreto.

Per rifare la muraglia di Sexta sonno electi li infrascripti operaii, et la alocatione fu facta a Domenico di Grillo et li compagni da Castello in Villa. Sarà utilissimo che le S. V. faccino sollecitare, essendo al presente tempo assai congruo.

Paolo di Vannoccio Agnolo Benassai et operaii Francesco di Giorgio

Similmente la fabbrica di Cerreto fu allocata a Giorgio Vieri, iudicandosi cosa essere de assai importantia. Si ricorda a le S. V. che faccino expedire; li operai sopra di quella donno li infrascripti:

Pandolfo Petruccii Pauolo di Vannoccio operaii di Cerreto Francesco di Giorgio.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2362 – 2363, Notule pei Successori (March 1441 – 1499), unnumbered pages *See Iorio 277 – 278.

(205) January 15, 1493 Payment of 20 lire for Francesco di Giorgio given to Giacomo Cozzarelli, followed by 10 payments to Giacomo Cozzarelli.

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana 718, folio 336 *See Chironi (1991) 479.

(206) March 2, 1493 Francesco di Giorgio is granted permission to go the Naples to serve the Duke of Calabria.

Magister Franciscus Georgii habeat licentiam eundi Neapolitam ad servendum duci Calabrie non obstante sua conducta.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 38, Deliberazioni, folio 66v *See Chironi (1991) 479; Romagnoli (IV) 881.

527

(207) March 13, 1493 Letter to the Duke of Calabria in which the Balìa clarifies that even though Francesco di Giorgio has received permission to travel to Naples, he does not want to go because he is sick.

Duci Calabrie scriptum est. Francisco Georgii factam esse proficiscendi potestatem; admonitum preterea sum esse ut Illumae. D. sue in omnibus gratificaretur. eum nunc egritudinem excusasse, quo circa paucos menses plurimum lesus esset. quantum in nobis fuerit, cum primum id poterit, venturum ad Illmam. D.V. per prestiturm solite servitutis officia.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 412, Copialettere, folio 30r *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 387.

(208) March 19, 1493 Alfonso II Duke of Calabria writes to the Sienese, expressing his disappointment that Francesco di Giorgio will not come to Naples to help expedite the construction of the royal fortifications. He notes that Nero Placido and others have provided assistance in Francesco’s absence, and that he is sending an ambassador to Siena “to consult with you on our behalf on some matters.”

Magnifici et excelsis Domini amici nostri carissimi. Havendo noi hauto avidso per lictere del magnifico Neri Placido et altri ed la amorevole et piberale resposta facta per le S.V. in donare non solamente licentia ad nostra richiesta ad mastro Francisco de Giorgio, ma etiam exhortarlo et comandarlo venissi al servitio de la maestà del signore Re per la expeditione degli edifice et fortelitis principiate; ne havemo pigliato grandissimo piacere, nè foymo mai alieni da tale expectatione. Dal altro canto havendo intesa la negativa et resistentia del dicto mastro Francesco, siamo restati meravigliati et con dispiacere; et per importare questa sua venuto quanto importa, siamo necessitati mandare per la cagion predicto nostro familiare Daniele, presente exhibitore, al quale havemo commisso debba supra de ciò referire da nostra parte a le V.S. alcune cose. Pregamole dunque vogliando ad soi relati donar piena fede et credenza, con quella bona, celere et effective expedizione, quale in le V.S. fermamente speramo et confidamo. Ali piaceri de li quali ne offeriamo. Datum in Abbatia prope Palmam die XVIIII Martis 1493. Vester Alfonsus Dux Calabrie

[On reverse:] Magnificis Dominis Officialibus Balìe civitatis Senarum amicis nostris carissimis.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 550, lettere, no.76 *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 386 – 387.

(209) March 23, 1493 A request of Alfonso II sent to the Sienese, promising first class treatment for Francesco di Giorgio on all stages of the journey to Naples.

528

Magnifici Domini amici nostri carissimi. Havemo inteso quanto le S.V. ne hanno scripto per una loro responsiva de la resposta fecta per maestro Francisco de Georgio. Replicamo rendendo gratie infinite ad le S.V. de havere declarato et confortatolo ad venire. Et havendo noi aviso prima de la excusatione facta per ipso maestro Francisco, non posser venire per cause de certa sue indispositione che al cavalcare li offenderia; havemo mandatoli un homo nastro ad confortarlo, perché lo farrimo venire con fusta per mare. Et quando serrà con noi, lo teneremo appresso al suo piacere et riposo, senza mandarlo in loco alcuno; salvo con lo suo conseglio et parere se ordenarà ad li soprastanti con lettere o a bocca, che exeguiscano quello che luy ordenerà, o farrà designo.

Et però repregamo le S.V. vogliano per mastro Francisco che omino venga, che certamente per uno piacer le S.V. al presente non lo porrìano far che maior obligo ne imponessi, per le multiplicate rasione li havemo per altre nostre litere scripto. Offerendone a l’honore et piacere de V.S. et da la excelsa vostra republica. Datum in Abbatia Palme die XXIII Martii 1493. Vester Alfonsus Dux Calabrie Lo: De Casalnuovo

[On reverse:] Magnificis dominis Officialibus Balìe excelse reipublice civitatis Senarum amicis nostris carissimis.

Magnificent Lords our dearest friends.

We understand that Your Lordships have written in response to our request for master Francesco di Giorgio. We reply giving endless thanks to Your Lordships for having encouraged him to come here. And knowing of the excuse made by said master Francesco, [that] he is not able to come due to the discomfort caused by riding, we have sent to Siena a man for his benefit, so that they may travel by sea. And when he is with us, we shall keep him at his comfort and ease, without sending him anywhere; except [to those projects] on which he gives counsel and advice, whether he does this by word of mouth or through drawings. And thus we again ask Your Lordships to encourage that master Francesco soon come. [And] certainly for our benefit, we wish at present [that] Your Lordships should not assign to him great obligations or tasks, for the many reasons we have given in our other letters. Offering ourselves to the pleasure and honor of Your Lordships, and the excellency of your republic.

Given in the Abbey Palma on 23 March 1493.

Your Alfonso Duke of Calabria Re: Castelnuovo

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 550, lettere, no. 78 *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 387.

529

(210) April 19, 1493 Letter from Siena to Duke of Calabria, in which Francesco di Giorgio’s resistance to travel is confirmed. The letter notes that Francesco is convinced that he will die if he travels, and that the Balìa has repeatedly urged that he go.

19 Aprilis 1493. Calabrie ducis scriptum. Per l’antiqua et presente charità di V.S. Ill. verso la nostra patria, cognosciamo essere le parti nostre usare ogni conto di satisfare a li desideri di quella. Et per questo doppo le altre nostre scripte, habiamo di nuovo et collegialmente et particularmente, doppo la licentia data, exortato, strecto et commandato ad maestro Francesci di Giorgio, si conferisca con più presteza che pò ala presentia di V.I.S. per exequire gli disegni ordinati. Non senza grandissima molestia nostra lo troviamo durissimo; et finalmente ci ha expressamente declarato non potere, ne volere venire; perchè si è misso in testa ne seguirìa la morte sua. Et perchè già qualche volta dixe, quando si trovasse meglio disposto, haveva intentione de presentarsi costì, potrebbe essere che ancora mutarebbe proposito; quantunche molto non lo speriamo. Et per questo noi non desisteremo interporre ogni opera che esso voglia venire a satisfare ali bisogni di V.S. I; la quale se li paresse che in specie dovessimo fare più una cosa che un’altra circa questo effecto, ce ne rendarà advisati. Che vedondo noi sia apto venire, non si pretermerrerà alcuna cosa dal canto nostro. Bene è vero che non vorremo, se fusse pure al tucto renitente al venire, noi per indirecto perdessimo tale homo, che nè le V.S. Ill., nè la nostra patria se ne potesse servire. La V.S. I. è prudentissima, e riceverà in questa cosa li chori nostri, li quali non manco desiderano la venuta sua,che la prefata V.S., a la quale la nostra republica summopere raccomandiamo.

April 13, 1493. The Duke of Calabria was written.

For the previous and present charity of Your Lordship toward our state, we recognize that we should use every chance to satisfy your desires. And since we wrote to you last, we have again given Francesco license to go to Naples, and urged and commanded him to do so, and that he quickly execute the designs that your Lordship has ordered. It is not without the greatest annoyance that we find him most stubborn; and recently, he has expressed to us that he has neither strength nor wish to go, because he has made up his mind that if he does, his death will follow. And as we have previously said, when he is better disposed, we intend to confront him; perhaps then he should be ready to change his mind, although we do not have great hope. And for this reason we do not desire to impose any work on him which would hinder the needs of Your Lordship, and if it seems that we must choose one thing over another, we will advise you. To see that he is ready to go, we will not hinder him in any way. And truly, we do not wish this [situation], as he is entirely reluctant to come, we in turn also lose a man, who can serve neither Your Lordships nor our state.

