Donatello's bronze "David" and the question of foreign versus domestic tyranny

Author(s): Roger J. Crum

Source: Renaissance Studies , DECEMBER 1996, Vol. 10, No. 4 (DECEMBER 1996), pp. 440-
450
Published by: Wiley

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24412304

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Renaissance
Studies

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Renaissance Studies Vol. 10 No. 4

Donatello's bronze David and the question of

foreign versus domestic tyranny
Roger J. Crum

Plate 1 Donatello, David Florence, Bargello (photo credit: Florence, Kunsthistorisches Institut)

© The Society for Renaissance Studies, Oxford University Press

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 441

Several years ago in the pages of this jo

his response to the wealth of interpretat
on Donatello's bronze David (plate l).1 To
delight (I would think) of many others,
needed in the present state of studies is
can embrace, and indeed can even encou
the David'. Certainly Ames-Lewis' overtu
made in the interest of encouraging an
variously grounded in historical evidenc
the most important part of his article, t
outset the statue may even have been int
terpretations. On one level, the presen
interest of offering yet another, possible
as a warning against the ills of domestic
important level, this article offers eviden
that multiplicity and even ambiguity wer
Medici in commissioning works of art t
clarity of meaning. Thus, in the spirit o
presented as a new contribution to a deb
beyond these pages.3
The issue of tyranny and Donatello's Da
scription that once accompanied the stat
of the Medici Palace:

In domo magnifici Fieri Medicis sub Davide eneo

Victor est quisquis patriam tuetur
Frangit immanis Deus hostis iras
En puer grandem domuit tiramnum
Vincite cives

(The victor is whoever defends the

fatherland. God crushes the wrath of an
enormous foe. Behold! a boy overcame a
great tyrant. Conquer, o citizens!)
F. Ames-Lewis, 'Donatello's bronze David and the Palazzo Medici courtyard', Renaiss Stud 3, no.
3 (1989), 235-51. I would like to thank Francis Ames-Lewis, Robin Crum, Jonathan Davies, Arthur
Field, Dale Kent, John Paoletti, David Wilkins and Sean Wilkinson for their helpful advice during
the preparation of this article.
This issue of the Medici and their concern regarding domestic tyranny is derived in part from
a larger project on the Medici palace, political memory and Florentine politics that I am preparing
for^publication.
In embracing Ames-Lewis' support for multiplicity of readings, my intent here is not to pro
vide a review or critique of previous scholarship on the David other than to examine the most recent
political interpretation of the statue on the theme of tyranny. For summaries of various interpreta
tions of the statue, see, in addition to Ames-Lewis' article cited above, H. W. Janson, The Sculpture
of Donatello, 2nd edn (Princeton, N.J., 1963), 77-86; F. Ames-Lewis, 'Art history or stilkritik? Donatello's
bronze David reconsidered', Art Hist, 2 (1979), 139-55; V. Herzner, 'David Florentinus II. Der Bronze
David Donatellos im Bargello', Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 24 (1982), 63-142; D. G. Wilkins and
B. A. Bennett, Donatello (Oxford, 1984), 217-19, 232; J. Pope-Hennessy, Donatello (New York and
London, 1993), 147-55; and C. L. Baskins, 'Donatello's bronze David: Grillande, Goliath, Groom?',
Stud Icon, 15 (1993), 113-34.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 442 Roger J. Crum