Your Lordship is most prudent, and receives in this our repeated sentiments which we greatly hope do no miss you, Your Lordship to whom our republic most especially recommends itself.

530

Archivio di Stato di Siena. Balìa 412, Copialettere, folios 37v – 38r *See Chironi (1991) 479; Weller 388.

(211) April 22, 1493 Three figures (Andrea Piccolomini, Leonardo Piccolomini and Giovanni Nanni) are elected to meet with Francesco di Giorgio and to encourage him to fulfill the request of the Duke of Calabria.

Super materia Francisci Georgii eligantur tres pro priore quod procurent cum mandatario ducis Calabrie quod expectet responsum litterarum ipsorum et similter procurent cum dicto Francisco Georgii ipsum exhortando quod vadat ad servitia dicti ducis. Et isti fuerunt electi, videlicet: Dominus Andreas Piccolomineus Dominus Leonardus Piccolomineus Iohannes Nannis

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 38, Deliberazioni (November 1, 1492 – June 29, 1493), folios 103v – 104r *See Chironi (1991) 479; Iorio 280; Romagnoli (IV) 881.

(212) April 28, 1493 Michele di Giovanni and his son Alvise undertake the portico of the Palace of the Elders in Ancona according to a design of Francesco di Giorgio.

Michele di Giovanni da Milano s’impegna insieme al figliuolo Alvise di compiere il portico in pietra da taglio eretto lungo un lato della corte del Palazzo degli Anziani ad Ancona secondo il disegno dato da Francesco di Giorgio nel 1484.

Archival information not provided *See Chironi (1991) 479; Papini 296.

(213) May 14, 1493 Letter from the Siena government to Alfonso II, again excusing Francesco di Giorgio’s stubbornness to travel.

Ducis Calabrie ita scriptum est. Requisiti de la Illma S.V. per piu lettere et da Miss: Daniele suo mandatario, habiamo più e più volte havuto maestro Francesco di Giorgio et privatamente et pubblicamente, et siamoci sforzati persuaderli che omnino se debi risolvare di venire ad servire a V.S. Ill., monstrandoli, se questo farà, quanto piacere ne habi ad fare ad la V.S., e a noi non minore; perchè per la nostra osservanza verso di quella siamo constrecti desiderare tutte quelle cose che ad epsa sono chare. Finalmente habiamo trovato in lui et troviamo tanta dureza che per niente lo potiamo disporre ad obsequire ad questo vostro et nostro desiderio, affirmandonsi per lui che è certissimo che costi non potria durare, et che si rende certo in pochi mesi ci tornarebe. Per noi non si cesserà tuttavia exhortarlo al servitio della Ill. S.V. perché desideriamo che tutti i cittadini nostri siano ad quella

531

ossequentissimi, et veramente questa durezza di costui ci è tanto molesta, quanto alcuna cosa ci potesse essere. Veggha la V.S. la nostra bona intentione; a la quale di continuo ci raccomandiamo. --

The Duke of Calabria was written. As requested by Your Lordship in more and more letters and by your agent sir Daniele, we have again and again, both privately and publically tried to persuade Master Francesco di Giorgio that as your servant he should go and serve Your Lordship, telling him that if he does, what great pleasure this will bring to you, and no less to us, as due to our observance to you, we also desire that which is dear to you. Finally, though, we find him extraordinarily stubborn and there is nothing that we can to do encourage him to obey the wishes of yours and of ours, as he has been told that this task is only temporary and that after a few months he will be able to return. For us, however, we do not call him to service of the state, because we wish that all our citizens are most obedient, and truly the stubbornness of this man is troublesome to us, as there is nothing that can be done. Your Lordship must see our good intention; to whom we continue to offer ourselves. --

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 412, Copialettere, No. 122, folios 46v – 47r *See Chironi (1991) 480; Milanesi (II) 455; Weller 388 – 89.

(214) September and October, 1493 Listing of twenty-two residents in the Supreme Magistrate for the months of September and October. In addition to Francesco di Giorgio, the listing includes Alessandro Galgano, who was a fortification designer and is thought to have been one of Francesco’s students.

Tomis Francesci da Salvus Caps. ppћ...... Mucciettus d’Ildebrandino...... Mastros Francesco di Giorgio di Martini...... Alessandro Galgano bichis ......

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2337, folio 43r *See Chironi (1991) 480; Romagnoli (IV) 903; Weller 389.

(215) December 18, 1493 Letter of Antonio di Girodani indicating Francesco di Giorgio’s “very worthwhile” presence in Montepulciano to consult on plans regarding the boundary disputes between Siena and Florence over the municipalities of Montepulciano and Chianciano.

Magnifici Domini. Dopo l’ultima scritta ad V.M.S. siamo giunti insieme col comissario fiorentino ad Monte Pulciano domenica passata, et lui et noi, et noi et lui abiamo mostre le ragioni de queste Comuni. Di poi prese a studiare le ragioni... essendoci maestro Francesco di Giorgio, la venuta del quale è stata molto a proposito; si cavalcò insieme con lui al Chastelluccio ad rasettare el modello in quelle parti fusse di bisogno; et crediamo tra oggi e domani sarà

532

expedito. Domane, non mutando el commissario fiorentino, saremo insieme a intendare quello volgia dire.... XVIII Decembris 1493. S.M. Dev. Servus Antonius de Iordanis Doctor et Commissarius

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Riformagioni, Lettere, Filza 55 *See Chironi (1991) 480; Milanesi (II) 455 – 456; Weller 389.

(216) February 18, 1494 The Balìa gives Francesco di Giorgio license to go to Naples. The document also notes that Pietro Mariano has been instructed to oversee all work of Francesco for his duties as operaio dei bottini.

Et deliberaverunt quod magister Franciscus Georgii habeat licentiam eundi Neapolim contemplatione regis Alfonsi, non obstantibus quibusque. Ac etiam deliberaverunt quod Petrus ser Mariani revideat omnia computa ipsius magistri Francisci pro tempore quo fuit operarius Buctinorum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 39, Deliberazioni, folio 101r *See Chironi (1991) 480; Milanesi (II) 466; Weller 389.

(217) February 25, 1494 Francesco di Giorgio, referenced as “engineer of Siena,” provides a dowry of 600 florins for his daughter Cornelia, in connection with her marriage to Alessandro di Giovanni Brizio.

Anno Domini MCCCCLXXXXIII, indictione XII, die vigesima quinta februarii.

Alexander olim Iohannis Britii de Senis, titulo et causa donationis super propter nuptias, dedit et donavit in et super bonis suis, Francisco Georgii, ingenerio de Senis, presenti et recipienti pro domina Cornelia, filia dicti Francisci et uxore dicti Alexandri, florenos sexcentos de libris 4 denariorum senensium cum pacto quod si dicta domina Cornelia superviveret dicto Alexandro, lucretur et lucrari debeat de dictis bonis ad rationem decem pro centinario nomine antifatii. Et hoc ideo fecit dictus Alexander quia fuit confessus tantundem, videlicet florenos sexcentos, habuisse et recepisse pro dotibus dicte domine Cornelie hoc modo videlicet: florenos centum super Monte Comunis Senarum, et residuum in pecunia numerata, cum simili pacto quod si dictus Alexander superviveret dicte domine Cornelie, lucretur et lucrari debeat de dictis dotibus ad rationem decem pro centinario, nomine antefatti. Quas quidem dotes et antifatium dictus Alexander promisit dicto Francisco, presenti et recipienti ut supra, reddere et reristituere in omnem casum et eventum dotim resitituendarum etc., eo modo et forma quibus recepit, videlicet floreni centum super Monte Comunius Senarum et residuum in pecunia numerata etc. Quarum solutionum etc. Pro quibus etc. obligavit etc. Quorum bonorum etc. constituit se interim etc. Renuntiatvit etc. Iuravit etc. Cum Guarantigia etc.

533

Actum Senis, in banco Marci de Benzis et soxiorum de Senis coram Petro ser Mariani et Iohanne Ibi de Senis, testibus etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 686, Ser Lorenzo di Lando Sborgheri (1491 – 1494), doc. Iii *See Iorio 282; Weller 389.

(218) November 4, 1494 Alfonso II writes to Baccio Pontelli asking for his services in Naples. The Duke notes that he, or one of his servants, will be Siena and implies that the group will travel together south.

Rex Siciliae, etc. Baccio: ad noi occorre havere ad servirece de voi in certe opere le quali non vedemo che per altro mastro ne potesse essere ben satisfacto: et però per nostro amore ricevuta la presente ce venerete ad ritrovare senza indugiarve: et per nostro gran servicio vengate lo più presto sera possibele senza perdere de tempo: noi ce trovarimo in lo territorio de Sena.