This inscription was first noted by Paul O

the Biblioteca Corsini (Rome), and a slight
replacing 'immanis') was published by Cec
poems and inscriptions in the Bodleian
the Bodleian manuscript - and presumabl
tains - was Gentile Becchi (b. circa 1420-3
scholar and bishop of Arezzo, was from
Giuliano de' Medici.5 Working from both
Grayson proposed that the items in Becc
placed together, in roughly chronologi
Grayson did not propose a specific date f
it may date to 1466 since it is positioned
poems rather securely datable to that yea
was inadvertently complicated by Christin
copy of the inscription, identical to the C
in the Biblioteca Riccardiana (Florence).7
of Grayson's publication and thus indepe
origin and dating of the inscription that
clusions in relation to Gentile Becchi. Yet
important article - which provides the o
tion in the Donatello literature - should n
requires further consideration is her disc
scription, and the problem raised therein
The Riccardiana document published b
between 1466 and 1469, states that Donatello's statue was located at Piero
de' Medici's house. There is no evidence in this document, or elsewhere, that
Piero was Donatello's patron or that the Medici palace was the statue's
original location. This is important because Becchi's authorship of the
Donatello inscription does not itself indicate that the inscription accom
panied a newly commissioned statue. Sperling proposed that it was probably
Cosimo de' Medici who commissioned the statue, perhaps for the sala grande
of the first Medici palace, and that statue and inscription date to 1428 or
shortly thereafter. Two of Sperling's ideas led to this conclusion: (1) the

4 P. O. Kristeller, Iter italicum, 2nd edn (London, 1967), 115; C. Grayson, 'Poesie latine di Gentile
Becchi in un codice bodleiano', in Studi qfferti a Roberto Ridolfi, ed. B. Maracchi Biagiarelli and D.
E. Rhodes (Florence, 1973), 285-303.
5 For Becchi, see C. Grayson, 'Gentile Becchi', Dizionario biografico degli italiani, 7 (1965), 491-3.
6 The Donatello inscription is item 38 in the manuscript. While item 37, a verse referring to
Carlo de' Medici is undatable, item 36 is a poem that refers to Lucrezia Tornabuoni's illness of 1466
and item 39 is another poem that addresses a wedding between the Medici and Pitti families that
occurred that same year.
7 C. M. Sperling, 'Donatello's bronze "David" and the demands of Medici polities', Burlington,
134 (1992), 218-24.
8 Most recently, in a study devoted primarily to Donatello's Judith and Holofernes, Francesco
Caglioti published a summary of the various archival sources for the David inscription. See F. Caglioti,
'Donatello, i Medici e Gentile de' Becchi: un po' d'ordine intorno alla 'Giuditta' (e al 'David') di Via
Larga. I', Prospettiva, nos. 75/76 (1994), 14-49.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 443

author noted a similarity between the w

tion and 'Vincite fortes' that appear as a ref
of a poem by Francesco Fidelfo that a
Medici, and (2) she held that the inscription
enemy and the references to the citizen
struggle assume their most natural plac
flict'. Sperling then argued that the ver
that Filelfo wrote upon the return of
regaining lost favour with his former p
with the Medici was then in poor shape
was based on the inscription and not vic
assumption that the 'most natural place
text of a military conflict', she identified t
the war between Florence and Milan, as t
treaty was arranged by Cosimo's paterna
when Cosimo himself served as prior, S
David was commissioned 'to celebrate th
imperialistic Visconti'. She supported th
stylistic dating of the statue early in Don
quent argument that the statue arose in
of the 1420s.9 Addressing an earlier c
Donatello's work through stylistic analy
terpretation of the David in relation to
early date of 1428-30 for the statue and dem
evidence in establishing the chronology
The greater part of Sperling's interpre
of the Donatello inscription to Filelfo'
correct to identify the verse of the inscrip
phant, both characteristics of Filelfo's poem
'Vincite cives' of the inscription and 'Vin
coincidental.11 And of course Gentile Be
manuscript is sufficient in itself to enc
between the inscription and Filelfo's poe
step towards an interpretation of the in
will take us at once beyond the Visco
chronological frame of Florentine foreig
1430s.