Dat. in Castris prope Terracinae IIII Nov. MCCCCLXXXXIIII. Rex. Alfonsus. Jo. Pont. Magistro Baccio florentino.

Archivio di Napoli, Curiae del Collatterale, vol. 2, folio 117 *See Ceci, “Nuovi Documenti,” Napoli Nobilissima 9 (1900): 83; G. Hersey, Alfonso II and the Artistic Renewal of Naples 1485 – 1495 (New Haven: Yale University, 1969): 83.

(219) 1494 Communal commission regarding the construction of the defenses of Sesta, outside of Siena. Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, Angelo Benassai and Francesco di Giorgio are named as the project overseers.

In prima per la expeditio della fabbrica di Sexta sono constituiti li operari infrascritti, et designati fiorini 500 sopra de’ Monti. Sarà utile che tale opera si mandi ad effecto.

Pauolo di Vannoccio Agnolo Benassai et operari Francesco di Giorgio.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2362 – 2363, Notule pei Successori (1441 – March 1499), unnumbered pages *Iorio (280)

534

(220) January 13, 1495 Account of Francesco di Giorgio’s involvement in preparing Naples for the French invasion.

Un messere Francisco, senese, tavolario della Maistà del sig. re Alfonso et maestro zufficiente de adificie, in ditto anno 1495, a dì XIII de innaro, XIII indictione, la Maistà del sig. Re fece bottare in terra le doie turre che stevano sopre la porta della castiello de Sant’Eramo; quale fece bottare per lo ditto conziglio de messere Francisco, perché Sua Maistà voleva fare uno castiello quale voleva fare uno castiello lo più bello che ˖esse mai in ˖Talia fosse. Et fo prencipiate dallo mese de sottiembro de ditto anno, et in quisto tienpo la maistà del s[igniore] re fece fare la bastia sopre Baia, per defencione de Vaia; lo quale èi una bella cosa, con quelle casemate e defese bene ordinate. Et in quisto ditto anno dello mese de ottufro la mitta maistà del s[igniore] re fece fare una bastia chiamata casamatta alla ponta dello fusso dello Castiello Novo, a ˖ppiede la torre de Vivirello; et, se ditta casamatta fosse stata sconputa, forrìa stata la disfacione de questa citate in ditta guerra.

A Master Francesco, of Siena, servant [carpenter] to King Alfonso and master of building, in the said year 1495, from the 13th day of January, to the 13th indiction, the Master Signore King knocked to the ground two towers which stood above the door of the castle of Sant’Elmo; which was mined according to the advice of Master Francesco, because His Majesty wanted to make a castle which was more beautiful and also stronger. And it was initiated from September of the said year, and in this time the Master Signore King had made a bastion above Baia, for the defense of Baia; it was a beautiful thing with those casemates and defenses well ordered. At in this said year in the month of October, the Signore King made a bastion called a casemate from the bridge of the entrance of Castello Nuovo to the base of the tower of Vivirello; and if the said casemate was exploded, it would be a great disadvantage to the city in the said war.

Ferraiolo, Cronaca della Napoli Aragonese, Ms. sec. XV, Morgan Library, NYC Ms. 801, folio 105r *See Adams 143; Ferraiolo, Cronaca, ed. Rosario Coluccia (Florence: Presso L’Accademia della Crusca, 1987): 40.

(221) January 14, 1495 Account of Francesco di Giorgio’s involvement in fortifying the Castel Nuovo in Naples.

In ditto anno 1495, alli xiiij de innaro la maistà del sig[niore] re Alfonso ditto ut supra ingigniao a ˖ffare fare fusse et innante fusse et casematte atturno lo Castiello Novo, et alla citatella puro defese, per reparo dello ditto Castiello; quale fece de gran cose et de grande repare, perché sua maistà se credeva de tenèrese assaie et de no intravenire a quello che intravenne.

In the said year 1495, on the fourteenth of January the master Signore King Alfonso instructed the aforementioned engineer to make a casemate around the Castel Nuovo, and the city for defense, for repair of the said castle; which was a great thing and a great

535

reconstruction, because his Majesty believed that project, because his Majesty believed to hold enough and did not [want] to intervene with that which was underway.

Ferraiolo, Cronaca della Napoli Aragonese, Ms. sec. XV, Morgan Library, NYC ms. 801, folio 105r *See Adams 143; Coluccia 40.

(222) August 26, 1495 Francesco di Giorgio receives payment of 30 ducats for his provision in Naples; the payment given to his assistant Andrea.

A maestro Francisco da Siena, architatore: trenta ducati, lo Signore Re li commanda dare in cunto de sua provisione, et per lui ad Andrea, suo garzone: duc. XXX.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 155, folio 17v *See Chironi (1991) 480; Weller 390.

(223) September 17, 1495 Francesco di Giorgio receives reimbursement of six ducats, one tarì, and seven grani for the materials he purchased to construct firearms for the Aragonese.

A maestro Francisco de Siena, architatore, sey ducati, uno t, septe gr, lo Signore Re li ha comandato dare per altrj tante ha dispese del suo in conperare certe materialj hanno servito per fare certo foco artificiali per servicio del Signore Re: duc. VI, t. I, gr. VII

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Le Cedole di Tesoreria, Vol. 155, folio 27v *See Chironi (1991) 480; Weller 390.

(224) September 22, 1495 In Francesco di Giorgio’s absence from Siena, Antonio Giovanni degli Ubertini is nominated to replace him along with Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio and Angelo Benessai as operai of the keep at Sesta.

Die XXii Sept. Mag. et potentes domini etc. ... Franciscus Georgii maestri operiis Sextet ad presens est absens e rimistat Senarum et non potest mitoressa detto opera et ad hor ut opera ex podentur foruntus [word?] solenntiur voluerunt oligan et oligarunt Antonium Jacobus de Ubertinis i operiorum detto fabrirt una cum Paulo Vannocci et Angolo Benassao ...

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 768, deliberazioni, folio 7v *See Chironi (1991) 480.

(225) October 29, 1495 The name of Francesco di Giorgio appears on a list of creditors of the commune, all of whom, with the exception of Giacomo Petrucci, have given 200 ducats.

536

E più mettere unam uscita lire tre milia ottantuna soldi nove quali sono per lo scapito di ducati tremilia ducentrenta lire inscracripti per uno anno et li ducati cumunque coto depaschi infrascripti non nessuno ad meter del comuno di siena e le dice lifre tremiliaottantuna e soldi due fancte buoni amarinao monaldi sensaro e che cosi faciate il precedete la significantone de sei.

Mariano Chigi ducati secento cio, è, ducento per se e ducento per M. Andrea Piccolomini e ducento per Mo Francescho minimtusto[?] ...... d. 600 Agnolo Palmieri ducati ducento...... d. 200 Pandolfo Petrucci ducati ducento...... d. 200 Francesco Tancredi ducati ducento...... d. 200 Bartholomeo Luti ducati ducento...... d. 200 Francio di Giorgio ducati ducento...... d. 200 P. biringucci ducati ducento...... d. 200 Pietro borgesi ducati ducento...... d. 200 Paulo Salvetti ducati ducento...... d. 200 M. Bartholomeo di landuccio ducati ducento...... d. 200 Nicolo S. Ghardi ducento trenta due...... d. 232 Lopera Sanese Marse ducati secento...... d. 600 Giacopo Petrucci e li compangi apaschi ducati cinquecento...... d. 500

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Registro della Balìa, 989, Entrate e Uscite, folio 20r *See Chironi (1991) 480; Weller 390.

(226) December 7, 1495 Antonio Spannocchi, Sienese ambassador to the Pope, writes from Rome to the signoria. He gives a report of Francesco di Giorgio’s presence in Naples and the architect’s involvement in the siege of the Castel Nuovo.

El chastello è remasto tutto solo, d’intorno al quale è il nostro m.o Francesco di Giorgio et con cave et altre materie con attende che a stregnerlo di modo che in brevissimi giorni, o per amore o per forza, si existima sarà del Re, che sotto con cave et di fora le bombarde, assai l’hanno offeso. Roma die vij Decembre MCCCCLXXXXV.

537

The castle remains all alone, around which, our Master Francesco di Giorgio, with tunnels and other materials worked to isolate it, in a manner which, in just a few days, by hook or by crook, will be examined by the King, who, with the quarries and drilling of cannons, attacked it from below. Rome 7 of December 1495.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2424, folio 16r *See Chironi (1991) 480; Weller 390.

(227) December 22, 1495 Payment receipt of 36 ducats, granted to Francesco di Giorgio upon the command of the King of Naples.

A maestro Francisco de Siena, architetore: trentasey ducati, lo Signore Re li comando dare in cunto de sua provisione et de li primi denari li corerrano: duc. XXXVI.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, cedole di tesoreria 155, folio 138v *See Chironi (1991) 480; Weller 390.