On a literal level, the inscription celebrates the biblical triumph of a boy

over a great tyrant, but the identification of a specific, Quattrocento tyranny
Janson, The Sculpture of Donatello (1963), 77; idem, 'La signification politique du David en bronze
de Donatello', Rev Art, 39 (1978), 33-8.
10 For the challenge to stylistic dating of Donatello's David, see Ames-Lewis, 'Art history or
stilkritikT, 139-55.
11 Along the lines of Sperling's analysis, Pope-Hennessy (.Donatello, 155) has suggested that the
verse is in a meter derived from the Odes of Horace. An examination of the Odes reveals that the
similarity is strictly one of meter and not of quotation or general content.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
444 Roger J. Crum

was at the heart of Sperling's interpretati

of tyranny, scholars of Florentine Renaissa
Baron's discussion of the problem in his m
Italian Renaissance: Civic Humanism and Republ
and Tyranny.1* In this work Baron traced
approached tyranny primarily as a foreign
rent Milanese threat to Florentine liberty
fifteenth centuries. It was not long before
ship between political developments and hu
Frederick Hartt to develop a related expla
revolutionary character of public statuary
cento.13 As in Hartt's discussion of thi
Baron's scholarship and her discussion o
established the extra-Florentine orientatio
ny, Donatello's bronze David and its inscri
Sperling's interpretation was perhaps too
statue and inscription could have arisen on
victory. Except for the allusion to a boy's vict
a reference to David and Goliath, the in
tion of a military engagement. Since Q
regarded foreign oppression as one manifes
ment with an external power mày indeed
tion. 'It would take too long', as Alamanno
De libertate of 1479, 'to list all the tyrants
have fought.'14 Despite this disclaimer, Ri
of these oppressors, giving the modern rea
perhaps not a year in which the Florentin
their liberty against some foreign tyrant.
together David and the Florentines did
foreign foes. David's tyrannical enemies c
nal, as the strongly anti-Medicean signifi
1504 makes clear.15 In the period after
pulsion in 1494, the Florentines definitely
Piero but the whole Medici family and its
the expulsion of the Medici, the official r
1494 to establish the new Great Council tri
is now defunct and every one desires libe
2 vols., Princeton, N.J., 1955; revised, one-volume ed
F. Hartt, 'Art and freedom in Quattrocento Florence',
York, 1964), 114-31; reprinted in Modern Perspectives in W
tury Writings on the Visual Arts, ed. W. E. Kleinbauer
R. N. Watkins (tr. and ed.), Humanism and Liberty: Wri
Florence (Columbia, S.C., 1978), 208.
15 For the anti-Medicean significance of Michelange
Michelangelo's David: the meeting of January 25, 1504'
16 N. Rubinstein, 'Florentine constitutionalism and M
Florentine Studies: Politics and Society in Renaissance Flo

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 445

In much the same spirit, the Signoria d

little over a month after it transferred Do
Judith and Holofernes from the Medici pal
scription on Cosimo's tomb in S. Lorenzo,
be demolished because 'talis tale titulum n
In this same period, with clear referenc
Savonarola warned Florentines of domesti
constitution and government of Florence
The accusation of tyrannical behaviour o
levelled much earlier against Cosimo Pa
Giovanni Cavalcanti, writing about 1440 in re
indicated that he had long held the view
replace the constitutional government
history, as he registered displeasure with
tions of 1444, Cavalcanti wrote of the 'tyr
criticized the regime's Accoppiatori as 'ten ty
whomever they wanted, and not whom t
three decades later, in addition to his cast
cini took up the theme of Medici domestic ty
is perhaps the most vehement and mercile
written by a contemporary, Rinuccini ide
Florence' as he enumerated the leader's
liberty and republican institutions.21