(228) December 2, 1496 Communal deliberation concerning Francesco di Giorgio’s failure to repay a loan – possibly something he left unattended to when he was in Naples. It is decided that he will pay the amount owed within fifteen-days and will be acquitted of penalty for the late- payment.

Die II Decembris. Magnifici domini officiali Balìe etc. deliberaverunt quod Franciscus Georgii solvendo suas prestas infra XV dies intelligentur et sit absolutus a pena quarti dupli et drictus, et in dicto tempore possit solver sine aliqua expense et ita acceptabantur a depositaries et exactoribus non obstantibus.

[In left margin:] pro magistro Francisco Gerogii

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 41, Deliberazioni, folio 62v *See Iorio 283 – 284. (Iorio incorrectly dates this document December 2, 1497)

(229) February 17, 1497 Agreement made regarding a fresco painted by Pietro degli Orioli in the refectory of Monte Oliveto, left unfinished due to the artist’s death. Francesco di Giorgio, Bernardino Fungai, Andrea di Niccolò and Benvenuto di Giovanni are appointed to decide on the amount owed to Francesco di Bartolomeo, father and sole heir to Pietro degli Orioli, for the work the painter did.

Convocato et congregato capituolo fratum monasteri et conventus Sancti Benedicti ordinis Montis Oliveti extra et prope Senas; ad sonum campanelle et loco consueto, de mandato reverendi prioris fratris Petri Jacopi de Balducciis de Senis, prioris dicti monasteri [etc.]. Franciscus olim magistri Bartholomei alias delli Orioli de Senis, nomine

538

suo proprio, et alia parte de ipsius partum comuni Concordia usi, remiserunt et compromiserunt infrascriptibus Georgi Martini, Benvenuti Johanni, Andreae Nicholai et Bernardino Fungarii pictores de Senis, comuniter et concorditer electos a dictis partibus, tamquam in eorum albitros et albitrati videlicet de jure et de facto, de jure tantum et de facto tamen videlicet quamdam totaliter et deferentiam eum et […] picturarum factam per Pietrum olim filium dicti Francisci in refectorio dicti monasteri, spaciatum [?] et nominatum ad videndum judicandum […] predictis manufacti dictorum picturarum pro ut eiusdem discreti et conveniens videbitur et dantes.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 830, folio 253 *See M. Mussolin, “Il Beato Bernardo Tolomei e la fondazione di Monte Oliveto Minore a Siena,” La Misericordia di Siena attraverso i secoli, ed. M. Ascheri and P. Turrini (Siena: Protagon Ed. Toscani, 2004): 503.

(230) February 24, 1497 The Balìa prohibits Francesco di Giorgio from leaving Siena without permission and appoints him overseer of “the fortification and camp” of Montepulciano.

Decreverunt quod fiat preceptum magistro Francisco Georgii ne ex urbe recedat sine licentia sub pena arbitrii Collegii Balie – Deliberaverunt – quod magister Franciscus Georgii petat – Montempolitianum, et revideat roca et castra Comitatus, et provideat ut ei videbitur pro securitate illorum.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa, Deliberazioni, folios 123v – 124r *See Chironi (1991) 480; Milanesi II 466; Weller 391.

(231) March 7, 1497 Decision regarding the payment owed to Francesco di Bartolomeo (father of Pietro degli Orioli) for his son’s work on the fresco painted in the refectory of Monte Oliveto. Francesco di Giorgio was among the arbitrators chosen to assess the value of the fresco work. See also document February 17, 1497.

Laudum fratrum Monti Oliveti. Al nome di Dio, addì 7 di marzo 1496. Noi Francescho di Giorgio di Martino e Andrea di Nicholò, Bernardino di Nicholò Fongai e Benvenuto di maestro Giovanni dipintori da Siena, albitri ed albitratori a stimare e di chronchordia cletti dal chapitolo, frati e chonvento di Santo Benedetto dell’ordine di Santo Benedetto presso a Siena alias di Monte Oliveto da una parte e di Francescho di maestro Bartolomeo delli Orioli da Siena dal’altra parte, sopra al vedere e stimare e giudichare el lavoro già fatta inne refettorio de dette frati per Pietro già filgiuolo del detto Frencescho, chome del chompromesso a chomessione in noi fatta appare, di man di Ser Antonio di Nicholò Champana notaio sanese, unde veduto el detto lavoro fatto per detto Pietro e udite le parti insieme e di presente e tutte le chose chonsiderate e che sonno da chonsiderare, il nome di Cristo invochato, tale in fra le dette parti lodo e dechiarasione, diamo e proferiamo in questo modo e forma, cioè: perché diciamo, lodiamo e dechiariamo detti frati e chapitolo di San Benedetto essere tenuti e dovere dare e pagare al detto Francescho, già padre del detto Pietro, per detto lavoro fatto a tutte spese del

539

detto Pietro, duchati sesanta larghi e chosì giudichiamo e sentenziamo per ongni milglior modo e cetare. E io Benvenuto di maestro Giovanni sopradetto di chommessione de detti miei maggior chompagni [h]o scritto quanto di sopra. Ego Francesco di Giorgio sopraaditto afermo quannto di sopra. E io Andrea di Nicholò sopra dito atfermo quanto di sopra si chontiene. E io Bernardino di Nicholò Funghai sopra detto afermo quanto di sopra è detto che [h]anno tucti detto di sopra. Anno domini MCCCCLXXXXVI, indictione XV, die vero VII mensis martii. Latum et datum eis fuit dictum laudum eis predictis [...] et quo dixerunt et laudaverunt in omnibus et per omnia pro utin eo suprascriptis continetur etc. Actum in ecclesia Sancti Cristofori de Senis, etc., coram Synolfo Nastocci [?] de Saracenis et Jacopo Paoli Jacopi ser Angeli, omnibus de Senis testibus. Ego Antonius Campana notarius senesis rogavi suprascriptibus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 818, folio 115 *See Musolin 503 – 504.

(232) March 12, 1497 King Federico assigns Antonio Marchese the direct of the royal works of Naples. This includes an annual stipend of 200 ducats.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Esecutoriale, Vol. 18, folio 175 *See Ceci 84.

(233) March 13, 1497 King Federico of Naples writes to Francesco di Giorgio, requesting his presence in Naples to assist with the design and construction of the Castel Nuovo and other Neapolitan constructions.

Mastro Francesco: Vui sapite che partendone da Gaeta da Nui ce promettesseve retornare subito: et non essendo sin qua venuto ne restamo multo admirati [adirati], ultra la incomodità se pate de la absentia vostra per le fabriche et designi del Castello nuovo, et de altri lochi nostri. Et per questo lassando omne altra vostra occupatione ve confortamo ad volervene venire subito: perchè non solum simo per farve quilli medisimi partiti ve fece la felice memoria del Serenissimo Signor Re don Alfonso nostro colendissimo fratello, et tractarve in modo, che resterite de noi contento, ma havemo provisto ve siano pagati cento ducati d’oro con li quali ve possate levare, et venire ad trovarece. Per amor nostro venghate subito ad tale ce possiamo servire de voi, et non ce possamo dolere che non siate venuto: secundo ce havete promesso. Data in lo Castello nostro novo di Napoli. XIII Marti 1497.

540

And for this, leaving all your other obligations, it comforts us that you to come at once: because not only are we to give you that those same roles you filled in the happy memory of the great Lord King don Alfonso, our beloved brother, and to treat you in a way that makes you most content with us, but we will also pay you one hundred ducats of gold, which you will get when you come to us. For our love, come immediately in such a mode as we are able to provide, and we will not suffer because you are not here, as you have promised us [you would be]. Given in the Castle Nuovo of Naples. XIII March 1497.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, III Curia del Collaterale, folio 2 *See Ceci 83; Chironi (1991) 481; Weller 391.

(234) March 13, 1497 At the same time the previous letter was drafted to Francesco di Giorgio, a second letter was sent to Antonio Spannocchi, Pandolfo Petrucci, Nero Placido, and Antonio Bicci in Siena, so that they would encourage Francesco to return to Naples.

Document information unknown *See Ceci 83.

(235) March 16, 1497 Record of King Federico’s order that Antonio Marchese receive 25 ducats per year for each person in his household until a suitable house is found for his family in Naples.

Venticinque ducati all’anno per lo persone de la casa…. Finchè per noi la seta dato una casa condecente dove possa habitare con sua mogliera et figliuoli.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Commune del Collaterale, Vol. 10, folio 39 *See Ceci 84.

(236) March 17, 1497 Notice sent to Francesco di Giorgio that he is no longer needed in Naples, as “Master Antonio of Florence” has agreed “to come to us quickly.”

Maestro Francesco nostro dilecto: Nui non possiamo più desiderare lo ritorno vostro: lo quale quanto sara piu celere tanto più ne farite cose gratia. Pero ve confortamo ad venirevene subito o veramente a la ritornata che fata maestro Antonio da Firenza, con lo quale de compagnia ve ne possite comodamente venire. Da Nui lo amore che ve portamo potere essere certissimo che serete visto et tructato de manera che restarite più l’un di che l’altro ben contento et satisfacto de Nui. Dato in lo Castello novo civitatis nostrae Neapolis. XVII Martii 1497. Rex Federicus Vitus Pisanellus

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Curia del Collaterale, folio 2 *See Ceci 84; Weller 391.

541

(237) March 30, 1497 Francesco di Giorgio is a witness in the act involving Neri Placido.

Actum Senis in domo prefati Nerii sita in Casato, coram magistro Francisco Georgii architectore et Goro Petri Cennis, senesibus testibus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 1079, fascicle 98 *See Chironi (1993) 408.

(238) August 5, 1497 To resolve a dispute between Francesco di Giorgio and the Opera del Duomo regarding Francesco’s payment for the execution of bronze angels, the Balìa nominates a commission including Giacomo Piccolomini, Antonio Bichi and Pandolfo Petrucci to evaluate the sculptures and establish their value.

[In margin:] Pro magistro Francisco Georgii.

Audito magistro Francisco Georgii pro causa et solutione Angelorum datorum opere sancte Maria, deliberaverunt quod infrascripti tres debeant videre qualitatem Angelorum dictorum… et curandi cum effectu quod solvatur pretium dicto magistro Francisco cunctis remediis et hoc in octo dies, audiendo prius partes et alligationes ipsarum; et procurent ne Angeli dicti extrahantur de Ecclesia cathedrali.

D. Iacobus Piccolhomineus D. Antonius Bichus Pandolfus Petruccius

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Riformagioni, Balìa 41, Deliberzioni, folio 208r *See Chironi (1991) 481; Milanesi (II) 463; Weller 392.

(239) August 17, 1497 Record of expenses regarding the facture of Francesco di Giorgio’s two bronze angels. The final amount he was paid was 1364 lire. The document notes that all additional – for “wax, iron, bricks, and for the salaries of the assistants and all other expenses made for the Opera are the expense of the Opera,” and not the architect.

Conto de’ denari e robbe date a M.o Francesco di Giorgio per conto delli due angioli à fatte di bronzo.

Denari contanti ricievuti in più volte li detti angioli...... L. 425. sol. -- Bronzo ricevuti per noi da Piero di Frontino Li. 2080, costò...... L. 425. sol. 19 Ciera per formare li detti angioli in due volte Lib. 370 per L. 55 cento...... L. 203 sol. 10 Ferro in piastre longe e in verge Lib. 68, costò...... L. 6 sol. 10 Per some sei e mezo di gesso e 200 mattoni costoro...... L. 4 sol. 10 ------L. 1065.sol.15

542

L. 640.sol.15 ------Tracte tutte le sopradette spese da L. 425. in giù, de la dette L. 1065., sol. L. 425. sol. 0 15 che sommano le dette spese L. 640. sol. 15...... L. 425. sol. 0 L. 289. sol. 0 Trattene più spese fatte da mestro Francesco, che sommano sicondo el L. 136. sol. 0 suo libro L. 289. sol. – sottoratte di dette L. 425. sol. – dette L. 289 sol. – L. 136. sol. 0 restano come si vede...... L. 136. sol. 0 Volgliono che si gli dia per suo magistro...... L. 1500. sol.-- L. 136. sol. ------Sottratte le sopra dette L. 136. sol. – da L. 1500 sol. – che gli vogliono L. 1364. sol. - dare, resta avere come si vede...... L.1364. sol. --

E tutte l’altre spese di ciera, di ferro, di mattoni e salario di garzoni e ogni altra spesa fatta per l’Opera vogliano che vadino a le spese dell’Opera, e questo pagamento lo vogliano fare per dicreto di Balìa e cosi anno ordinato questo dì 17 d’agosto 1497.

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana di Siena; document unnumbered *See Borghesi and Banchi, 358 – 359; Chironi (1991) 481; Weller, 392; Zarrilli 534.

(240) August 21, 1497 Document confirming Giacomo Piccolomini’s and Pandolfo Petrucci’s assessment of Francesco di Giorgio’s bronze angels. The architect is said to be owed 1364 lire and 10 soldi.

Die XXi Augusti Spectabilissimi viri Dominus Jacobus Piccolomineus et Pandolfus Peruccius, duo de collegio Balìe, vigore eorum auctoritate electi deputati super causa Angelorum magistri Francisci Georgii, laudaverunt et iudicaverunt, quod operarius Ecclesie cathedralis, sive camerarius Opere teneatur et debeant ac obligati sint solvere eidem magistro Francisco Georgii libras mille trecentas sexaginta quattuor, sol: 10, ultra bona et alias expensas in eis factas per dictos operarium et camerarium Opere: quas libras 1364 sol: 10, teneantur iidem solvere pro residuo solutionis magisterii dictorum Angelorum eidem magistro Francisco, omni exceptione remota, et quod fiat apotissa nomine Balìa directa operario, sive camerario, quod solvant etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 41, Deliberazioni, folio 220r *See Chironi (1991) 481; Milanesi (II) 463; Weller 393.

(241) August 26, 1497 Receipt of Francesco di Giorgio’s payment for the bronze angels for the main altar of the Duomo.

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio dipentore dé dare fino a dì XXVI d’agosto 1497, lire mille treciento sessanta quatro, soldi diec, gli pagamo contanti per conto di due angioli di

543

bronzo, e ci[o]è per lo suo resto, e quali stanno dinanzi all’altare maggiore; e quali si pagaro per dichreto di Balìa, come sonno a uscita di Giovanni Turamini nostro camarlengo, folio 40. l. MCCCLXIIII s. d. –

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana di Siena, 718, folio 541 *See Chironi (1991) 481; Zarrilli 534.

(242) 1497 Account of the expenses paid by the Opera Metropolitana for Francesco di Giorgio’s bronze angels, which amount in total to 1867 lire, 16 soldi and 4 denari. The detailed listing includes the expenses of the different materials, tasks, and the payment of the assistant.

Spese fatte nelli due angioletti di bronzo à tragittati maestro Francesco di Giorgio.

Per carbone per fóndare bronzo, errichuocere, e sciugare ferme di detti L. 66. 6. angioli, monta in tutto...... L. 66. 6. “ Per portatura d’aqua e per opere a murare el fornello, e opere per aitare a L. 29. 4. “ portar carbone, e opere di maestri e per aitare a menar mantaci, montano L. 29. 4. “ in tutto...... L. 29. 4. “ Per lengna per richuociare, e sciugare le forme di detti angioli, montano “ 9. 15. “ in tutto...... “ 9. 15. “ Per auti per confichare le armature de mantaci et altre cosse, montano “ “. 15. “ in tutto...... “ “. 15. “ Per mattoni communi per fare fornelgi darrichuociare eddaffóndare, “ 1. 10. “ montano in tutto...... “ 1. 10. “ Per la terra per fare forme de detti angioli, monta...... “ 1. 13. 4 Per la battitura di detta terra per le dette forme, monta...... “ 1. “. “ Per giesso per reimpire le dette forme, monta...... “ 1. 8. “ Per filo di ferro per conlegare le forme de detti angioli, montano in tutto...... “ 14. “. “ Per salario de garzoni ànno aitato allavorare e detti angioli, cioè Pavolo “ 145. 15. “ d’Orbano cartaio; aitò per lire 8; Francesco di Bartolomeo da sancto Gusmè “ 145. 15. “ per suo salario di mesi 10 1/2 , lire 68.5. “, Pierantonio d’Andrea di Mone per “ 145. 15. “ lo suo salario di mesi 24, lire sessantanova sol: 10, che montano in tutto i salarj “ 145. 15. “ di detti garzoni...... “ 145. 15. “ Per lo magisterio di maestro Francesco, in tutto...... “ 1600. “. “ ------Somma L.1871. 6.4 Riporto della Somma L.1871. 6.4 Trassene lire 2 sol: 10 per lo sopra più delli mattoni che ricervèero dell’opera “ 2. 10. “ nostra...... “ 2. 10. “ ------Restanto L.1867.16.4

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Riformagioni, Scritture Concistoriali, Filza 24

544

*See Chironi (1991) 481; Milanesi (III) 305 – 306; Weller 393.

(243) 1497 Account of manufacture and expense of the six angels of the ciborium of the Duomo of Siena. Two of these were made by Francesco di Giorgio.

M.o Francesco per mercede ebbe L. 2027, come al Libro d’un Leone folio 558, e tutto per decreto di Balìa, e nel metallo spese l’opera di suoi denari L. 889.... E piu spese l’opera L. 300 di denari dati a M.o Giovanni suo capomeastro, perchegli aiutò a lavorare i detti angeli come al libro detto, fol. 316, e finalmente l’Opea dede L. 82: 10 a Mariano di Domenico Orafo per giornate 110 date da esso a nettare detti angeli... Sichè la spesa di detti due angeli ascese alla somma di L. 3298.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Libro di Leone, folio 558 (document not found) *See Chironi (1991) 481; Romagnoli (IV) 910 – 911.

(244) January 1, 1498 Francesco di Giorgio declares to have assets of 687 lire in total value.

+ Sancto Giovanni

Francesco di Giorggio di Martino dipentore de’ avere adì primo Gienaio 1497 lire secientonovantasette, soldi 0, sonno per tanti che ne restava avere al’ originale di 4 Monti de Città, a foglio 225; e sso’ al chomuno, questo a foglio 1136. l. DCLXXXVII s. 0

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 451, Libro dei Monte (1497 – 1530), folio 387r *See Iorio 284 – 285.

(245) September 17, 1498 Francesco di Giorgio and a certain Niccolò are responsible for the destruction of the bridge and bastions near Montepulciano. This project was assigned by an elected commission, composed of Pandolfo Petrucci and Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio.

Eodem pro magistro Fran.co Georgii…. nec non decreverunt quod prior eligat tres qui abeant auctoritatem espendendi usque ad ducati decem et mittendi M.o Franc. Georgii et magistrum Niccolinum in causa destrat’onis Pontis et Bastie pro ut eis videbitur Pandulfus D. Andreas, Paulii Vannoccii.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 43, Deliberazioni 39, folio 237 *See Chironi (1991) 481; Romagnoli (IV) 912.

(246) 1498 Francesco di Giorgio reports to have assests of a total value of 425 lire.

+ San Giovanni

545

Maestro Francesco di Giorigo ungignieri [sic], lire quattrocento venticinque, 425. l. 0 s. 0 d. IIII ¼ Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 106, Libro della Lira (1498), folio 35r *See Iorio 284; Nevola 78.

(247) 1498 Communal commissions for the re-construction of the wall of Sesta and the fortification of Cerreto. Francesco di Giorgio is named as operaio of both projects, along with Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio, Pandolfo Petrucci, and Angelo Benassai.

Per rifare la murgagl[i]a di Sexta sonno electi li infrascripti operaii, et la allocatione facta a Domenico di Grillo et li conpagni da Castello in Villa. Sarà utile che le Signorie Vostre faccino sollectiare.

Pauolo di Vannoccio Agnolo Benassai operarii Francesco di Giorgio

Similmente la fabrica di Cerreto fù allocate a Giorgio Vieri, giudicandosi cosa d’assai importantia si ricorda a le Signorie Vostre che faccino expedire; li operarii sopra quella sonno:

Pandolfo Petrucci Pauolo di Vannoccio operarii Francesco di Giorgio.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2362 – 2363, Notule pei Successori, unnumbered *See Iorio 284.

(248) January 7, 1499 The Balìa elects a commission to establish, along with the operaio Alberto Aringhieri, Francesco di Giorgio’s salary and duties within the Opera del Duomo. The commission includes Pandolfo Petrucci, Angelo Palmieri and Jacopo Vannoccio.

[In margin:] Pro magistro Francisco Georgii.

Nec non deliberaverunt quod prior eligat tres, qui sint cum domino Alberto Aringherio operario et habeant liberam auctoritatem et postestatem locandi ipsum Franciscum Georgii in operibus dicte Opere et quod per ipsam Operam detur ei provisio conveniens et dicti tres una cum operaio ordinent eidem quod sit facturus in dicta opera et ecclesia non obstantibus quibuscumque. Pandolfus Angelus Palmerius Jacobus de Vannocciis.

546

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 43, folio 281r *See Chironi (1991) 481; Milanesi (II) 463; Weller 394; Zarrilli 535.

(249) April 1499 Receipt for the remainder of Francesco di Giorgio’s payment for the two bronze angels of the Duomo altar. This is appended to document of August 26, 1497.

E diè dare a dì [blank] d’aprile [1499] per la valuta di libbre ciento quaranta due ricevute da noi in tre volte, per lire cinquanta sei, soldi --- [al] centinaio, monta lire. l. LXXVIII s. VIII 1492. 18 “

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana di Siena, 718, folio 541 *See Zarrilli 534.

(250) April 10, 1499 The deputies of Montepulciano have paid Pandolfo Petrucci thirty-six lire, given to Salustio Bandini. An additional twelve ducats was paid to Francesco di Giorgio, for the expense of his travel from Siena to Urbino.

Per parte deli sei sopra Montepulciano deputati, pagate voi camerlingo di Bicherna lire trentasei dei denari a Pandolfo Petrucci, quali sono per panno [?] dato per mano di Salustio Bandini a uno che scuprì il tractato. Et più pagate a maestro Francesco di Giorgio ducati dodici quali sonno per spesa facta per lui nel ritorna da Siena a Urbino. Et che così facciate. Datum Balie, die X Aprilis 1499.

[In margin:] pro camerlingo Bicherne pro Pandolfo Petruccio pro magistro Francisco Georgii Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 989, Apotisse (March 17, 1495 – July 5, 1503), folio 90v *See Chironi (1991) 481; Iorio (285 – 286); Weller 394.

(251) April 30, 1499 Francesco di Giorgio paid upon his return from Urbino, where he had gone to advise on a fortification related to the incursions of Cesare Borgia.

Source not given *See Weller 394.

(252) June 21, 1499 Communal deliberation concerning the election of arbiters to settle a dispute between Francesco di Giorgio and the heirs of Girolamo dell’Aceto, “with whom he shares money and goods.” Paolo Vannoccio Biringuccio is among the chosen arbiters.

547

Die XXI Junii Ac etiam deliberaverunt quod Prior eligat tres qui habeant auctoritatem concordandi Franciscum Georgii cum heredibus Hieronimi alias el Aceto de denariis et bonis quos habet habere a dictis heredibus ut eis videbitur, et in presenti materia habeant plenam auctoritatem Bartolommeus Thommasius, Laurentius Donatus et Paulus Vannoccii.

[In left margin:] pro magistro Francisco Georgii

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 45, Deliberazioni (March 26, 1499 – March 24, 1500), folio 38v *See Iorio (286)

(253) September 24, 1499 The Balìa decides that the Opera Metropolitana is to pay Francesco di Giorgio the additional amount of 594 lire, 8 soldi and 8 denari for the salary owed to him for the bronze angels. Pandolfo Petrucci and Angelo Palmieri are authorities on the decision.

Pro magistro Francisco Georgii. Vide pro auctoritate sub die VII inuarii 1498. Die dicta [23/24 settembre 1499] Pandolfus Petruccius, Angelus Palmerius deliberaverunt quod camerarius Opere solvat et solver teneatur magistro Francisco Georgii libras 594, solidos 8, denarius 8, que sunt pro salario angelorum locatorum dicto magistro Francisco.

Pro magistro Francisco Georgii. Per parte de la Balia pagate voi camarlingo dell’Opera a maestro Francesco di Giorgio lire cinquecento novanta quatro, soldi otto e denari 8; quali sonno per parte di suo salario de la locatione factali de li apostoli [angeli], et che così facciate. Datum Balie die XXIIII septembris 1499.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 44, Deliberazioni, folios 92v & 98v *See Chironi (1991) 481; Weller 394; Zarrilli 535.

(254) September 27, 1499 Francesco di Giorgio’s final payment – 1,442 lire, 18 soldi – for the two bronze angels he executed for Siena’s Duomo.

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio ingiegniere dé dare lire millequatrociento quaranta due, soldi diciotto per tante posto debbi avere in questo, foglio 541. l. MCCCCXLII s. XVIII d. –

E dé dare sino a dì XXVII di settembre 1499 lire cinqueciento novanta quarto, soldi otto, denari 8, come conno a uscita di Girolamo Turamini nostro camarlengo, foglio 36. l. DLXXXXIIII s. VIII d. 8 ------[Somma] 2027.6.8 “

548

Archivio dell’Opera Metropolitana, 718, folio 558 *See Chironi (1991) 481; Zarrilli 535.

(255) July 1500 Francesco di Giorgio’s tax report for 1500. He declares to have assests worth 435 lire.

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio ingiegniere, Lire 435 1. 0 s. 0 d. III1/4

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 359, Preste (1500), folio 48r *See Iorio 286.

(256) May 21, 1501 Francesco di Giorgio is appointed commissioner to the Illustrious Lord Prefect.

Magister Franciscus Georgii apud Illustrissimum Dominum Prefectum constitutus est commissarius pro evitanda peste absque etc.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 417, Copialettere, folio 66r *See Chironi (1991) 481; Romagnoli (IV) 915.

(257) May 27, 1501 Francesco di Giorgio is given permission to live outside of Siena on his country property.

Magistro Francisco Georgii ingenerio scripum est qualiter absque aliqua exceptione omnino sistat.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 417, Copialettere, folio 71v *See Chironi (1991) 481; Weller 394.

(258) June 28, 1501 Record of payments made on behalf of Cesare Borgia (Duke Valentino). This likely refers to preparations for Borgia’s siege of Piombino, supported by Pandolfo Petrucci, which began in late-June 1501. Francesco di Giorgio is listed among those who assisted in the “field.”

Per parte dela Balìa pagate voi camerlingo di Bicherna et mettete a vostre spese le infrascripte somme e qualità di denari spesi in causa del Duca Valentino, et ultimamente per la repubblica senese; et che così facciate et exequiate etc. Die 28 Junii 1501. [....] Mo Franco di Giorgio mandato in campo ducati dieci [....]

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 989, Apostisse (March 17, 1495 – July 5, 1503), folio 155r/v *See Iorio (287)

549

(259) June 28, 1501 Francesco di Giorgio is included in a long list of individuals received payment from the Balìa for their service on behalf of Duke Valentino, Cesare Borgia.

Mo Franco georgii per suo itinere in castris ducat decem.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 47, Deliberazioni, folio 36v *See Chironi (1991) 481; Romagnoli (IV) 915.

(260) November 13, 1501 Francesco di Giorgio receives payment of 150 lire, paid using funds from the Communal tax on bread, for the city’s use of his oven.

Per parte dela Balia pagate voi Guido Palmieri compratore delle Gabelle del pane vendareccio ai forne di Giorgio architettor lire cento cinquanta per parte di sua provisione. Et che cosi facciata dal balia die xiii Novembro M.D.J.

[In margin:] pro Guidonis Palmerio & mo Franciso Georgii

Per parte dela Balia accendate creditor noi compratore & scriptor di Gabella Guido Palmieri di lire cento cinquanta per tanti che lui ha pagati ai Francesco di Giorgio per polire [?] di balia & le gabelle del pane. Et che cosi facciate dal Balie die xxiii Novembre. M . D. J.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 989, Apostisse (March 17, 1495 – July 5, 1503), folio 165v

(261) November 13, 1501 Francesco di Giorgio receives payment of 150 lire. Although not specified, this undoubtedly relates to the previous document regarding the use of his oven.

Die XIII Novembris Guido Palmerius solvit magistro Francisco Georgii ingegnerio libras centum quiquantaginta de denariis cabelle panis vendarecci.

Camerarius et scriptor cabelle accendat creditorem Guidonis Palmerius de libras centum quinquaginta solutis pro eum magistro Francisco Georgii de denariis panis vendarecci.

[In margin:] pro magistro Francisco Georgii pro Guidonis Palmieri

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 47, Deliberazioni (March 28, 1501 – March 23, 1502), folio 89v *See Chironi (1991) 481; Iorio 287; Romagnoli (IV) 914.

550

(262) November 29, 1501 Record of the death of Francesco di Giorgio.

Mastro Francesco di Giorgio ingegniere fu sepolto alli 29 di Novembre sotto le volte nella sua sepoltura a hore venti-due cuius anima in pace requiescat.

Registro delle tumulazioni, Covento dell’Osservanza (1457 – 1687), folio 4 *See Chironi (1991) 481; Papini 300; Weller 395.

(263) December 10, 1501 Audit of Buonaventura d’Antonio and his brothers which shows that Francesco di Giorgio received 87 lire, 13 soldi, 8 denari for his work assisting at the Fonte di Follonica between April 1493 and May 1499, the period in which Buonaventura d’Antonio and his brothers were operai of the bottini.

Item, troviamo a uscita di decti Buonaventura et fratelli, pagati a maestro Francesco di Giorgio, ingegniere di Follonica et per lui a Pietro di ser Mariano – 87 libr., 13 sol., 8 den.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Regolatori delle Ragioni (1488 – 15061), folio 248v *See Chironi (1991) 481; Weller 395.

(264) December, 1501 Inventory of items found in Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s house on the piazza San Giovanni at the time of his death in December 1501.

In nomine Domini Amen. Hec est description seu futurum inventarium omnium bonorum mobilium existentium in domo heredum Francisci Georgii et dictorum heredum sita Senis in T.S.C. et populi Scti. Iohannis, descriptum per me Antonium Ludovici de Docis, notarium et coadjuvantum curie pupillorum.

In prima in sala Una credenzeria quasi nuova. Uno paio di capi fuochi con 3 vergoni. Una catena et uno paio di molli. 13 sedie di stianccie II [2] sedie di legnio da uprire et serrare Una tavolaza da mangiare Duo banchere Uno rifrescatoio di terra bello 3 piattelletti di terra begli 4 scudelle de maiolicha Uno mortaio et una padella Uno libro di Sancto Girolamo con le tavole

In camera

551

Una letteriera dipenta. Uno letto vergaro di piuma Uno matarazo et uno sachone Una colma biancha Uno panno biancho Una trabacha et uno pezzo di tenda Uno paio di lenzuola Duo capezali Una camicia di lana Una camicia Una gonneletta senza maniche Uno cappello di velluto anticho Uno scaldaletto di rame Uno capucciaio di legno Duo scigatoii 4 goffani Una lucernaia Una madonnuccia XI libre d’accia grossa biancha 4 libre d’accia fina, sottile et mezzana

In prima altra stanza Uno fortiere dipento con scripture Duo spalliere riuse Uno paiuolo Uno caldaroncello Dua banche Una sedia bucharata da malati Duo conche da bochata Due sedie grandi

In prima camera di sopra Una lectiera di penta anticha Uno letto di piuma et uno matarazo Uno capezale 5 5 guancialetti sfordarati Uno sachone Uno quadro dipinto bello con taberaculo messo a [o]ro Una tavoletta da riscapare Una sedia con capucciaio dipenta anticha Una coltre dipinta biancha 4 lenzuole use Una tela bambagina invermichata Uno pezo di tenda Uno lenzuolo uso Una tovaglia vecchia

552

Duo tovagliolini mezani 3 coppi da oglio 3 pomini da sparbiere Duo gerlle X pezzi di rama fra scudelle e scudellini Duo goffani dipenti 3 goffani dinanzi a letto Una rosta di pani pavoni Uno scannello di legnio 4 libre di lino concio Una letiera dipenta usa Uno sachone riuso Uno capezale uso Uno matarazo uso [folio 2v] Duo goffanetti di legnio Una bolgetta Una coltre biancha Uno vaso di rame Una sedia con bracciuoli di legno Una mi[s]cirobba di stagno 4 libri con tavole plinio et altri libri Un quadro con una nostra donna Una saccuccia di panno lino X libre d’accia sottile cucita Una sachuccia di panno lino con lino da pezuole di libre 3 Duo quadri disegnati Uno libro di donna miniato fornito dargiento Uno capellaio da sparbiere Una paniera Una altra paniera cuperchiata Una carta disegniata della guerra et della pacia Una segarella a una mano Uno fortiere grande Una campana da distillare Dua cassettine Una culla et uno paio di treppieri Una lectiera in pezi vechia Duo targoni vechi Una padella grande Uno paiuolo ragnuolo bandone e l’agresto

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Curia del Placito, 649: 1503 *See Nevola 78 – 79.

553

(265) February 9, 1502 Sienese officials of the Court of Orphans charge Agnese, Francesco di Giorgio’s widow, to pay a 10 lire fine.

Domini Judex et Sapientes [Pupillorum] visa inobedientia uxoris magistri Francisci Georgii videlicet domine… [Agnetis]…. et habita – relatione citationis cum cedula et sine cedula pluries, deliberaverunt ipsam condemnare in libr: X. decem denariorum, et mandaverunt eidem precipi denuo, quod debeat coram eis comparere personaliter, cum comminatione quad amovebitur ab omni administratione.

Source not given *See Chironi (1991) 481 – 482; Milanesi (II) 466; Weller 395.

(266) March 5, 1502 Francesco di Giorgio’s daughter Lucrezia marries notary from Urbino.

Ser Johannes Francisci olim Bernardini Balloncini notarius de Urbino, titulo donationis propter nuptias – dedit domine Lucretie filie olim magistri Francisci Georgii pictoris et magistri ingegneris [sic] de Senis etc.

Archivio de’ Contratti di Siena, Libro delle Tutele tra i rogiti di ser Mariano Benucci *See Weller 395.

(267) May 10, 1502 Francesco di Giorgio’s widow Agnese – “relicte Francisi Georgii” – is fined 10 lire for the expense of the inventory and other things.

Archivio de’ Contratti di Siena, Libro delle Tutele tra i rogiti di ser Mariano Benucci *See Milanesi II 466; Weller 395.

(268) 1502 Account of Francesco di Giorgio’s outstanding loans (preste), which are referenced according to their page number in other record books.

+ Santo Giovanni

Maestro Francesco di Giorgio ingiegnere, 2 stelle, carte 141 1.1.s.4d.0 E per la presta de’ Re di Francia, 2 stelle, carte 329 1.0s.18d.0 E per la presta de’Chigi, ’96, a tre stelle, carte 11 1.0s.18d.0 E per la presta delli Spannocchi, ’96, a tre stelle 1.0s.12d.0 E per la presta de’ 5 banchi, a tre stelle, carte 220 1.1s.4d.0

554

E per la presta di Bicherna, a tre stelle, carte 348 1.1s.16d.0 ______1.6.12 Anne dati lire sei soldi dodici, achordò Giovanni Francesco Bartalutti masaio, e per lui a Prosparo, in questo a carte 111 1. 6. 12

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 266, Preste (1502 – 1506), folio 34v *See Iorio 287 – 288.

(269) 1502 Francesco di Giorgio’s lira report for 1502. His assests are valued at 425 lire.

Mo Franco di Giorigo ingengiere, lire 425 ----- l. 0 s. 0 d. III1/4 Poste a stratto [?], a foglio 25, col quarto la metà. A stratto [?] col quarto, l’altra metà, foglio....[?]

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Lira 361, Preste (1502), folio 35r *See Iorio 288.

(270) July 24, 1505 The Balìa orders that new ornaments are not made in the Duomo before the apostles are completed and placed in the columns following the design of Francesco di Giorgio.

Deliberaverunt quod in Ecclesia cathedrali non possit fieri nullum aliud ornamentum denuo, quin prius fiant et perficiantur Apostoli enei ad columnas secundum designum Francisci Georgii; et tres eligantur per priores qui habeant auctoritatem, quantam habet collegium Balìe in prohibendo quod non fiat contra predictum, et sint cum Cozarello aut cum aliis similibus, et faciant pretium dictorum Apostolorum, quod pretium approbetur per collegium et procuretur saluti opere.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 51, Deliberazioni, folio 48r *See Chironi (1991) 482; Weller 396.

(271) October 11, 1505 The realization of the bronze apostles for the Duomo of Siena, based on the designs of Francesco di Giorgio, are entrusted to be executed by Jacopo Cozzarelli

Die XI Octobris MDV. Spectatissimi viri tres de collegio Balìe supra Opere Ecclesie cathedralis electi et deputati, vigore eorum auctoritatis – locaverunt Jacobo Cozarello ad fabricandum apostolos eneos per sculturam in Ecclesia cathedrali, secundum designum unius fabricati per Franciscum Georgij, pro pretio florenorum octigentorum de libris quatuor pro quolibet floreno, et apostolo quolibet; et de pretio basis, et posititionis et locationis in columnis, et de basamentis, sit plene remissum dictis tres.

555

Presente dicto magistro Jacopo, et acceptante. Actum in domo et camera magnifici Pandolfi de Petruccijs, Senis, coram Antonio Barileo, et Ventura ser Juliani testibus.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 51, Deliberazioni, folio 75v *See Chironi (1991) 482; Weller 396.

(272) June 23, 1506 It is decided that the choir of the Duomo is to be removed, and that the chapel under the main altar is to be reconstructed, according to a design provided by Francesco di Giorgio.

MDVI. 23 Iunii. Deliberaverunt, attenta remotione chori ecclesie cathedralis, quod est necessarium ad maiorem ornatum dicte ecclesie et commoditatem cleri pro divinis, quod fiat capella post altare maius secundum modellum magistri Francisci Georgii, addendo et minuendo prout eis videbitur conveniens, quod dicti tres faciant et construent et edificent et ornent convenientur, et in predictis habeant auctoritatem.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balìa 52, Deliberazioni, folio 59r *See Chironi (1991) 482; Weller 396.

(273) 1508 Francesco di Giorgio’s son Guido dies.

Source not given. *See Milanesi II 465; Weller 396.

(274) June 18, 1508 An account which notes Francesco di Giorgio’s visit to Loreto (c. 1500) to examine structural defects of the vaults of the cupola of the city’s basilica. He is said to have left designs for the vaults, as well as for the city’s defenses and aqueducts.

Sanctissimo domino nostro pape. Sanctissimo ac beatissimo domino nostro. Beatissime pater. Scripsi allimisi passati alla vostra Santità la necessita et lo bisogno era aqui de mastro Bramante, ora supplico quello medesimo maxime per essere forniti li tre puntuni sive sporunj se havevano affare et conducti da menare acqua: che montano circha dumilia ducati di oro secundo ho facto sgrossare secondo lo desegno et modello facto da mastro Francesco da sena et confermato per mastro Bramante. Ceterum volendo vostra Santità se habbia ad fabbrichare secondo piu diffusamente scrivo al prefato mastro Bramante et allauditore della camera al quale anche del bisogno del denaro per pagare la magestranza et la provisione de novo da venire et fare la recolta et altri bisogni de casa.

Apresso la bolla facta per vostra Santità tucta via se vene mectendo inexucutione et omne persona ne ha pigliato piacere et alegreza grandissima maxime lipilligrinj, che donde pagavano uno carlino per pasto è ordinato ne pagano se non uno grosso et così se observa con satisfactione grande de omne persona et laude et comendatione de vostra Santità

556

quam Deus conservaret ad vota. Cuius Sanctissimis pedibus me et hanc domum Laurentanam cum tota familia humilissime commendo. Ex edibus Alme Virginis de Laureto, die 18 junij 1508.

Et vestre Beatitudinis. Humilis servulus Dominicus Sebastolus ecclesie Lauretane gubernator.

Recanati, Casa Leopardi, Manoscritti di cose recanatesi per Loreto *See Chironi (1991) 481; Dechert, “The Military Architecture of Francesco di Giorgio in Southern Italy” 166; Fiore "La citta felice di Loreto” 38 – 40; F. Grimaldi, ed. La Basilica della Santa Casa di Loreto: indagini archeologiche, geognostiche e statiche (Ancona: Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architettonici delle Marche, 1986): 208 – 209; Papini 186, 299.

(275) July 21, 1509 Inheritance record. Francesco di Giorgio’s daughters Cornelia, Lucrezia, and Maddalena take possession of their late father’s property at San Giorgio a Papaiano.

Anno Domini MDVIIII, indictione XII, die vero XXI Iulii.

Alexander Iohannis de Britiis, ut maritus et legitimus administrator domine Cornelie sue uxoris et filie quondam magistri Francisci Georgii et ut ipsius procurator et procuratorio nomine, et ser Iohannesfranciscus Bernardini de Urbino, ut maritus et legitimus administrator domine Lucretie sue uxoris et filie dicti Francisci Georgii et ut ipsius procurator et procuratorio nomine; ac etiam dicti Alexander et ser Iohannesfranciscus ut procuratoers et procuratorio nomine domine Magdalene, sororis dictarum eorum uxorum dictis nominibus ut heredibus dicti magistri Francisci, earum quondam patris, ceperunt tenutam et corporalem possessionem unius possessionis cum domo in ea existenti, que remansit in hereditate dicti quondam magistri Francisci, site infra Massam Senarum, in Comuni Sancti Georgii Papaiani, infra suos fines etc., accipiendo pessulum dictarum [sic] et aperiendo hostium et intrando in domibus et execundo et claudendo hostium et accipiendo de glebis terre et ramis arborum et de uvis seu agrestis vitium, et ceteros actus faciendo que in similibus et in aprehendendo tenutam requiruntur. Et hoc omni meliori modo etc. Rogantes etc.

Actum in dicta possessione, coram et presentibus Francisco et Galgano Antonii de Sancto Giorgio Papaiani et Bernardino Niccolai Sachi de dicto loco, laboratoribus terrarum, testibus etc. Ego Dinus Chrisofori Dini, notarius de Senis, ragatus subscripsi.

[In left margin:] Aprehensio tenute pro filiabus magistri Francisci Georgii.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Notarile 1088, Ser Dino di Cristoforo Dini (1501 – 1509), document 490

557

*See Iorio 288 – 289.

(276) 1509 Francesco di Giorgio’s house in the Piazza San Giovanni is sold to Sebastiano di Domenico da Cortona (an attendant to Pandolfo Petrucci).

Archivio di Stato in Siena, Denunciations of contracts, vol. 33 *See Weller 397.

(277) 1513 A deposition in a lawsuit between Agnese, Francesco di Giorgio’s widow, and her brother-in-law, Giovan Francesco de’ Balloni of Urbino, with reference to the death of Francesco di Giorgio at San Giorgio a Pappaiano. It is strange that the reference is uncertain as to whether he died 8 or 10 years prior.

[...] dice che Francesco di Giorgio otto o dieci anni fa mori nella sua possession nel comune di S. Giorgio a Pappaiano luogo detto Volta a Fighille.

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Atti pupillari *See Weller 397.