E, Müntz, Les collections des Médicis au XV' siècle (Pa

quod inscriptio sepulchri Cosme de Medicis in ede Sanct
cuius talis est titulus: Cosimae Medici patri patriae: omnin
sed potius tirannus.'
18 Watkins, Humanism and Liberty, 231-60; D. Weinst
Patriotism in the Renaissance (Princeton, 1970), 289-316
work conceived from a position of political detachment
the invitation of the Florentine Signoria.
19 G. Cavalcanti, Istorie florentine, ed. F. Polidori (Flo
più essere certo se il mio credere era d'accordo col su
quello che ne credevo, e com' egli mi pareva che nell
e no politico vivere, che fuori del palagio si amministr
che mi fu data col mio credere fu d'accordo, dicendo c
era più governato alle cene e negli scrittoi, che nel Pala
pochi al governo. La qual cosa mi parve assai chiara ch
mali nella Repubblica di si abbominevole audacia.'
20 Cavalcanti, Istorie, 2, 193: 'Segnati questi cosi fatti cit
nuovo squittino, e tirannesco modo di reggimento: e fec
dieci tiranni), i quali tanto bastasse la si abominevole au
squittino; e che, innanzi che la pubblica tratta si facesse
a sedere negli alti seggi di magistrato... Questi [Accop
il popolo aveva ordinato: e non bisognava fare nuovo squ
nesco mode di reggimento.' The Accoppiatori were off
names should be placed in the election bags for the Sig
pact on Florentine politics after 1434, see N. Rubinstein,
(1434 to 1494) (Oxford, 1966), 30-52 and passim.
21 Watkins, Humanism and Liberty, 221.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 446 Roger J. Crum

The charges of Cavalcanti and Rinuccini, Savonarola and the anti

Mediceans of 1494 and 1495 fall within the context of the greater medieval
and Renaissance conception of tyranny as rule against right reason and
law.22 More particularly, Florentine humanists defined tyranny as stemming
from private appropriation and exploitation of public power. In his De tiranno
of 1400, Coluccio Salutati argued that 'a tyrant is one who rules a state without
the forms of law (non jure)', and that, 'everyone who rules arrogantly (superbe)
exercises a tyranny of his own sort'.21 Salutati's definition clearly identifies
tyranny as a problem on the domestic front, and it would later stand as much
behind the political philosophy of Leonardo Bruni as did the Milanese threat
to Florentine liberty. In the Laudatio of the city of Florence (1403-4), Bruni
held that the Republic's internal liberty was preserved and tyranny avoided
because supreme power was vested in a board of nine peers that changed
every two months.24 For Bruni, this practice and the entire Florentine love
of liberty had their roots in the city's founding as a colony during the Roman
Republic. This founding occurred^ during a period when the Romans 'suf
fered no harm from any foreign state'; it was also at a time before

the Caesars, the Antonines, the Tiberiuses, the Neros - those plagues and
destroyers of the Roman Republic - had not yet deprived the people of
their liberty. Rather, still growing there was that sacred and untrampled
freedom that, soon after the founding of the colony of Florence, was to
be stolen by those vilest of thieves. For this reason I think something has
been true and is true in this city more than in any other; the men of
Florence especially enjoy perfect freedom and are the greatest enemies
of tyrants.25

Through this analogy to both the victory and the defeat of the Roman
Republic, Bruni made his contemporary audience aware that tyranny could
arise as much from Florentine as from foreign sources. Despite this frank
admission, he did not soon let up in his celebration of Florentine liberty
and would later return strongly to the theme. In his Oration for the Funeral
ofNanni Strozzi (1428), Bruni again praised the 'popular constitution' of the
Florentines and indicated that as a people 'We do not tremble beneath the
rule of one man who would lord it over us, nor are we slaves to the rule

22 R. G. Witt, 'The rebirth of the concept of republican liberty in Italy', in Renaissance Studies in
Honor of Hans Baron, ed. A. Molho and J. A. Tedeschi (Dekalb, 111., 1971), 175-99. For an excellent
summary of medieval thought, political art and the domestic problem of tyranny, see R. Starn and
L. Partridge, Arts of Power, Three Halls of State in Italy, 1300-1600 (Berkeley, Calif., 1992), 11-59.
23 R. G. Witt, Hercules at the Crossroads: The Life Works, and Thought of Coluccio Salutati (Durham,
N.C., 1983), 378.
24 As cited in Baron, The Crisis (1966), 556, n. 19: 'Sed ne ipsi legum vindices in summa potestate
constituti arbitrari possint non custodiam civium sed tyrannidem ad se esse delatam, et sic, dum alios
cohercent, aliquid de summa libertate minuatur, multis cautionibus provisum est. Principio enim
supremus magistratus, qui quandam vim regie potestatis habere videbatur, ea cautela temperatus
est ut non ad unum sed ad novem simul, nec ad annum sed ad bimestre tempus, deferatur.'
25 As cited in The Earthly Republic: Italian Humanists on Government and Society, ed. B. G. Kohl and
R. G. Witt with E. B. Welles (Philadelphia, Pa, 1978), 151.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatellö's bronze David 447

of a few. Our liberty is equal for all, is limite

from the fear of men.'26
However strong was Bruni's celebration of th
its anti-tyrannical and anti-oligarchical bases
fying his position in the face of political real
on the preserve of the city's republican libert
in a short treatise of the late 1430s entitled On the Florentine Constitution. In
this work, Bruni described the Florentine constitution as mixed between
democracy and aristocracy. Yet in reference to the city's growing dependence
on mercenary soldiers, Bruni further conceded that

it seemed that political power should no longer be in the multitude, but

in the hands of the aristocrats and the wealthy, because they contributed
so much to the community, and had counsel to offer in the place of arms.
Thus, as the power of the people gradually dissolved, the constitution
became established in the form which it now possesses.27
In Bruni's late assessment of the Florentine constitution and the form 'which
it now possesses', Gordon Griffiths detects an 'indication of disillusionment,
or at least of greater realism'.28 There would indeed seem to be disillusion
ment in Bruni's writing, but it probably arose less from the Florentine
dependency on foreign soldiers than from the general nature of government
in the early years of the Medici regime. As Hans Baron has suggested in rela
tion to this text,

[Bruni's] youthful proud belief in the democratic liberty of Florentine life,

which had arisen in the war for independence against Giangaleazzo and
Filippo Maria [Visconti], was daunted in the years of the Medicean
Principate. In the interpretation of Florence's constitional liberty as well
as of the libertas Italiae, sober resignation replaced the élan of the first
Quattrocento generation from the 1440s or 1450s onward.29

In point of fact, the élan of civic liberty to which Baron refers was not fully
daunted with the return of Cosimo de' Medici from exile in 1434. In his study
of Florentine politics beteen 1434 and 1494, Nicolai Rubinstein demonstrates
that the rise of the Medici was far from a foregone conclusion. On the con
trary, and at almost any point in the century, it is clear that republican
opposition to the regime was substantial and lasting.30 Given this situation,
which is strongly supported by the charges of Cavalcanti, Rinuccini and the
anti-Mediceans of the 1490s, we need not necessarily look beyond the walls of
Florence (to Milan, for instance) in order to find fears of a 'tyrannical'
situation.

The Humanism of Leonardo Bruni: Selected Texts, translated and introductions by G. Griffiths, J.
Hankins and D. Thompson (Binghamton, N.Y., 1987), 124.
v Ibid. 174.
28 Ibid. 116.
29 Baron, The Crisis (1966), 428.
30 Rubinstein, The Government of Florence, 22-9, 75-8, 91-2 and passim.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 448 Roger J. Crum

The Medici were certainly sensitive to char

have commissioned the David and had its in
to demonstrate, despite a high level of frau
republican liberty in Florence. There wa
demonstration, for doubts concerning the s
ment to the city's liberty existed before 14
onward. Yet as Dale Kent observes of Floren
and early 1430s, Cosimo de' Medici sought
stitutional rectitude in the mounting faction
the Albizzi. In fact, he went to great length
taint of factious behaviour that Florentines,
as potentially tyrannical and antithetical to
of the city.31 When in 1440 the Florent
Milanese and Florentine exiles at the battle
may have wished to draw any criticisms of t
as those then being levelled by Giovanni Cav
famanti of the 'traitorous' Rinaldo degli Albi
painted on the exterior of the Bargello.32 In
rectitude, which would emerge again when t
threatened in the 1450s and 1460s, Donatello's David could well have been
commissioned at any point in the context of a dialogue between the Medici
and their fellow, tyranny-shy citizens.33 What seems probable is that the anti
tyrannical inscription that Becchi penned for Donatello's David dates to the
troubled years of the 1460s; a more specific date of 1466 which, as suggested
above, may be warranted by its position in the Bodleian manuscript, might
well suggest that the inscription was composed either during or at the close
of the republican opposition that Luca Pitti led against Piero de' Medici
between 1465 and 1466. Yet whether or not the inscription also coincided
with the commission of the statue or simply underscored its existing mean
ing remains debatable.
Whatever the chronological relationship between statue and inscription,
it is evident that with the David the Medici answered the charge of domestic
tyranny by leading a charge of their own.34 Such a charge was definitely
mounted by one of Cosimo's humanist defenders, Francesco Patrizi of Siena,
who depicted the Medici leader as a protector of 'Roman liberty' against an
Albizzi Caesar:

31 D. V. Kent, The Rise of the Medici: Faction in Florence, 1426-1434 (Oxford, 1978). For connections
that were drawn in the late fifteenth Century associating the Medici with factionalism and tyrann
see Weinstein, Savonarola and Florence, 253, 259.
For discussion of the Bargello paintings, see J. Spencer, Andrea del Castagno and His Patrons
(Durham, N.C. and London, 1991), 7, 141-7.
For the threats to the Medici in the 1450s and 1460s, see Rubenstein, The Government of Florence
88-173.
34 A complementary interpretation of Donatello's David and Judith and Holofernes at the Medici
palace is offered in Bennett and Wilkins, Donatello, 85: 'Since the Medici were in reality controlling
the government, it seems likely that the figures were meant to serve as propaganda, publicly asser
ting those principles of republicanism the Medici were covertly eroding.'

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Donatello's bronze David 449

Ille pudicitiae libertatis quatit uerendus

Romanae Brutus, vindex ultorque tyran

Like Brutus, he, fearing for the Roman

Of Freedom, struck, the broke and tyr

Of course, to argue that Donatello's David

within the context of domestic politics wo
sion that only foreign tyranny and militar
it would be best to follow Ames-Lewis' su
the David be interpreted in a variety of w
even have been the intention of the Medic
Florentines, tyranny was a threat from force
at times the division between the two wa
Cavalcanti complained of the Medicean Acc
criticizing individuals whose role in selectin
was justified by the regime as an emergen
against foreign enemies.36 In a Pratica
Medici himself explained that the office of t
to help defend the 'libertas' of Florence; y
later, Cosimo and Otto Niccolini admitted
essential for the 'security of the present r
ing the fear of foreign tyranny, this is a jus
some credence to Cavalcanti's charge of th
tyrants'. For the Medici and their contemp
blem easily defined from various political
fined at home or abroad. In what perhaps
ambiguity, Donatello's David and its inscr
the often confusing inseparability of dom
Renaissance state.

Given the evidence presented here, it seems too limiting to argue

David and its inscription were commissioned by the Medici in sole
to a Florentine victory over a foreign foe. In addition to any forei
republican challenges to the Medici and specific charges of Medicea
after 1434 provide equally valid evidence to support an interpret
dating of Donatello's statue at various points during the formative
unstable years of the regime. It is certainly convenient when argu
the dating of Donatello's work based on stylistic analysis and those
by historical evidence produce compatible results. Yet convenience
are not always infallibly linked, and it still seems that the validity
evidence in establishing the chronology of Donatello's works shoul
under consideration. In the end we may find that Donatello's stylis
ment was as multi-dimensional, variable and situation-specific as i

As quoted inj. Hankins, 'Cosimo de' Medici as a patron of humanistic literature

'Il Vecchio' de' Medici 1389-1464, ed. F. Ames-Lewis (Oxford, 1992), 86.
36 Rubinstein, The Government of Florence, 19-24.
" Ibid. 24, 25.

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
450 Roger J. Crum

were the messages of foreign and domestic

he produced for the Medici.

University of Da

This content downloaded from

83.42.58.13 on Thu, 02 Mar 2023 17:39:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms