Practice and Theory in The... NG Art

PRACTICE AND THEORY IN THE ITALIAN
RENAISSANCE WORKSHOP
Verrocchio was arguably the most important sculptor between Donatello

and Michelangelo, but he has seldom been treated as such in art historical
literature because his achievements were quickly superseded by the artists
who followed him. He was the master of Leonardo da Vinci, but he is
remembered as the sulky teacher that his star pupil did not need. In this
book, Christina Neilson argues that Verrocchio was one of the most exper-
imental artists in fifteenth-century Florence, itself one of the most inno-
vative centers of artistic production in Europe. Considering the different
media in which the artist worked in dialogue with one another (sculpture,
painting, and drawing), she offers a novel analysis of Verrocchio’s unusual
methods of manufacture. Neilson shows that, for Verrocchio, making was a
form of knowledge and that techniques of making can be read as systems of
knowledge. By studying Verrocchio’s technical processes, she demonstrates
how an artist’s theoretical commitments can be uncovered, even in the
absence of a written treatise.
Christina Neilson is Associate Professor of Renaissance and Baroque
Art History at Oberlin College. A recipient of grants from the National
Endowment for the Humanities, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and
Villa I Tatti, the Harvard Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, among
others, she curated and wrote the catalogue for the exhibition Parmigianino’s
Antea: A Beautiful Artifice at The Frick Collection, New York.
PRACTICE AND
THEORY IN THE
ITALIAN RENAISSANCE
WORKSHOP
VERROCCHIO AND THE EPISTEMOLOGY
OF MAKING ART
CHRISTINA NEILSON
Oberlin College
university printing house, cambridge cb2 8bs, united kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne,VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India
79 Anson Road, #06-04/06, Singapore 079906
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.
It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education,
learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107172852
DOI: 10.1017/9781316779408
© Christina Neilson 2019
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of
relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without
the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2018
Printed in the United Kingdom by TJ International Ltd. Padstow Cornwall
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Neilson, Christina, author.
Title: Practice and theory in the Italian Renaissance workshop :Verrocchio and the
epistemology of making art / Christina Neilson, Oberlin College.
Description: New York : Cambridge University Press, 2019. | Includes bibliographical
references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019007309 | ISBN 9781107172852 (hardback)
Subjects: LCSH:Verrocchio, Andrea del, 1435?–1488—Criticism and interpretation. | Artists’
studios—Italy—Florence—History—15th century.
Classification: LCC NB623.V5 N45 2019 | DDC 730.92—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019007309
ISBN 978-1-107-17285-2 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs
for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication and does not
guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
Support for this publication has been provided by Furthermore: a program of the J. M. Kaplan Fund
For Sam, Takeshi and Idrisyn
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments page ix
INTRODUCTION 1
1 VERROCCHIO’S INGENUITY 35
2 VERROCCHIO’S MEDICI TOMB: ART AS TREATISE 74
3 BRIDGING DIMENSIONS: VERROCCHIO’S CHRIST
AND SAINT THOMAS AS ABSENT PRESENCE 118
4 THE SCULPTURED IMAGINATION 152
5 MATERIAL MEDITATIONS IN VERROCCHIO’S
BARGELLO CRUCIFIX 168
CONCLUSION 196
A Note on Archival Sources 199
Bibliography 201
Notes 245
Index 343
vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book would not have been written without the support of many individ-
uals and institutions. I am grateful to my dissertation advisors, Charles Dempsey
and Stephen J. Campbell, whose careful advising and inspirational example
as scholars shaped many of the ideas that went into this study, which origi-
nated in a very different PhD dissertation. Their tough questions helped me
over many intellectual hurdles. I want to thank (also from Johns Hopkins) the
late Salvatore Camporeale, Elizabeth Cropper, Henry Maguire, Walter Melion,
Carl Strehlke, Daniel Weiss, and fellow graduate students Shannon Egan, Helga
Giampiccolo, Ryan Gregg, Mandy Hockensmith, Richard Leson, Jesse Locker,
Jill Pederson, Lynette Roth, Eva Struhal, Joyce Tsai, Molly Warnock, Ittai
Weinryb, and Sanne Wellen, and especially Frances Gage, Jennifer Sliwka, and
Jannette Vusich for their insightful comments. I thank also Don Juedes and the
other librarians at the Sheridan Libraries at Johns Hopkins for their assistance
in locating many sources. I am grateful to Johns Hopkins University for three
Charles S. Singleton Fellowships at the former Center for Italian Studies,Villa
Spelman, Florence. The scholarly community at the Villa Spelman contributed
to my research in countless ways, and I have no doubt that my book would
be a much poorer product for the lack of that experience. I am thankful to
the scholars who attended the seminars and, above all, to the acting directors
of the Villa Spelman during my three semesters there: Stephen J. Campbell,
Alan Schapiro, and Walter Melion.Two Katzenellenbogen and Roth Memorial
Prizes from the Department of the History of Art, Johns Hopkins University,
enabled me to do crucial research in Europe and for that I am very thankful.
I am deeply grateful to the Mellon Foundation and The Frick Collection
for a two-year Andrew W. Mellon pre-doctoral curatorial fellowship; to
Villa I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies,
Florence, for a Rush H. Kress Fellowship; to the National Endowment for the
Humanities; and to the American Philosophical Society for a Franklin Grant,
all of which enabled me to conduct crucial research. And my thanks to Jody
L. Maxmin, Oberlin College’s office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences, and the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation for funding, and to Furthermore, a program of
the J. M. Kaplan Fund, for underwriting the costs of my images.
I would like to thank my colleagues at The Frick Collection, Oberlin
College, and Villa I Tatti for their kindness and interest in my project, which
ix
x Acknowledgments
improved my work immeasurably, especially Denise Allen, Colin Bailey, Susan

Grace Galassi, Joseph Godla, Kristel Smentek, Charlotte Vignon, and Lydia
Dufour at The Frick Collection; and Bonnie Cheng, Farshid Emami, Sarah
Hamill, John Harwood, Jamie Jacobs, Susan Kane, Diane Lee, Heath Patten,
Barbara Prior, Matthew Rarey, Joseph Romano, Pam Snyder, and Kay Spiros
at Oberlin College; the director of Villa I Tatti, Lino Pertile, and his wife,
Anna Bensted; the Assistant Director of Academic Programs, Jonathan Nelson;
and all my fellow Tattiani, especially Ilaria Andreoli, Almudena Blasco Vallés,
Montserrat Cabré, Marta Cacho Casal, Robert Colby, Roisin Cossar, Maria Del
Rio-Barredo, Filippo De Vivo, Laura Giles, Juan Luis González García, Kelley
Helmstutler Di Dio, Shona Kelly Wray, Tomaso Mozzati, and Guido Ruggiero.
Among many other friends and colleagues, I would like to thank most
particularly the following: Nicole Bensousson, Giorgio Bonsanti, David Alan
Brown, Andrew Butterfield, Joseph Connors,Yvonne Elet, Margaret Haines, Liz
Hillaire, Alex Hurd, Aden Kumler, Louise Marshall, Cecilia Martelli, Lorenza
Melli, Peta Motture, Fiorella Paino, Jacqueline Thalmann, Emer O’Dwyer,
Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi, Linda Pellecchia, Linda Pisani, Sandhya Subramanian,
Allie Terry-Fritsch, Katherine Thomson-Jones, and Alison Wright. I owe
Luca Boschetto a special debt of gratitude for generously helping me with
my research on the Ricci family in the Archivio di Stato in Florence. I thank
Jill Dunkerton, Lisa Venerosi Pesciolini, and Mari Yanagishita for discussing the
conservation of objects and their technical aspects of making with me in great
detail. Special thanks are due to Michael W. Cole, Andria Derstine, Erik Inglis,
Lauren Jacobi, Timothy McCall, Kelley Helmstutler Di Dio, Pamela H. Smith,
and an anonymous reviewer who read parts of or the entire manuscript and
offered invaluable feedback. I am indebted to all them for their insights, which
greatly improved my arguments. My sincere thanks to Alex Jones for the Latin
translations and Marta Cacho Casal, Roisin Cossar, Filippo De Vivo, and Dario
Tessicini for checking my Italian translations. For help with photographs I thank
especially Debra Pincus, Susi Piovanelli, and Lisa Venerosi Pesciolini. Warm
thanks to my editors at Cambridge, Asya Graf and especially Beatrice Rehl, and
to Sapphire Duveau, Lisa McCoy, and Indra Priyadarshini for expertly guiding
the book through production.
Finally, I would like to thank my family for their love, unflagging support
and kind interest in my work: my parents, Kathy and David Neilson, who first
inspired my love of Renaissance art; my sister, Briony Neilson, who offered
many suggestions that significantly improved the ideas in this study; and my
children, Takeshi and Idrisyn, who have brought such joy to my life. Above all,
I thank my husband, Sam Jones, who selflessly helped me through all phases of
the researching and writing of the dissertation and the book. His intellectual
acumen and thoughtful questioning of my ideas contributed greatly to the
final product. I dedicate this book to him and to my children.
Unless otherwise noted, the translations from Italian are mine.
Color Plates
Plate 1. Andrea del Verrocchio. Christ and Saint Thomas, bronze, c. 1467–83, Orsanmichele,
Florence.
Scala/Art Resource, NY.
Plate 2. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici, porphyry, marble,
and bronze, c. 1473, San Lorenzo, Florence.
Plate 3. Andrea del Verrocchio. Ideal Head of a Woman, soft black chalk, partly reworked in
pen and golden brown ink and gray wash, outlines later pricked for transfer, early 1470s, Christ
Church, Oxford, 0005.
By permission of the Governing Body of Christ Church, Oxford.
Plate 4. Andrea del Verrocchio. Crucifix, polychromed limewood, cork, stucco, and linen,
early-to-mid–1470s, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence. Su concessione del Ministero dei
beni e le attività culturali e del turismo - Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
Photo: Antonio Quattrone.
Plate 5. Andrea del Verrocchio. Crucifix, early-to-mid-1470s, Museo Nazionale del Bargello,
Florence. Detail of gessoed linen loincloth.
Su concessione del Ministero dei beni e le attività culturali e del turismo – Opificio delle Pietre Dure di
Firenze, Archivio dei Restauri e Fotografico and Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
Plate 6. Andrea del Verrocchio. Crucifix, polychromed cork and stucco, early-to-mid-1470s,
Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence. Detail of face of Christ.
INTRODUCTION
VERROCCHIO EXPERIMENTALIST
In January 1468 a group of citizens and artists assembled to discuss the appro-
priate decoration for the summit of Filippo Brunelleschi’s dome (1420–36)
of Florence’s Cathedral (Figure 1).1 A decision had already been made for
a palla (ball) to surmount the lantern (indeed, Brunelleschi’s model for the
lantern included a bronze ball and cross),2 but the choice remained about
whether it should be cast or hammered and from what material it should be
made. Minutes record that the group of prominent citizens and experts, which
included such esteemed citizens as the humanist Matteo Palmieri and Lorenzo
de’ Medici (soon to become Florence’s quasi-ruler) and the artists Luca della
Robbia, Antonio Pollaiuolo, and Andrea del Verrocchio, concluded that the
palla should be cast in one piece and on no account should it be made by ham-
mering. The group also decided that it should be made from copper as fine as
possible and alloyed with fine brass. That same month a competition was held
to determine which artist should make the palla. After models were submitted
and considered, a decision was made to give the commission to Giovanni di
Bartolomeo and Bartolomeo di Fruosino. On August 1 they cast a bronze palla,
but for unknown reasons it was deemed unacceptable and was broken up the
following year.3
Verrocchio is first mentioned as one of several contestants who submitted
models for the palla. As he is not referred to in the later document about the
casting, it seems he was an unsuccessful competitor. But shortly after the first
palla was rejected, Verrocchio was given the commission to make a second
1
2 PRACTICE AND THEORY IN THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE WORKSHOP
Figure 1. Filippo Brunelleschi. Cupola, 1420–36, Duomo, Florence.

Alinari/Art Resource, NY.
(on September 10, 1468), and he did this successfully (Figure 2).4 On May 27, 1471,
his enormous gilt copper palla (measuring about 2.35 m wide and weighing
4,368 Florentine libbre, almost 1,481 kg)5 was hoisted into place at the top
of the cupola on a crane.6 Three days later, when a bronze cross was raised
and attached to the ball, Florentines rejoiced and sang the Te Deum, as the
Florentine apothecary Luca Landucci records in his diary.7
Although the palla has been overlooked in most art historical discussions
of Verrocchio,8 Giorgio Vasari made it the centerpiece of his biography of the
artist, as a proof of the artist’s inventiveness, writing:
[Verrocchio] made [the palla] four braccia high, and positioned it on a

knob in such a way that the cross above it could be attached securely; the
finished work was put in place with great celebration and the delight of
the people. Truly great were the ingenuity and skill used in making it so
that one can enter it from below, and also in attaching it securely so that
the winds cannot damage it.9
As Vasari emphasizes,Verrocchio’s cleverness lay in particular in the engineering

of the enormous palla so that it could be positioned atop Brunelleschi’s lantern,
Verrocchio Experimentalist 3
Figure 2. After Andrea del Verrocchio. Palla, hammered copper, installed 1471; damaged, 1601,
Duomo, Florence.
Alinari Archives, Florence.
over 350 feet above the ground.Verrocchio did this by stabilizing his ball with
an internal armature and a device that connected it to a bronze knob below and
a cross above (Figure 3).10 Vasari was not the only one to recognize the impor-
tance of Verrocchio’s palla. The author of a fifteenth-century mathematics trea-
tise (probably Pier Maria Calandri) used the dimensions of the palla to explain
how to calculate the circumference and volume of a sphere, and in the late
sixteenth century, Michel de Montaigne expressed wonder at the scale of the
palla, declaring that it could fit forty men inside.11 Although Montaigne exag-
gerates, his claim reveals the wonder Verrocchio’s palla inspired in its beholders.
Verrocchio’s ingenuity consisted not only in attaching the palla to the lan-
tern but also in how it was made. Surviving documents indicate that between
August 1469 and June 1470 Verrocchio had copper sheets hammered with
wooden mallets over a stone sphere by three stone carvers (they probably also
helped in carving the sphere).12 Verrocchio had chosen the sheets of metal
personally during a special trip to Venice – the best source for copper on the
Italian peninsula – in 1469. On his journey, he also visited Treviso, a major
center in the manufacture of goods made from repoussé (hammering) in copper.
Figure 3. Andrea del Verrocchio. Palla, hammered copper. Detail (cross-section of sphere as
engraved by Bernardo Sansoni Sgrilli and published in Descrizione e studi dell’insigne fabbrica
S. Maria del Fiore, metropolitana fiorentina, in varie carte in 1733).
Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (86-B4853).
Here he would have learned valuable skills, probably through observation and
conversations with specialists.13
By summer 1470 the hammered sheets were soldered together.14 Leonardo
da Vinci, who was working in Verrocchio’s bottega (workshop) at the time of
the palla’s manufacture, wrote many years later (c. 1515): “Remember how the
soldering for the palla of Santa Maria del Fiore was done.”15 A drawing accom-
panying the note (Figure 4) demonstrates how it was achieved: it shows a
cone representing solar rays being reflected from a burning mirror onto a join
between separate pieces of metal to solder them together.16 Between August
and October 1470,Verrocchio’s palla was gilded and polished.17
The decision to make the palla using repoussé is striking, not least because
the majority of citizens and artists present at the meeting of 1468 had recom-
mended that the ball be cast and stated that it should not be made by ham-
mering.18 The choice appears to have been Verrocchio’s own, made in response
to the failure of the first palla.19 We do not know what went wrong earlier, but
probably it was not a casting error. More likely, the problem lay in the gilding.
Figure 4. Leonardo da Vinci. Ms. G, 1510–1516, fol. 71v, pencil and ink, Bibliothèque de
l’Institut de France, Paris. Detail.
Copyright. RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY/Bibliothèque de l'Institut de France, Paris.
Hammering rather than casting the ball was a clever solution on Verrocchio’s
part because beaten pure copper sheets would have lent themselves well to
mercury gilding.20
Although the palla no longer survives (it was brought to the ground by light-
ning and damaged in 1601 [modern style]), it tells us much about Verrocchio’s
approach to making in general. The palla speaks to the artist’s experimental
methods of manufacture (in using repoussé rather than casting), his facility with
acquiring new skills (learning how to do repoussé on a large scale and solder-
ing using mirrors), and his ability to meet the demanding expectations of his
patrons, all of which, as we shall see, was typical of this ingenious Florentine.
Verrocchio was arguably the most important sculptor between Donatello
and Michelangelo, and many of his works are considered groundbreaking –
most notably his Christ and Saint Thomas and Colleoni monument (Figures 5
and 6). In his Christ and Saint Thomas, Verrocchio succeeded in creating a
sculpture of unprecedented compositional complexity. Thomas, placed on
the step outside the niche, is depicted actively moving toward Christ, who is
positioned behind and above Thomas. Christ responds to Thomas’ gesture of
reaching forward by raising his arm and pulling back his robe to reveal his side
wound. This careful choreography contrasts with the tendency of sculptors up
to this point, who showed figures in more static poses, regardless of the sub-
ject.21 The Colleoni monument is equally revolutionary. Although Verrocchio
Figure 5. Andrea del Verrocchio. Christ and Saint Thomas, bronze, c. 1467–83, Orsanmichele,
Florence.
did not cast the statue himself, he was responsible for its extraordinary design.
As an equestrian monument, it surpasses its predecessors (both ancient and
Renaissance) in its sense of movement and naturalism. The horse’s raised fore-
leg and corresponding balance of the rest of its body creates a sense of move-
ment, as if the horse is in the process of stepping forward. Moreover, the horse’s
anatomy is impressive in its accuracy, such that Pomponius Gauricus declared
the horse was “denudatus” (like an ecorché – a figure shown without its skin to
reveal the musculature).22 Verrocchio designed his sculpture to be seen from
multiple viewpoints, a departure from all contemporary and ancient examples,
which were limited in the number of principal viewpoints.23
Verrocchio exerted considerable influence on artists of the following gen-
eration (many of whom probably trained with him, including Leonardo,
Sandro Botticelli, Domenico Ghirlandaio, and Pietro Perugino) and beyond.
Yet Verrocchio’s achievements have been overshadowed by those of later art-
ists, especially Leonardo, his most famous pupil. This is due in large part to
Vasari’s negative assessment of Verrocchio in his vita.Vasari tells how Leonardo
assisted on Verrocchio’s The Baptism of Christ (a painting probably executed
Figure 6. Andrea del Verrocchio. Equestrian Monument to Bartolomeo Colleoni, bronze

(formerly gilded) on a marble and Istrian pedestal with a bronze frieze, designed by Andrea
del Verrocchio, early 1480s–1488 completed by Alessandro Leopardi between 1490 and 1496,
Campo di SS. Giovanni e Paolo,Venice.
in two campaigns, one beginning c. 1468 and the other c. 1476; Figure 7),
executing the divinely illuminated turning angel on the left, so different from
the pedestrian angel beside him, painted by Verrocchio. In Vasari’s tale, when
Verrocchio first laid eyes on Leonardo’s angel, the older master threw down
his paintbrushes in frustration at the superiority of his pupil’s contribution,
never to paint again.Vasari’s topos of the older master giving up painting in the
face of greater talent is repeated many times throughout the Lives (it is told,
for instance, of Giotto and Cimabue, and Raphael and Francesco Francia)24
and thus deserves to be treated with skepticism. Furthermore, the evidence
does not support it. Inventories of Verrocchio’s workshops in Florence and
Venice drawn up after his death record ten paintings left in the workshops,25
and a document of 1485 records the near completion of a painted altarpiece
for San Zeno in Pistoia (Figure 8), a commission that had been granted to
Verrocchio.26 Although his authorship of the Pistoia painting is often doubted,
there is reason to accept at least part of it as autograph.27 Yet even today scholars
perpetuate the implication inherent in Vasari’s tale that Leonardo was a genius
who came from nowhere with an innate talent that required no teacher.28
Figure 7. Andrea del Verrocchio and workshop. Baptism of Christ, tempera and oil on panel,
1460s and 1470s, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.
Alfredo Dagli Orti/Art Resource, NY.
Figure 8. Andrea del Verrocchio and workshop. Madonna di Piazza (Pistoia altarpiece), tempera
and oil on panel, c. 1474–85 San Zeno, Pistoia.
Just as influential has been Vasari’s characterization of Verrocchio’s style

as “somewhat hard and crude, as one who acquired it rather by infinite
study than by the facility of a natural gift.”29 For Vasari, the greatest art-
ists were those who endowed their figures “with motion and breath.” To
achieve these qualities, artists observed nature and absorbed its lessons but
departed from it to invent something entirely new.30 Inherent in Vasari’s
assessment of Verrocchio, and his history of art, is a bias toward artists who
pointed the way to the style of the High Renaissance (and thus to his
own art), most notably Leonardo and Michelangelo. It was in the work of
these two artists that art, according to Vasari, came closest to nature (“truly
heavenly and admirable was Leonardo”).31 Unfortunately for Verrocchio,
Vasari’s unfavorable judgement has meant that his place in the history of
art has suffered ever since. He has been treated as a kind of buffoon (the
sulky teacher who Leonardo did not need) and an artist whose achieve-
ments were quickly superseded by the artists who followed him. The point
of this book in part, then, is to reassess Verrocchio’s accomplishments. More
importantly, it argues that Verrocchio was one of the most experimen-
tal artists in fifteenth-century Florence, itself one of the most innovative
centers of artistic production in Europe, and that the artist’s unusual prac-
tices of making had meaning.
Verrocchio worked in a wide array of media and often moved between them.
His production in sculpture alone is remarkable: he created works in bronze,
marble, wood, terracotta, and wax. This range is extraordinary, as most sculptors
are thought to have mastered the skills of only one medium. He was also a master
goldsmith and a painter.Verrocchio’s skills as a draftsman merited specific praise
from Vasari. In addition, Vasari refers to Verrocchio as an architect. Verrocchio
was not the only fifteenth-century artist to work in more than one medium;
indeed, one could argue that it was the norm.32 What is unusual is the extent
to which Verrocchio worked in different media and the frequency with which
he transferred tools and techniques from one material to another.33 Although
his tendency to work across and between media was integral to Verrocchio’s
artistic production, it has not been examined in studies on the artist. Instead,
monographs consider his work in different media separately.34 Part of the rea-
son for this may be due to Vasari, who implied that Verrocchio often moved
from one object to another simply to avoid boredom.35 Vasari’s assertion has
had the effect of foreclosing any discussion of the implications of Verrocchio’s
transferal techniques. Scholars since Vasari have tended to be interested in issues
other than Verrocchio’s practice (focusing especially on iconography or attri-
bution), and when they have considered the topic, those studies have tended
to concentrate on individual objects. Because of this, the possible meanings of
Verrocchio’s unusual practices have been obscured. This study seeks to address
what Verrocchio achieved by working in this way.Verrocchio’s practices, it will

be argued in Chapter 1, were a response by the artist to the tastes of his audi-
ence and thus must be seen within the broader artistic context of Renaissance
Florence. Although some other artists worked across media, Verrocchio’s is a
paradigmatic case because he appears to have developed a self-conscious attitude
toward the potential for art making to express ideas. It will be explored in the
chapters that follow how Verrocchio’s approach to making provided him with a
hermeneutic framework, one in which he developed a sophisticated system of
expressing complex ideas – theological, political, economic, poetic – metaphorically,
and that he did this through visual puns on making and his use of materials.
Chapter 1 introduces Verrocchio as an experimentalist, and each of the chap-
ters that follow is a case study of an object dating from the 1470s. I have chosen
to focus on this decade because it was especially productive for Verrocchio,
when he was particularly experimental and moving between many different
materials. It was also a moment of intense creativity in Florence in general, due
in part to the remarkable rise to power of Lorenzo de’ Medici (“il Magnifico”),
who used art to further his political ambitions.36
Chapter 2 argues that Verrocchio’s tomb of Piero and Giovanni de’ Medici
(Figure 9) should be read as an oration for the interred and as a defense of
wealth gained through usury (about which the Medici were perpetually anx-
ious). Chapter 3 proposes that Verrocchio’s Christ and St. Thomas (Figure 5)
should be considered a material meditation on the experience of faith. Unlike
his contemporaries, Verrocchio showed Thomas reaching in as if to touch
Christ’s wound, but he does not. This chapter addresses the theological and
artistic implications of this unusual emphasis. In Verrocchio’s Ideal Head of a
Woman (Figure 10) – the focus of Chapter 4 – the artist depicts a woman in
profile in black chalk.Through the use of sfumato within the woman’s face and
the strict maintenance of an outline around it, the drawing resembles a marble
relief sculpture coming to life. Verrocchio’s technique here is explored in the
light of vernacular poetry, in which the theme of the beloved’s metamorphosis
was popular. The final chapter investigates Verrocchio’s unusual methods of
making in his Crucifix (Figure 11) in relation to devotional practices. It argues
that although much of the sculpture’s making is invisible to the naked eye, it
was meaningful for an artist interested in animation.
Verrocchio emerges from this study as an artist who used materials and
techniques to express ideas. My focus on materials and their meanings is part
of a larger scholarly interest in materiality in recent years.37 Indeed, Michael
Cole has declared it a “subfield” of Renaissance studies.38 However, although
much of the art of fifteenth-century Florence has been well studied, it has not
tended to be treated in studies of materiality.39 Instead, scholars interested in
this topic have tended to focus on medieval art, or Italian art of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. These range from studies of specific materials40 to
Figure 9. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici, porphyry, marble,
exhibition catalogues with an emphasis on techniques.41 A welcome result has

been considerations of a wide range of objects, many of them typically ignored
in art history because of their quotidian uses or the anachronistic preference for
“fine arts.”42 While much work – especially by curators and conservators – has
Figure 10. Andrea del Verrocchio. Ideal Head of a Woman, soft black chalk, partly reworked in
pen and golden brown ink and gray wash, outlines later pricked for transfer, early 1470s, Christ
Church, Oxford, 0005.
By permission of the Governing Body of Christ Church, Oxford.
been devoted to studying how objects were made, little attention has been paid
to the meanings of techniques and materials employed by fifteenth-century
Florentine artists, which this book addresses.
Studies in materiality have pointed to the ways in which a consideration of
the processes by which objects are made can illuminate an understanding of
ideas expressed by the finished works and the ways in which they were expe-
rienced.43 Rick Dolphijn and Iris van der Tuin put it thus in their discussion
of “new materialism” and its contribution to scholarship in a wide range of
academic disciplines:
Figure 11. Andrea del Verrocchio. Crucifix, polychromed limewood, cork, stucco, and linen,
early-to-mid–1470s, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence. Su concessione del Ministero dei
beni e le attività culturali e del turismo - Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
In terms of artworks, . . . a new materialist perspective would be inter-

ested in finding out how the form of content (the material condition
of the artwork) and the form of expression (the sensations as they come
about) are being produced in one another, how series of statements are
actualized, and how pleats of matter are realized in the real . . . In this way,
new materialism is different from most post-Kantian studies of art, since
in these studies, the material and discursive dimensions are treated sepa-
rately. After a short description of the materials used following a “crude
materialism,” the contemporary scholar influenced by the so- called
‘linguistic turn’ proceeds to deconstruct its messages. New materialism
allows for the study of the two dimensions in their entanglement: the
experience of a piece of art is made up of matter and meaning.The mate-
rial dimension creates and gives form to the discursive, and vice versa.44
This book takes up the challenge posed by Dolphijn and van der Tuin. It pro-
poses that the peculiar nature of Verrocchio’s workshop – where he worked
in many different media simultaneously and in the same space (unlike many
other artists, who had dedicated workspaces for different materials) – and the
highly experimental and competitive environment of mid-to-late fifteenth-
century Florence led Verrocchio to use materials and techniques to realize
and express ideas through the nature of making. It was the artist’s engagement
with matter that led him to realize his ideas (rather than forming them in
the mind first), suggesting a degree of material agency.45 What interests me
is the nature of the relationship between the artist and his materials and how
certain specific contexts (for instance, Verrocchio’s mixed-media workshop)
presented materials and techniques as potential communicators of meaning
that the artist recognized and referred to through his unusual processes of
making.46 By attending to Verrocchio’s methods of making and the messages
they communicate, we gain a better understanding of the role artists played
in shaping attitudes toward objects, extending Renaissance beholders’ expe-
riences of what art could be (spiritually, politically, poetically, etc.).47 I hope
that the conclusions reached here offer a historically nuanced consideration
of matter, materials, and their meanings – a response to the caution expressed
recently by scholars in a range of disciplines about the anachronism of the
“material turn.”48
What becomes clear from a consideration of Verrocchio’s productions in all
media when placed in dialogue with one another is the extent of Verrocchio’s
tendency to work between materials and also his interest in referring to one
material by using another (for instance, black chalk to represent stone – the
topic of Chapter 4 on a drawing of a sculptured relief). Verrocchio’s interest
in the in-betweenness of materials challenges a tendency in much materiality
studies, which often essentializes materials (the result of which is that special-
ists concentrate on one material at the expense of another, or that drawings
and sculptures by the same artist fall under the purview of different museum
departments, the connections between the objects remaining unexplored).49
Scholarship on Verrocchio has tended to be hindered by questions of
attribution – a valid concern but one whose basis often rests on Vasari’s negative
assessment of the artist. The topic of Verrocchio’s role as a painter is the most
vexed. Despite sustained studies devoted to this aspect of his oeuvre – most
notably Passavant’s Andrea del Verrocchio als Maler50 and, more recently, the studies
by Jill Dunkerton and Luke Syson51 – the question of which paintings should
be attributed to the artist, and whether he was a painter at all, remains the sub-
ject of debate (though Syson and Dunkerton have clarified much). Attribution
is an important issue too with regard to Verrocchio’s production as a sculptor, but
recent research and analysis, most notably by Andrew Butterfield and Dario Covi,
have established this aspect of the artist’s oeuvre with greater certainty.52 Previously
unknown works by the artist have been brought to light, including the Bargello
Crucifix (Figure 11), which was discovered in a storeroom in Florence in the
1990s by Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi;53 and the terracotta modello of the Executioner
from the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist relief (Figure 12), which was also dis-
covered in the 1990s (in a box with bric-à-brac at the Portobello Road market
in London) and convincingly attributed to Verrocchio by Anthony Radcliffe.54
Individual conservation reports of these and other objects have revealed much
new information about the artist and his working methods – in particular, his
Figure 12. Andrea del Verrocchio. Bozzetto for the figure of the Executioner, terracotta, c.
1478, Private Collection.
tendency to transfer tools and techniques from one medium to another.55 And
studies on many of the artists associated with Verrocchio’s bottega have contrib-
uted to a much better picture of the role of his assistants, though at the same
time, many questions remain.56
Despite significant advances, the scholarship on Verrocchio lacks a coher-
ent picture of the extent of the artist’s unusual techniques and an assessment
of what these practices might mean, which this study attempts to address.57
The challenge of dealing with these issues is twofold: one,Verrocchio’s oeuvre
is vast, especially when taking into account the work of his assistants, with
whom the artist’s production is often confused (this has led scholars to focus
primarily on Verrocchio’s sculptural output); and two, how does one attempt a
reconstruction of an artist’s thoughts without a written treatise or manifesto?
As for the first challenge, I have decided to concentrate on certain key works
that are documented – or at least widely accepted – as being by Verrocchio and
to explore the artist’s theoretical interests and commitments through those case
studies. By focusing on four works in different media made in the same decade
(the 1470s), I aim to uncover the meanings behind Verrocchio’s unusual prac-
tices. For the second challenge (how to reconstruct how Verrocchio thought
about his art), our evidence does not include any written statements by him
on the subject of his art.While Leonardo recorded his ideas in a series of man-
uscripts, we have no such treatise by Verrocchio.58 But I will make the case that
Verrocchio’s ideas about his art can be suggested through the material remains
of his objects and via three little studied manuscripts made in his workshop.
I.1 VERROCCHIO’S CAREER
Verrocchio was born c. 1435 in Florence to a family of artisans and laborers59

and died in 1488 in Venice, where he had moved two years earlier to make the
bronze equestrian monument of condottiere Bartolomeo Colleoni (Figure 6).
The first material with which Verrocchio became expert may have been terra-
cotta. The artist could have learned the skills for working in that material from
his father, Michele di Francesco Cioni, who recorded in his 1446 catasto (tax
assessment) declaration that he had worked for a fornaciaio, a term used for any-
one who worked with a kiln, whether for bricks or ceramics.60 By 1446, when
Verrocchio was somewhere between the ages of nine and twelve, his father had
given up working as a fornaciaio,61 and in 1458 Verrocchio was recorded in his
catasto declaration as having been a fattorino di bottega (shop boy) in goldsmith
Antonio Dei’s shop (he was no longer employed there by that date).62 No
goldsmith’s work by Verrocchio dates from the 1450s. The earliest object that
can be securely dated is the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist panel (Figure 13)
for the Silver Altar of the Florentine Baptistery, commissioned in 1478 by the
Arte di Calimala, though attempts have been made to attribute other goldsmith
Figure 13. Andrea del Verrocchio. Beheading of Saint John the Baptist relief, silver, c. 1478–83,
Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Florence.
work to him.63 After leaving the bottega of Antonio Dei sometime before 1458,
Verrocchio probably worked as an assistant in a sculptor’s shop, most likely that
of Desiderio da Settignano (though it is also probable that he moved between
a few workshops). Apparently he was skilled enough in marble carving to enter
a competition to make a marble tabernacle for a chapel in Orvieto Cathedral
in 1461, though he did not win the commission.64
A note in a manuscript (Biblioteca Riccardiana, ms. 1591) made in the
artist’s workshop records that Verrocchio had his own bottega by 1463. The
book’s first proud owner declared on the frontispiece: “This whole book is
paid for: it cost 10 lire. The painting cost three and a half lire from Andrea del
Verrocchino whose shop is at the head of the Via Ghibellina.”65 The “Andrea
del Verrocchino” mentioned is undoubtedly Andrea del Verrocchio, who, in
the 1460s, was residing in his family’s home, located at the point at which via
Ghibellina began.66 This record establishes that Verrocchio was an independent
master by 1463 and also that he was producing illustrated zibaldoni (chapbooks
or commonplace books) by that date.67
By 1464 Verrocchio had established himself as a leading sculptor in Florence
and was by then working for the Medici. They were his most important
patrons, and he devoted much of the rest of his career to working for them.
Verrocchio was commissioned to make the tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici in
San Lorenzo (Figure 14). Cosimo died in 1464, and the tomb was completed
Figure 14. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb marker of Cosimo de’ Medici, porphyry, serpentine,
marble and bronze, c. 1456–65, San Lorenzo, Florence.
c. 1465.68 Around the same time, he made the celebrated bronze David
(Figure 15), also for the Medici (probably for Cosimo’s son, Piero).69 As John
Shearman recognized decades ago,Verrocchio’s David is revolutionary because
of the openness of both its design and psychology: the figure encourages the
viewer to move around it and engage with the subject’s emotional state (far
more than Donatello’s earlier David [Figure 16]).70 But a technical examination
of the David suggests that Verrocchio may not have been greatly experienced
in working with bronze when he cast it.71 Piero’s sons Lorenzo and Giuliano
de’ Medici later sold Verrocchio’s David to the Signoria in 1476,72 and this
change in location led the artist to make certain compositional changes to
the work. For its new position in the Palazzo della Signoria at the entrance to
the Sala dell’Orologio (known today as the Sala dei Gigli), a smaller base was
required,73 so the artist recast the head of Goliath and placed it between the
legs of David (previously the head of Goliath was probably placed on David’s
proper right side [Figure 17], farther back and in profile).74
Verrocchio was still experimenting as a bronze caster in the late 1460s, but
he was experienced enough to receive the commission to make the bronze
candelabrum (Figure 18) for the audience chamber of the Florentine town
hall, dated May and June 1468 on its base.75 The candlestick was made of sec-
tions separately cast in bronze.The artist began by modeling core material in at
least three, and possibly as many as six, individual sections in wax over clay (an
approach that meant that any flaws in these sections would not make it neces-
sary to cast the entire work again), strengthened by an armature of spiral iron
Figure 15. Andrea del Verrocchio. David, bronze, mid-to-late-1460s, Museo Nazionale del
Bargello, Florence.
Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY.
Figure 16. Donatello. David, bronze, between c. 1425 and 1460, Museo Nazionale del
Bargello, Florence.
Figure 17. Andrea del Verrocchio. David, bronze, mid-to-late-1460s, Museo Nazionale del
Bargello, Florence.
Scala/Ministero per i Beni e le Attività culturali/Art Resource, NY.
Figure 18. Andrea del Verrocchio. Candelabrum, bronze, 1468, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

Open access.
wire wound around an iron rod, visible at the top. When the different sections
had been cast, they were soldered together and pushed over the iron rod.76
In 1466–67 Verrocchio won the competition to make the bronze Christ and
St.Thomas (Figure 5) for Orsanmichele, one of his most celebrated sculptures,77
a commission that the Medici family was behind once again. Verrocchio was
chosen to make the palla in 1468, and in that same year he was an unsuccessful
contestant for the commission to paint seven Virtues for the audience chamber
of the Palazzo della Mercanzia.78 There is considerable scholarly debate as to if,
when, and to what extent Verrocchio worked as a painter.79 But contemporary
sources make clear that he was a celebrated painter. Giovanni Rucellai refers to
Verrocchio as a painter, as well as a sculptor, in his Zibaldone in 1457;80 a claim
repeated by Benedetto Dei in his 1470 chronicle, Memorie Istoriche;81 Giovanni
Santi in his rhymed chronicle, composed between 1484 and 1487;82 Ugolino
Verino in his De Epigrammi of c. 1484;83 Gauricus in his De Sculptura of 1504;84
and the anonymous author of the sixteenth-century Anonimo Magliabechiano.85
Some documents supplement these written sources. As we have seen, inven-
tories of Verrocchio’s workshops in Florence and Venice drawn up after his
death record ten paintings left in the workshops,86 while a list of works for
which the Medici still owed payment upon Verrocchio’s death includes three
paintings by the artist (a portrait of Lucrezia Donati and standards for Lorenzo
and Giuliano de’ Medici).87 There also exists the aforementioned document
of 1485 that records a nearly completed altarpiece for San Zeno in Pistoia
(Figure 8), the commission for which had been given to Verrocchio, though
his authorship of the completed painting is often questioned.88 According to
Vasari, Verrocchio executed two large-scale paintings: the San Salvi Baptism,
c. 1460s and 1470s (Figure 7) and the Madonna and Child with Saints, c. 1472
(Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest). Vasari also records that Verrocchio painted
(or at least designed) frescoes – none of which are extant – writing that the art-
ist “made the cartoons of a battle of the nudes, drawn very well with the pen,
to be painted with colors on a wall.”89 Of the two surviving paintings, none
can be wholly attributed to Verrocchio, and it has been shown convincingly
that Verrocchio very likely had no hand at all in the execution of the Budapest
Madonna and Child with Saints.90
David Alan Brown asserts that Verrocchio took up painting only late in his
career,91 a claim based on a record dating from 1472 for the artist’s entry into
the Compagnia di San Luca, a religious and social group. Membership in the
Compagnia di San Luca often followed entry into the Arte dei Medici e Speziali,
the painter’s guild in Florence, and Verrocchio’s name is registered in the com-
pany’s Libro Rosso as “Andrea del Verrocchio painter and sculptor.”92 However,
the 1472 note is a record not of entry into the Compagnia di San Luca, but of
Verrocchio having received credit for the payment of fees to offer candles on
Candlemas, thus indicating his prior membership. In other words, the note
does not record his beginnings as a painter.93
Documents suggest that Verrocchio was working as a painter from the late
1450s. Rucellai’s record of him referring to him as “schultore e pittore” relates
to a work or some works Verrocchio made for the merchant’s house and dates
from 1457.94 The record for Lorenzo de’ Medici’s painted tournament ban-
ner for the joust of 1469 (included in a list of works drawn up by the artist’s
brother, Tommaso, in 1495–96) indicates that the artist’s skills as a painter were
sought by that date.95 And, as we have seen, another record of 1469 indicates
that Verrocchio had tried but failed to obtain the commission to paint a series
of Virtues for the Arte della Mercanzia. He received a payment for a design
of Faith (generally associated with a drawing attributed to Biagio d’Antonio),
but the execution of the pictures was given to Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo.96
The 1470s – the decade that this book concentrates on – was a particularly
productive decade for Verrocchio and one in which he worked in many dif-
ferent media, including sculpture and painting. In 1471 he won a competition
to make sculptures for the choir of the Duomo, though this was never com-
pleted.97 On the occasion of the state visit of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, son of the
ruler of Milan, in that same year, Lorenzo de’ Medici made Verrocchio chief
designer of festival decorations for the family palace. The artist also carried
out permanent sculptural decorations for the courtyard of the Palazzo Medici
and at Villa Medici at Careggi, which included his bronze Putto with a Dolphin
(Figure 19).98 Early in the 1470s he was commissioned by Lorenzo and his
Figure 19. Andrea del Verrocchio. Putto and a Dolphin, bronze, c. 1480–85, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence.
brother Giuliano de’ Medici to make the tomb of their father and uncle, Piero
and Giovanni de’ Medici, the sons of Cosimo, in San Lorenzo (Figure 9).99
In 1475 he painted a tournament standard for Lorenzo’s brother, Giuliano.100
After the murder of Giuliano and the attempted murder of Lorenzo in 1478,
Verrocchio was commissioned to make wax votive statues of Lorenzo, which
were dressed in Lorenzo’s clothing and placed in churches throughout the
city.101 Around 1474 he was requested to paint the Madonna di Piazza altarpiece
in Pistoia (Figure 8), also a Medici commission.102 The city of Carrara commis-
sioned a painted banner from the artist in 1474, which has not survived.103 In
1476 Verrocchio won a competition to make the marble cenotaph for Niccolò
Forteguerri in the cathedral of Pistoia (Figure 20), which he worked on c.
1481–83 and left unfinished at his death.104 In the late 1470s he was awarded
a commission to make one of the reliefs for the Silver Altar of the Florentine
Baptistery (Figure 21).105 And Verrocchio’s brother, Tommaso, and Vasari record
that the artist restored a classical sculpture of Marsyas (now lost) in porphyry
for Lorenzo de’ Medici in the 1470s or 1480s.106
Figure 20. Andrea del Verrocchio and workshop. Forteguerri cenotaph, marble, 1481–88, San
Zeno, Pistoia.
Figure 21. Silver Altar, silver and enameled relief, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Florence.
In the early 1480s Verrocchio won the prestigious competition overseen by

the Venetian Senate to make an equestrian statue in honor of the condottiere,
Bartolomeo Colleoni (Figure 6).107 The artist died in 1488 before the Colleoni
monument was completed, but work was far enough along that models had
been made. Alessandro Leopardi took over in 1490 after Verrocchio’s death and
finished the sculpture in 1496.108
Throughout his career, but especially in the 1470s, Verrocchio moved
between sculpture and painting. The ease with which he did this must be
understood within the context of Florence’s peculiar guild system. In spite of
the existence of statutes limiting crafts to members of a guild, there is con-
siderable evidence of artists flouting the rules and working in particular crafts
when they were not members of the guild. This is especially apparent in the
case of the Arte dei Medici e Speziali, the guild of physicians, apothecaries,
spice merchants, and painters. Botticelli did not join that guild until 1499,
a quarter of a century after he began working as a painter. Perugino, too,
entered the guild in 1499, after practicing as a painter for many years.109 And
Ghirlandaio entered the guild in 1472, when he had already been an active
painter for some time, at least since 1470 or 1471 and possibly from the last
years of the 1460s.110 There are cases also of artists joining more than one guild.
Giovanni di Ser Giovanni (Lo Scheggia, the brother of Masaccio), for instance,
joined the painters’ guild in 1433, but shortly before that he had become a
member of the Arte dei Legnaioli (the woodworkers’ guild).111 The flexibility
of Florence’s guild system allowed Verrocchio to move between media, form-

ing part of the background to his creation of some of most innovative works
of the Italian Renaissance.
I.2 VERNACULAR CULTURE IN VERROCCHIO’S FLORENCE
This study addresses the crucial question of why Verrocchio adopted his self-
conscious attitude to art making and what the cultural conditions were that
enabled it to happen. In part, the conclusion reached is that it was due to
Verrocchio’s experimental attitude, which was itself the result of the compet-
itive and innovative market in Florence. But another important reason was
the rich and sophisticated vernacular culture of fifteenth-century Florence,
which provided Verrocchio with a foundation on which to develop his the-
oretical concerns, and a knowledgeable audience who could appreciate the
artist’s ideas.112
The men of Florence were highly literate (perhaps more than any other
community in Europe).113 The sons of most fifteenth-century artisans, shop-
keepers, and laborers were educated – most could read and write, and they
kept their own accounts.114 Proof of this literacy, and also an interest in ver-
nacular literature, can be found in the hundreds of surviving zibaldoni, popu-
lar compilations of literature and philosophical and religious tracts that were
owned (and often commissioned) by citizens, including from the lower ranks
of society.115 The content of artisans’ zibaldoni and inventories of artists’ goods
indicate that many of them were literate and fond of contemporary vernac-
ular literature, as well as classical literature translated into the vernacular. An
inventory made after Verrocchio’s death records that he had in his possession
the Triumphs of Petrarch, the Heroides of Ovid, a book referred to as the Cento
novelle that can be safely identified as Boccaccio’s Decameron,116 a Bible in the
vernacular, and an item referred to as “un moscino in forma.”117 The last has not
been identified, but it has been suggested that it might be Leon Battista Alberti’s
neo-Latin Musca (a paradoxical encomium on a fly), Lucian’s Mosca (the model
for Alberti’s Musca), a Latin translation of the Greek poet Moschus, or the
pseudo-Virgilian Culex, which could have been known under the title Mosca
in an Italian edition.118 However, the description “in forma” indicates that the
book was printed,119 making all of these texts unlikely candidates.120 Instead, as
Luca Boschetto suggested to me, it is more plausibly the popular chivalric prose
tale Guerrino il Meschino written by Andrea da Barberino, a Florentine about
whom little is known, except that he recited compositions on the benches
outside the church of San Martino a Vescovo in Florence, an important site
for such performances in the early fifteenth century.121 An inventory con-
temporary with that of Verrocchio’s refers to the story as “meschino,” which
is close to “moscino.”122 Guerrino il Meschino was extremely popular in the
fifteenth century, especially among artisans, shopkeepers, and merchants, who

transcribed the story many times.123 As Dario Covi has noted, the books listed
in Verrocchio’s inventory are unusual in their predominantly secular sub-
ject matter. Although Verrocchio’s near-contemporaries the Maiano brothers
possessed more books (twenty-eight in total), most of these were religious
texts.124 Based on inventories we have of artists’ possessions, it would appear
that artists tended to have more texts with sacred content than profane,125
though Filippino Lippi and Luca della Robbia, like Verrocchio, owned more
secular texts.126
Vernacular translation made available classical literature to a wide audience,
including those from lower social levels.127 Indeed, the extent of these transla-
tion efforts concerned many because of the concomitant effort to civilize the
unlettered, which was perceived as a vulgarization of the ancients. In a story
from an anonymous late thirteenth-century Novellino, this is treated explicitly
when a philosopher has a vision in which the goddess of knowledge and her
ladies are in a bordello. When the philosopher asks the goddess what she is
doing there, she responds: “[Y]ou are the one who put us here” (i.e., by trans-
lating texts into the vernacular). The tale concludes with the warning: “[Y]ou
should know that all things are not licit to every person.”128
References in the writings of, and books owned by, the laboring classes
indicate that they gained some knowledge of classical literature and philoso-
phy through references in vernacular sources. Dante’s Commedia and the many
vernacular commentaries on it, for instance, which were owned and read by
members of all social rank, frequently discuss ancient texts and ideas.129 The
barber-poet Burchiello, though born into poverty, makes several references
to Latin authors in his sonnets.130 In a tenzone (poetic exchange) addressed to
Alberti, for instance, the barber-poet refers in a complex and imaginative way
to a line from Virgil’s Georgics.131 In another sonnet he refers to the competition
between Sculpture and Liberal Education in Lucian.132 (As well shall see, exam-
ples of Burchiello’s poetry were included in the zibaldoni made in Verrocchio’s
workshop.) Evidence suggests, however, that Burchiello was extraordinary;
most barbers were not literate.133
Many artists, on the other hand, were not only literate, they were even
participants in the vernacular literary culture of their day, some as compos-
ers of poetry, including Verrocchio. Evidence for Verrocchio’s literary ambi-
tions consists of some lines of poetry inscribed in the artist’s hand on sheets
of drawings by him (Figure 22).134 In this, Verrocchio can be placed in the
company of other artists-poets. Orcagna, for instance, was a poet as well as
sculptor and painter. Brunelleschi composed sonnets and had close ties with
vernacular poets like Burchiello and Giovanni Gherardo da Prato, with whom
he exchanged sonnets (tenzoni).135 Brunelleschi probably authored the Novella
del Grasso Legnaiuolo (story of the fat woodcarver) – one of the most famous
Figure 22. Workshop of Verrocchio. Study of a Standing Bishop and Other Figures, verso, pen
and wash, c. 1474–85, National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh.
National Galleries of Scotland.
stories from Quattrocento Florence, which concerns a woodcarver who is

tricked into believing that he is no longer himself and has become another
person.136 Bertoldo di Giovanni wrote a letter to Lorenzo de’ Medici in the
style of Burchiello. And Andrea del Sarto allegedly composed a nonsense
poem modeled on the pseudo-Homeric Batracomiomachia.137 Brunelleschi is
particularly pertinent to this discussion as a sonnet attributed to him is con-
tained in one of the zibaldoni produced in Verrocchio’s bottega.138 Brunelleschi’s
associations with volgare culture challenge the picture presented by Antonio
Manetti in his fifteenth-century vita of Brunelleschi as a humanist-architect.139
As Giuliano Tanturli has explored, while humanists celebrated Brunelleschi
after his death, during his lifetime the architect lived in the vernacular, not the
humanist, world and most humanists neglected, even disdained, the architect
during his lifetime.140 In fact, the divide scholars have long assumed existed
between vernacular and humanist literary culture is not accurate, as the work
of Christopher Celenza, among others, has demonstrated.141
Not all knowledge was acquired through reading; there is considerable evi-
dence too of the importance of oral culture in Florence, providing ample
opportunity for audiences to become knowledgeable about a range of top-
ics, even if they were illiterate.142 Readings of Dante were regularly given in
churches and at the Duomo, where men (and women) from many levels of soci-
ety were in attendance.143 Two anecdotes in Franco Sacchetti’s Trecentonovelle
suggest that Dante’s Divine Comedy was well known among the laboring classes
and that his works were sung. In one of the tales, Dante passes the workshop
of a blacksmith singing some of his verses.144 According to Sacchetti, Dante
rebukes the man for singing the Divine Comedy, rather than reciting it as he had
intended it and so ruining it. In the other tale by Sacchetti, an ass driver recites
Dante’s works while striking his animal’s back.145 The practice of oral recitation
among the popolani is suggested also by a letter from Petrarch to Boccaccio in
which Petrarch deplores the performances of the ignorant masses in shops and
in the marketplace. Oral recitation of the “three crowns” was clearly still com-
mon in the Quattrocento, as indicated by a comment in a letter from Niccolò
Niccoli to Leonardo Bruni saying that he would remove Dante from the ranks
of the learned and leave him with the fullers and millers.146
Florentines would have had access to vernacular tales and sonnets through
performances at churches and in piazze. Here, on benches outside churches,
popular poets and singers performed for informal audiences made up of every
stratum of Florentine society, from the richest nobleman to the poorest laborer.
These performances took place for half the days of every week, sometimes last-
ing several days in succession.147 Entertainers recited their own works or those
of others, often accompanied by a simple melody played on a viola or chitarra,
and the most talented performers were artisans, often shoemakers or barbers,
like Burchiello. It was not only members of the popolani who participated
in this vernacular culture. Members of many of Florence’s leading families
wrote popular poetry, including Cosimo de’ Medici himself, whose popular
poems, as Dale Kent has pointed out, have gone largely unnoticed.148 Patricians
invited the popular poets who performed in piazze into their homes: in 1445
Giovanni di Cosimo de’ Medici chose Burchiello as the star performer for his
entertainment of international ambassadors at his house in Rome, and in 1459
when the Medici held a dinner in honor of the young Galeazzo Maria Sforza,
son of the duke of Milan, the vernacular poet Antonio di Guido provided the
entertainment.149
As Franco Franceschi has convincingly shown, there were many meet-
ing places where vernacular culture was on display in Florence.150 At these
gatherings artists would have had an opportunity to become informed about
and exchange ideas about philosophy and literature. Perhaps the most famous
site was the bottega of the barber-poet Burchiello on via Calimala, where
men of different classes mixed. Here, humanists like Alberti, Leonardo
Dati, and Cristoforo Landino allegedly rubbed shoulders with the barber and
other members of the popolani and listened to Burchiello perform his satiri-
cal sonnets.151 In another bottega, that of cartolaio (book dealer) Vespasiano da
Bisticci, men of state and well-known humanists such as Donato Acciaiuoli,
Bruni, Carlo Marsuppini, Giannozzo Manetti, and George of Trebizond were
frequent visitors (despite the fact that Vespasiano was from a different social
background). These men came together to discuss ideas in Vespasiano’s book-
shop and to read the content of books before they were sold.152 Apparently
visits to shops were not unusual. In the story of the Grasso Legnaiolo, the fat
wood carver refers to the merchant, Giovanni Rucellai, who appears not to
have recognized him, as “he who is always in my shop.”153 In fact, the premise
of the story depends upon Grasso’s failure to attend an informal gathering
made up of men of letters and artists at the house of Tommaso Pecori, and thus
offers evidence for such meetings.
Proof of Verrocchio’s engagement with vernacular literary culture – apart
from the books recorded in the inventory of his goods made after his death and
in the lines of poetry in his hand – can be found in the commonplace books
made in his workshop. One of these (Biblioteca Riccardiana, ms. 1591) records
that it was made in Verrocchio’s workshop. The book is a compilation of clas-
sical and contemporary writings (all in the vernacular): a letter from Seneca
to Lucillus, king of Sicily, on behalf of the Romans, and Seneca’s treatise on
the four cardinal virtues; the Evangel of Saint John by Francesco d’Altobianco
degli Alberti; the Canzone alla Vergine by Antonio Megli, who was herald to the
Signoria; a treatise on nobility by Buonaccorso di Montemagno; Aesop’s Fables;
Geta and Birria; three sonnets by Stefano Finiguerra known as Lo Za, relation
(possibly uncle) of the goldsmith Maso Finiguerra;154 and a response to one
of these poems by the barber-poet Burchiello. The illustrations in the book
(Figures 23 and 25) do not resemble Verrocchio’s graphic style, so the artist
must have employed assistants to carry out the decoration, whose identities
are not known.155 But Verrocchio’s close involvement in the making of the
book is suggested by his (probably close) acquaintance with the scribe of this
manuscript, Piero dei Ricci: a document of 1484 records that Verrocchio and
Guido di Piero dei Ricci, the son of the scribe, acted together as witnesses on a
deed.156 Indeed, the connection becomes closer if Dario Del Puppo’s proposal
is correct that the scribe of the manuscript was Guido, rather than Piero.157
Another manuscript, today in the Biblioteca Nazionale (ms. Magliabechiano
XXI, 87) and which closely resembles ms. 1591, was probably executed in
Verrocchio’s workshop too. Like ms. 1591, the Biblioteca Nazionale manuscript
includes excerpts from Aesop’s Fables, the story of Geta and Birria, and sonnets
by Burchiello and others (including Brunelleschi and Alberti).158 Although
the drawings in these manuscripts appear to have been executed by different
artists, the illustrations for Geta and Birria and Aesop’s Fables are so closely
Figure 23. Workshop of Verrocchio. Illustration from Geta and Birria, pen and ink and wash,
Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence, ms. 1591, fol. 56r. Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence.
Photo: Donato Pineider.
related to those in ms. 1591 (Figures 23–26) that a connection seems certain.

Moreover, some of the illustrations for Aesop’s Fables in ms. 1591 were pricked
(Figure 25), suggesting they were copied.159 A third manuscript can be associ-
ated with Verrocchio’s workshop: another codex in the Biblioteca Riccardiana
(ms. 2805) that features Geta and Birria and Aesop’s Fables, both of which
are illustrated, but in black and white, not color (whereas ms. 1591 and ms.
Magliabechiano XXI, 87 have illustrations in color).160 The drawings for Geta
and Birria in ms. 2805 (Figure 27) are closest to those in ms. Magliabechiano
XXI, 87 (Figure 24), rather than ms. 1591 (Figure 23), and the similarities sug-
gest one was copied from the other. Ms. 2805 was probably copied from ms.
Magliabechiano XXI, 87, rather than the other way around (because the illus-
trations in ms. Magliabechiano XXI, 87 are much more refined), or both may
have been copied from another manuscript. There are differences between
ms. 2805 and Magliabechiano XXI, 87: ms. 2805 has a final image that is not
in Magliabechiano XXI, 87, and 2805 does not include portraits of Geta and
Birria. In the section with Aesop’s Fables the illustrator executed the same
number of images with identical choices in subject matter and composition
as ms. 1591 (Figures 25 and 28).161 Nevertheless, they do deviate at times, and
their styles suggest that probably different artists made them. Despite this, their
source in the same workshop is suggested by their common stock of scenes
and the use of the same compositions. Evidence for the shared origin of these
Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, ms. Magliabechiano XXI, 87 fol. 75r.
Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze.
Figure 25. Workshop of Verrocchio. Illustration from Aesop’s Fables, pen and ink and wash,
Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence, ms. 1591, fol. 125v. Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence.
books is provided by the fact that ms. 1591 and ms. Magliabechiano XXI,
87 share the same watermarks; and for all three books the size of the pages
is almost identical, and there is a correspondence of the same words on the
pages.162
Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, ms. Magliabechiano XXI, 87, fol. 20v.
Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze.
Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, ms. 2805, fol. 5r. Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence.
Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence, ms. 2805, fol. 51v. Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence.
Photo credit: Donato Pineider.
Although Verrocchio appears not to have carried out the decoration of

the manuscripts made in his workshop personally, he may well have directed
their illustration and writing, serving as cartolaio. Normally, a cartolaio would
have instructed the scribe to leave room for the illustrations, which would be
inserted later, but in the case of ms. 1591, the writing was executed after the
drawings.163 This suggests that whoever oversaw the drawings (which I am
arguing was Verrocchio) may have acted as cartolaio. It was not uncommon for
illuminators to be cartolai: the illuminator Francesco d’Antonio del Cherico
was a cartolaio, at least in his early years;164 Gherardo di Giovanni di Miniato
and his brother Monte acted both as cartolai and as illuminators;165 and the
illuminator Bartolomeo di Domenico di Guido became a cartolaio after work-
ing for one of the most important Florentine cartolai, Zanobi di Mariano.166
Furthermore, the stories contained in the books made in Verrocchio’s work-
shop were well known among artists and artisans, supporting the possibility
of Verrocchio having directed their production. The tale of Geta and Birria
was sometimes attributed to Filippo Brunelleschi,167 and Leonardo was later
recorded as possessing a copy of it (as well as Burchiello’s sonnets and Aesop’s
Fables).168 The owners of the zibaldoni made in Verrocchio’s bottega are not
known, but the Pieri family’s coat of arms is emblazoned on the flyleaf of ms.
1591.169 On the basis of his writing, the original owner of ms. 1591 may have
been a humble artisan.
The content of the zibaldoni made in Verrocchio’s bottega and the books
recorded in his possession provide a rich discursive context and one within
which we should consider Verrocchio’s works. Whereas his older contempo-
rary, Donatello, is sometimes regarded as a quasi-humanist and his sculptures
read as expressions of concepts current among humanist elites of his day,170
Verrocchio tends not to be considered in an intellectual context at all. This
is no doubt due in large part to Vasari’s vita of the artist, which ridicules him
as the petulant sulk who threw away his paintbrushes, never to paint again,
when he saw the divine angel created by his pupil Leonardo. Certainly Vasari’s
account colored Kenneth Clark’s assessment to such an extent that he declared
of Verrocchio’s painted figures: “[they] do not stir the imagination.Their forms
are metallic, their colours unsubtle and bright. The world they create for us is
the prosaic world of a practical man.”171 Rather than proposing that he was a
humanist, this study will explore how Verrocchio engaged with the vernacular
culture of his day.172 By considering Verrocchio’s works in the light of vernac-
ular literature, we also gain a deeper appreciation for the mutual dependence
of the visual and literary arts during the Renaissance. What emerges is a sense
of how works of art were an opportunity to explore important social, cultural,
and religious topics. How those objects were received tells us how works of
art were not closed conveyors of meaning, but sites of interest and inspiration
(just as Christine Smith has argued that early Renaissance architecture was for
humanists).173
Artists of later eras left a wealth of theoretical writing. The challenge of
investigating the thinking of artists who, like Verrocchio, left no treatise remains
controversial, though pressing. I will argue for the power of techniques and
materials as modes of representation and signification in Renaissance culture,
instead of locating ideas only in texts. I read Verrocchio’s unusual techniques of
making alongside contemporary writings with which he was familiar to pro-
vide a theory where a treatise is lacking. In uncovering the thinking in his art,
we can extend backwards in time the reach of historian of science Pamela H.
Smith’s paradigm of “artisanal epistemology,” the generating of abstract knowl-
edge through material procedures of making, which it has been assumed began
in Italy only after Verrocchio’s time.174 In this way, I hope that this study of
Verrocchio will appeal to those interested in the history of materials and of
materiality and artisan expertise.175 By paying close attention to the ways that
Verrocchio used his materials and techniques to make his objects “speak,” we
come to a better understanding of materiality during the Renaissance. My
final aim is to use these novel methods in the service of an appropriate mate-
rialist intellectual history of late-fifteenth-century artistic practice.
1
VERROCCHIO’S INGENUITY
Throughout his career, Verrocchio demonstrated great inventiveness, evident

in the palla (Figures 1–3), as we have seen, and many other works, products of
a vibrant mind operating in the stimulating environment of fifteenth-century
Florence, a city where innovation was prized. For his monumental bronze
sculpture Christ and Saint Thomas (Figure 5), which Verrocchio worked on for
much of his career (1467 [modern style]–83), the artist faced the challenge
of fitting two life-size bronze statues into a pre-existing niche on the exte-
rior of Orsanmichele (Figure 29). The site was one of the most important
civic and religious buildings in Florence. All of the major city guilds com-
missioned paintings or statues with their patron saints for the niches on the
building’s exterior piers. Commissioned by the Università della Mercanzia –
the commercial tribunal of Florence – Verrocchio’s sculpture was made for
a space that had earlier held one statue, Donatello’s Saint Louis of Toulouse
(Figure 30; the Mercanzia purchased the niche from the Parte Guelfa – for
whom Donatello’s statue was made – who were in financial difficulty). As
a result of the limitations of the site of display, Verrocchio chose to cast his
figures as two relief sculptures. Despite the monumental appearance they
exhibit when viewed frontally, they are just shallow shells (Figures 31, 46, 111
and 112). Other sculptures at Orsanmichele, including Donatello’s Saint Louis
of Toulouse (Figure 30) and group sculptures such as Nanni di Banco’s Four
Crowned Martyrs (c. 1416, Orsanmichele, Florence), were made in the round or
very nearly so. Furthermore, each of Verrocchio’s figures was cast in bronze in
35
Figure 29. Orsanmichele, Florence. Fourteenth century.

Figure 30. Donatello. Saint Louis of Toulouse, gilt bronze, 1418–22, Santa Croce, Florence.
Verrocchio’s Ingenuity 37
Florence. Detail of reverse of Thomas.
Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e del Turismo – Opificio delle Pietre Dure
di Firenze, Archivio dei Restauri e Fotografico e Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
a single pour – a feat of which Renaissance bronze sculptors were particularly

proud.1 Verrocchio’s achievement in casting his statues in a single pour can be
appreciated by examining the backs – each features a large block of metal at its
base (Figures 31 and 46). As Massimo Leoni noted during the sculpture’s res-
toration in the 1990s, the figures’ bases suggest that the molten metal encoun-
tered a significant amount of turbulence during the casting phase, pointing to
the difficulties Verrocchio faced in making them.2 These difficulties are visible
only on the reverse sides; the fronts of the figures give no indication of the
tremendous skill, and potential for failure, that Verrocchio overcame in casting
his sculpture.3
Verrocchio demonstrated considerable ingenuity, too, in making the tomb of
Cosimo de’ Medici (Figure 14) in San Lorenzo, Florence, which he began some-
time after 1456.4 For this commission he faced the challenge of making a final
resting place that was appropriately magnificent, but not ostentatious, for a very
public figure, the quasi-ruler of Florence. The result, as Andrew Butterfield has
pointed out, “is unlike any other [tomb] in Florence,” both formally and tech-
nically.5 It consists of a tomb (Figure 32), a stone structure positioned in the
Figure 32. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici, black and white marble,
c. 1456–67, San Lorenzo, Florence.
Su concessione del Ministero dei beni e le attività culturali e del turismo – Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
Photo: Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz–Max-Planck-Institut.
crypt below the church, set around a large pillar, which supports the vault-
ing of the crypt. Above this is a tomb slab (Figure 14), which is visible in the
floor of the church’s transept crossing. Although tomb slabs were common
in Florence,6 Cosimo’s is much larger than is typical, and its design – in the
form of a circle – and the combination of materials used for it are unique.
The tomb itself was made from black and white marble and the tomb slab
was made from white marble, red porphyry, serpentine (green porphyry),7 and
bronze.8 While marble was commonly used for Florentine tombs, porphyry
and bronze were not.9 Furthermore, the porphyry rota in Cosimo’s tomb is
unusually large.10 Porphyry was an extremely rare and precious material, and
it was notoriously difficult to work. It was not until the sixteenth century that
artists in Florence mastered the skills for hardening steel in order to carve it
(the Romans had specially hardened steel tools, but the knowledge of how
they had done this had been lost).11 In the fifteenth century, artists working
with porphyry were forced to use tools such as discs, probably of copper,
attached to a drill and used with abrasives like powdered emery or diamonds
embedded in the metal; reciprocal saws used by two people; picchierelli – double-
headed axes; or tools made from stone or soft metal, as Egyptian sculptors had
done centuries before, all in a time-consuming process.12
Despite the difficulties of working with porphyry,Verrocchio used it again in
his tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici (Figure 9), also in San Lorenzo, made
Figure 33. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici, c. 1473,
San Lorenzo, Florence. Detail of turtle, bronze.
c. 1472. Here he faced the sarcophagus using porphyry fragments (as is evident
from the variation in markings and colors),13 cutting them into pieces and cleverly
disguising the joins behind decorative bronze work. But the artist’s ingenuity did
not rest there. For the bronze turtles on which the sarcophagus and marble plinth
rest (Figure 33) and for the extraordinarily accurate plant forms in the bronze
wreaths (Figure 34) that decorate both faces of the tomb, the artist appears to
have made life casts from nature.14 Furthermore, the bronze rope above the tomb
(Figure 35) is an impressive feat in bronze casting. To make it,Verrocchio would
have had to keep the metal flowing for a long distance through thin passages.15
The tomb itself is also structurally impressive, built within an arch separating two
spaces: the Old Sacristy and the Chapel of Cosmas and Damian (Figure 36).
The artist’s inventiveness is evident too in his polychromed wood Crucifix
(Figure 11), made for an unknown location, for which Verrocchio did not
adopt the conventional approach to working with wood. He began by taking
limewood,16 which he hollowed out to a precise width – a process that by this
date was virtually obsolete in Florence17 – and tied the two pieces together
with cord, an unusual approach to assemblage. The head, chest, and shoulders
were made separately from cork and attached to the body with a method
Verrocchio used in making armor. And instead of carving into the wood to
define his figure’s features,Verrocchio modeled them up with layers of stucco.18
San Lorenzo, Florence. Detail of wreath, bronze.
San Lorenzo, Florence. Detail of rope and diamond resting on a bowl of acanthus leaves with
two large sea shells attached, bronze.
Verrocchio’s Beheading of St John the Baptist relief (Figure 13), which he

worked on between 1477 and 1483, likewise departs from convention. It was
made for the Silver Altar of the Florentine Baptistery (Figure 21) and commis-
sioned by the Arte di Calimala, the cloth merchants’ guild, which was respon-
sible for the maintenance and decoration of the Florentine Baptistery.19 Many
of the greatest Florentine goldsmiths of the fifteenth century made reliefs for
it, including Antonio Pollaiuolo,Verrocchio’s chief rival. Unlike his contempo-
raries working on the Silver Altar,Verrocchio made all of his figures separately
and in repoussé. Pollaiuolo used repoussé for his panel too (Figure 37), but his
Figure 36. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici, porphyry, marble,
Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le attività Culturali e del Turismo – Gabinetto Fotografico delle
Gallerie degli Uffizi.
Figure 37. Antonio del Pollaiuolo. Birth of Saint John the Baptist, silver on wood support,
Gianni Dagli Orti/The Art Archive at Art Resource, NY.
Figure 38. Andrea del Verrocchio. Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, Museo dell’Opera del
Duomo, Florence. Detail of Youth with Salver, silver.
Opera di S. Maria del Fiore/A. Quattrone.
was made from a single sheet of silver, save for the figure of the Visitor step-
ping forward.20 By contrast, each of Verrocchio’s figures was made from several
pieces of silver, hammered and soldered together.21 The Youth with the Salver
was made from seven pieces (Figure 38); the Captain with the Mace was made
from six (Figure 39). Moreover, the soldering of the figures is of the highest
quality. On the Executioner (Figure 40), for instance, it is disguised along the
lines of his muscles.22 Repoussé enabled Verrocchio to manipulate the position
of each figure so that light from the silver background reflected onto them,
penetrating the tiny details added in finishing through hammering, punch-
work, and chasing. The other reliefs for the Silver Altar, on the other hand,
were made in the fewest pieces necessary.23
Verrocchio’s drawings demonstrate further proof of his innovations.
Throughout his career he excelled as a draftsman, producing early and exqui-
site examples of drawings made as finished works of art and sketches for
works to be executed in different media (a recent development in drawing).24
Verrocchio was also early to take up sketching, usually in pen and ink, to
work out designs. Surviving examples suggest that some of these may have
been part of a sketchbook, either for the artist’s own use or for members of
Duomo, Florence. Detail of Captain with Mace, silver.
Duomo, Florence. Detail of Executioner, silver.
Figure 41. Andrea del Verrocchio. Head of a Woman, recto, charcoal and black chalk with
highlights in white chalk, mid-to-late-1470s, British Museum, London, 1895-9-15-785.
Copyright. The Trustees of the British Museum/Art Resource, NY.
his workshop.25 In addition, Verrocchio was highly innovative from a techni-

cal standpoint, introducing sfumato (for instance, Figure 10), done with char-
coal or black chalk, a technique commonly attributed to his pupil Leonardo
da Vinci.26 Though black chalk had been used as a drawing instrument for
some time,Verrocchio was one of the first Renaissance artists to recognize the
potential of black chalk to create a sculptural tonal range in drawings.27 For
his Head of a Woman (Figure 41),28 the artist began by outlining his figure with
charcoal, which was reworked in black chalk. To create the subtle tonal effects,
especially around the eyes, nose, and chin, he smudged and wetted the black
chalk with a brush. He also added highlights in white chalk, visible especially
around the eyes.29
Another example of Verrocchio’s innovations is his Head of a Woman
(Figure 42),30 a silverpoint drawing on orange prepared paper that appears
to be an early example of a drawing intended as a finished work of art. The
artist would have begun by brushing the blank surface of his paper with finely
ground chalk, bone gesso, or lead white tinted with pigment and bound with
gelatin and hide glue (four or five layers of coating were recommended).When
the paper had dried, it was burnished to produce a smooth and even sur-
face.31 On to this Verrocchio drew with a thin, pointed stylus of silver. As
Figure 42. Andrea del Verrocchio. Head of a Woman, silverpoint on orange prepared paper,
Musée du Louvre, Paris, Cabinet des Dessins, 18.965.
the point was applied, particles of silver were embedded in the paper’s grainy
surface. Over time, the silver in Verrocchio’s drawing tarnished and the lines
have become darker. As the technique of silverpoint was so limiting in terms
of tonal range,Verrocchio added areas of highlighting with black and gray ink
and white lead applied with a brush.32 Although it appears to have been used
as the model for a figure in a painting,33 the drawing’s exquisite technique
suggests that it was intended as a work of art in its own right. Indeed, remnants
of mounting on the verso indicate that this was one of the examples that Vasari
kept in his famous drawing album, his Libro di disegno.34
Verrocchio’s paintings are no less experimental. For his Baptism of Christ
(Figure 7), both tempera and an oil-based medium were used.35 The discrepancy
in technique, along with differences in style, has led some scholars to suggest that
at least three painters, and perhaps as many as five, collaborated on the Baptism
and that it was executed in different stages.36 There are no documents regard-
ing the painting’s commission.37 Antonio Natali has plausibly proposed that the
commission of the altarpiece may have gone to Verrocchio as a result of his older
brother Simone’s position as abbot of San Salvi, which occurred in 1468, 1471–73,
and 1475–78, and that Simone’s broken tenure might explain the discrepancies
in technique in the painting. This would suggest that the painting was carried
out in separate campaigns, one beginning c. 1468 that was led by Verrocchio,
when most of the composition was laid down in tempera, followed by a second
campaign c. 1476, when the painting was completed and retouched using an
oil-based medium over the initial design that had been laid down by Verrocchio.
Leonardo probably carried out the second campaign using oil.38 Despite the hes-
itation of many scholars to assign much (if anything) of the Baptism to Verrocchio,
his personal involvement, not only for the finished areas in tempera, but also in
the design that was later painted in oil, has been convincingly demonstrated by
Jill Dunkerton, who has pointed out how the second campaign in oil was laid
down over areas well advanced in tempera that can be attributed to Verrocchio.39
Furthermore, if Leonardo was an assistant in Verrocchio’s workshop in the mid-
1470s – which seems likely – Verrocchio may well have supervised the use of oil
in the painting, even if he did not execute these sections himself.
Verrocchio’s innovations as a painter can be seen also in his choice of sup-
port. Apart from conventional wooden panels, the artist painted on paper and
on linen. Vasari mentions a “head of a woman, as finished as a drawing could
be, painted on paper” that was in the collection of Don Vincenzio Borghini.40
It has not survived, but a painting on paper of Saint Jerome (Figure 43) has
Figure 43. Andrea del Verrocchio. Head of Saint Jerome, tempera on paper, laid down on panel,
Galleria Palatina, Palazzo Pitti, Florence.
been convincingly attributed to the artist. Paintings on paper are not unknown
from this era. Paintings on paper were not uncommon in the Netherlands,
and some of these were imported to Florence.41 The Florentine matriarch
Alessandra Strozzi mentions them in a letter of 1460, in which she confuses
them with paintings on cloth, but the fact remains that Netherlandish paint-
ings on paper must have been fairly common by this date.42 Furthermore,
Cennino Cennini and others mention paintings on paper. They describe how
the paper would be oiled (Cennino mentions linseed oil), mounted on a pre-
existing design (either a painting or model drawing), and an outline made on it
through tracing. The tracing paper would be then glued to a panel, the traced
lines repeated, and a painting made on top of the design.43 A few surviving
examples correspond to this technique of carta lucida. However, Verrocchio’s
Saint Jerome does not appear to be an example, because there are no signs that
it was mechanically copied from a pre-existing work. Verrocchio’s intentions
in making his Saint Jerome are not known.44
Verrocchio also produced unusual paintings on linen, consisting of drapery
studies, executed in gray and white wash (Figure 44).45 While some can be
Figure 44. Andrea del Verrocchio. Drapery study, brush and gray tempera highlighted with
white, on gray prepared linen, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Florence.
linked to finished paintings or sculptures, others may have been created as

works of art in their own right.46 These works demonstrate an interest in the
properties of light and texture, and because of that, it has been suggested that
they were made in response to the example of Flemish painting.47 Presumably
Verrocchio became acquainted with Flemish paintings on cloth in the Medici
collection. The Medici are known to have amassed a substantial collection of
such works, which they displayed in their palace and at their villas (indeed, the
villa at Careggi was decorated almost exclusively with Netherlandish paint-
ings on cloth, and they were displayed in almost every room),48 though the
Netherlandish paintings on cloth do not appear to have been drapery studies.49
In addition to his innovative approach to art making, the breadth of
Verrocchio’s expertise in such a wide range of media during the course of
his career was remarkable.Vasari praised the artist for this, noting: “[he] was in
his day a goldsmith, a master of perspective, a sculptor, a carver, a painter, and
a musician.”50 Although it was not unusual to work in more than medium –
indeed, one could argue that it was the norm – early sources did highlight the
exceptional nature of Verrocchio’s breadth of skill. Giovanni Rucellai, writing
in 1457, refers to him as a sculptor and painter.51 Benedetto Dei did too in
his chronicle, Memorie Istoriche, of 1470.52 Giovanni Santi in his rhymed chronicle,
La vita e le geste di Federico di Montefeltro duca d’Urbino (written between 1484
and 1487), presents Verrocchio as a master of different media, describing
him as “the clear source of humanity and inborn gentility that is a bridge to
painting and to sculpture, over which he, Verrocchio, passed with skill.”53 In
1488, the year of Verrocchio’s death, Ugolino Verino praised the artist in his
De Illustratione Urbis Florentiae, writing: “Nor to you, Lysippus, is Tuscan
Verrocchio unequal: whatever painters have, they have drunk from that foun-
tain; almost all those whose fame now circulates through the towns of Tuscany,
Verrocchio taught as disciples.”54 And Verino celebrates Verrocchio as a painter
and a sculptor in an epigram found in a volume of his Latin verses (1483–91):
“Nor is our Verrocchio inferior to Phidias: in this one thing he excels since
he paints and melts bronze.”55 Pomponius Gauricus in his De Sculptura (1504)
mentions that Verrocchio was highly reputed both as a sculptor and a painter.56
1.1 VERROCCHIO’S WORK BETWEEN AND ACROSS MEDIA
Another feature of Verrocchio’s practice – and one that has received scant
attention from either his contemporaries or art historians – was his tendency
to transfer tools and techniques from one medium to another. In prepara-
tion for the marble Forteguerri cenotaph (Figure 20),Verrocchio made a small
model in terracotta (Figure 45) on which he used a metalpoint stylus and a
quill to draw literally into the clay. The technique is visible especially in the
definition of the upper figures and the cherub below Christ and in the vague
Figure 45. Andrea del Verrocchio. Modello for the Forteguerri cenotaph, terracotta, c. 1476,
Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
V & A Images, London/Art Resource, NY.
form of the draperies, created with the flick of a stylus.57 The effect achieved
is the spontaneous appearance of a graphic sketch, and scholars have marveled
at the work’s quality of “scenic dynamism,” to use Günter Passavant’s phrase.58
For his relief of the Beheading of Saint John the Baptist (Figure 13),Verrocchio
made a terracotta modello for the figure of the Executioner (Figure 12) in which
the artist cut into a slab of clay, rather than modeling up from the background in
the usual manner of terracotta sculpture.59 This practice resembles Leon Battista
Alberti’s description in his De statua (c. 1466) of sculptors working with mar-
ble (but not terracotta), who work only by taking away, and in so doing, they
remove “the superfluous to reveal the figure of the man they want which was
hidden within a block of marble.”60 In this way,Verrocchio challenges Alberti’s
dictum that those working with clay do so by adding and taking away.61
Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas (Figure 5) defies the limits of sculpture,
as it is an object between two and three dimensions. Although they resemble a
monumental sculpture in the round when viewed frontally, the statues are reliefs
(Figures 31 and 46). Furthermore, their bronze surfaces were carefully prepared
to heighten their pictorialism with a high degree of polishing designed to
produce a lustrous effect, counterbalanced by the intense chiaroscuro created
through the careful positioning of the sculpture within the niche. To achieve
Florence. Detail of reverse of Christ.
these effects,Verrocchio depended on both two- and three-dimensional mod-

els as he prepared his sculpture, a practice that was often employed by painters,
but less common among sculptors.62 A drapery study executed in gray and
white wash on linen (Figure 44), convincingly attributed to Verrocchio by
Passavant, was preparatory for the figure of Christ.63 Verrocchio would have
made his study on linen after a model constructed from wax or clay onto
which cloth dipped in gesso was arranged.64 The lights in Verrocchio’s drapery
study were presented in broad washes with a more restricted tonal range than
the other studies on linen, perhaps referring to its intended object, a bronze
sculpture. After studying the fall of light on a three-dimensional model and
expressing what he found in a painting in wash, Verrocchio then translated
those effects into a sculpture in bronze.65
In Verrocchio’s drawing of a Head of a Young Woman (Figure 47), the artist
blocked out the head as a sculptor would in his initial step before carving in
stone or modeling in clay or wax. The artist began by making some general
lines down the center of the nose and across the forehead using the sharp-
ened point of black chalk, reinforcing these with darker lines. The role of this
Figure 47. Andrea del Verrocchio. Head of a Woman, verso, charcoal on paper with a layer of
cream-colored preparation, mid-to-late-1470s, British Museum, London, 1895-9-15-785.
Copyright. The Trustees of the British Museum. All rights reserved.
practice, as it was for the sculptor, was to emphasize the major abstract planes
of the form.66 And in the case of the palla (Figures 1–3),Verrocchio transferred
his talents as a goldsmith. It was created by repoussé, a technique employed for
small-scale works in metal. To make it, Verrocchio hammered copper sheets
over a stone mold, soldered the sheets together, and gilded the resulting ball. As
we shall see in Chapter 5,Verrocchio’s tendency to transfer techniques can be
seen most dramatically in his Crucifix (Figure 11).67 Before turning to possible
explanations for the artist’s practice, let us first consider Verrocchio’s workshop.
1.2 VERROCCHIO’S BOTTEGA
Verrocchio, like other Renaissance artists, did not work alone or in isolation.
He controlled a large workshop where collaboration was the norm, even in
the smallest objects,68 and sometimes his assistants made objects without his
direct intervention.69 This has led some scholars to go as far as to assert that
Verrocchio was more business manager than artist.70 The picture is also colored
by the presence of some celebrated assistants in his bottega, which has meant
that some art historians have assigned the most impressive parts of Verrocchio’s
works – even those objects for which documents name Verrocchio as the artist
responsible – to his assistants (especially Leonardo).71 This is most egregious in
discussions of Verrocchio’s paintings, where his expertise is often discounted.72
Technical analysis has established, however, that although Verrocchio collab-
orated with other artists (as other masters did), often giving his assistants a
certain amount of autonomy and taking advantage of their particular talents,
he does appear to have been the chief designer in the workshop, and he seems
to have intervened personally in the most important works (including the
paintings) created in his bottega.73
Renaissance workshops often consisted of a master, apprentices, salaried
workers, assistants, and “guest” masters.74 The number of assistants in a bot-
tega depended on the types of objects produced there, and workers frequently
moved from one workshop to another to find employment.We know from the
valuable Ricordanze (1453–75) of painter Neri di Bicci that he had twenty-two
different assistants over nineteen years. Sometimes there were as many as six or
seven helpers in his shop at one time, but more often only two or three.75 These
fluctuations reflected how busy the painter was at a given moment.76 This was
typical: artists tended to enter into contractual agreements when their volume
of commissions increased.77 It is not known precisely how large Verrocchio’s
workforce was at any one time. For the construction of the copper palla, the
commission for which we have the greatest number of documents outlining
the nature of the work and the workers involved, Verrocchio depended on
many helpers. Over the course of construction, Verrocchio turned to assis-
tants to hammer the copper, construct the armature onto which the palla was
shaped, gild and polish the palla and the bottone on which it was placed, operate
the bellows, and help with the transportation of materials.78
Assistants and apprentices would have contributed to a variety of duties in
Verrocchio’s workshop. Some would have helped in the laborious preparatory
stages in the production of paintings, such as applying grounds to panels and
grinding and mixing pigments.79 Some may have performed the role of a
type of personal assistant, as Bernardino Basso did for Michelangelo. His tasks
included running errands, roughing out marble, and serving as a witness for
payments Michelangelo made to other assistants.80
Throughout his career Verrocchio collaborated with other artists on
projects large (like the palla) and small (drawings, for example).81 Some of
these were minor artisans, recorded only once or twice in documents; oth-
ers went on to become leading artists of the next generation. Verrocchio is
also praised explicitly as a teacher of painters by Verino in his De Illustratione
Urbis Florentiae, who writes: “whatever painters have, they have drunk from
that fountain [i.e., Verrocchio]; almost all those whose fame now circulates
through the towns of Tuscany,Verrocchio taught as disciples.”82 Vasari mentions
Leonardo,83 Perugino,84 Francesco di Simone,85 Agnolo di Polo,86 Lorenzo
di Credi,87 Orsino Benintendi,88 Giovanni Francesco Rustici,89 and an artist

referred to as “Nanni Grosso”90 as associates (discepoli or allievi) of Verrocchio,
and the presence of some of these artists in Verrocchio’s workshop is supported
by documentary evidence. It has been proposed, based on stylistic grounds,
that other artists may have been associated with Verrocchio and his workshop,
despite a lack of documentary evidence. These include Sandro Botticelli,91
Domenico Ghirlandaio,92 Francesco Botticini,93 Biagio d’Antonio,94 and
Pietro Torrigiani.95 Some of them may have been apprenticed to Verrocchio.96
Leonardo appears to have been apprenticed to Verrocchio.97 He very likely
began working in the bottega as an apprentice c. 1468,98 and by the 1470s he
seems to have been serving as an assistant.Verrocchio and Leonardo’s father, Ser
Piero da Vinci, were certainly acquainted by 1465, when Piero served as notary
for a dispute between Verrocchio and his brother Tommaso over their paternal
inheritance.99 When Leonardo is recorded in the red book of the Compagnia
di San Luca in 1472 – for neglecting to pay his member’s subscription and
for not having bought his candles for St Luke’s Day100 – he is called dipintore
(a term used to refer to both a painter still in training and an independent
painter).101 In 1476, when Leonardo was among those charged with having
committed sodomy with Jacopo Saltarelli, a seventeen-year-old apprentice in
a goldsmith’s workshop, documents of April 9 and June 7 record that he was
residing with Verrocchio.102 In the light of these documents and Leonardo’s
entry in the libro rosso, it does seem likely that in the 1470s Leonardo was work-
ing as a collaborator, rather than an assistant, in Verrocchio’s bottega.103
Vasari mentions Lorenzo di Credi in his vita of Verrocchio, referring to
him as the master’s favorite.104 According to a list of claims filed by Tommaso,
Verrocchio’s brother, Credi had been a member of Verrocchio’s bottega since
at least 1473, when he (Credi) had “painted an altarpiece of Our Lady and
other things,” for which he received 26 large florins.105 This is supported by a
note by Credi’s mother in her catasto declaration of 1480 that records how her
son was a member of Verrocchio’s bottega.106 In 1486 Credi describes himself
as a painter employed in Verrocchio’s workshop in a contract for the rental
of a house from the hospital of Santa Maria Nuova.107 And two notes further
demonstrate Credi’s presence in Verrocchio’s workshop in the late 1480s: the first
on a sheet from a sketchbook by an artist associated with Verrocchio’s work-
shop (possibly Francesco di Simone Ferrucci), recording that the anonymous
writer of the note was owed money for two putti which he had made for
a certain “Giovanni cartolaio” (book seller), based on a design of a putto by
Verrocchio that had been lent to him (the writer) by Credi108; and the second,
a list of claims filed by Verrocchio’s brother Tommaso in 1490 against Credi
after Verrocchio’s death.109 Verrocchio evidently held Credi in great esteem. On
his departure for Venice in 1486, Verrocchio left his assistant in charge of the
Florentine workshop. Later, he made Credi an heir and executor of his will,
recommending in his final testament that Credi be appointed by the Signoria

to complete the Colleoni monument.110 After his master’s death, Credi signed
contracts to arrange for the completion of the Forteguerri cenotaph and the
Colleoni monument, both begun by Verrocchio, though Credi is not known
to have had any expertise as a sculptor.111 Francesco di Simone was probably
not Verrocchio’s pupil, as he was two years older than Verrocchio.112 But the
precise nature of the relationship between Francesco di Simone and Verrocchio
remains a knotty problem.113
Although Verrocchio appears to have had many assistants in his workshop,
they may not have been fixed to his bottega. The sculptor Giuliano d’Andrea,
for instance, who is referred to as an assistant of Verrocchio’s in documents
dating from 1483 about the installation of the Christ and Saint Thomas, wrote
of himself in his 1480 catasto declaration: “I am a sculptor, when I can find the
work.”114 Ghirlandaio, who appears to have spent time working in Verrocchio’s
bottega based on stylistic evidence, was an itinerant artist during his early career.
Jean Cadogan has pointed out that in one version of his 1480 catasto declara-
tion, Ghirlandaio’s father said of Domenico: “he is a painter here and there;
he doesn’t keep a workshop.”115 Ghirlandaio’s situation appears to have been
typical for the period.116
One of the most intriguing sources for information on Verrocchio’s bottega
is the so-called Verrocchio sketchbook. This collection of twenty-nine sheets
contain sketches, many of which are copies of works by Verrocchio117 and his
contemporaries, including Antonio Pollaiuolo,118 Desiderio da Settignano,119
Lorenzo di Credi,120 some sketches of antique cameos,121 and some notes.122
Three of the sheets bear the date 1487,123 while another records the year 1488.124
The author of the sketches and writings has not been identified, but it is gen-
erally agreed that the sketchbook was produced in the workshop of Francesco
di Simone Ferrucci.125 Verrocchio is mentioned on one of the sheets used for
accounts, together with a “lorenzo dipintore,” probably Lorenzo di Credi.126 In
addition, several other artists associated with Verrocchio’s bottega are mentioned
in inscriptions.127 The notes and sketches contained in the so-called Verrocchio
sketchbook suggest that workers associated with Verrocchio – like those in
other Renaissance workshops – moved frequently between botteghe and that
Verrocchio’s workforce was not fixed. The nature of Verrocchio’s relationships
with his assistants was therefore varied, and the number of assistants in his
workshop fluctuated.
What do we know about the physical organization and location of
Verrocchio’s workshop? In his earliest years as an independent master (in the
1460s), Verrocchio’s workshop was very probably within, next door to, or at
least close by the artist’s family home, which we know was located at the
corner of via dell’Agnolo and what is now via de’ Macci, near the church
of Sant’Ambrogio.128 This was the home in which Verrocchio had grown up.
We know little about this property, except that it was four stories high. Here
Verrocchio supervised the production of zibaldoni, and, very probably, made his
modello for the competition for the marble tabernacle in Orvieto.
Documents discovered by Alessandro Cecchi indicate that sometime
between 1469 and August 4, 1471, Verrocchio had moved to another house
with a workshop in the parish of San Michele Visdomini.129 He kept his
old property at Sant’Ambrogio, which he rented out, often to artisans.130
Verrocchio’s second residence was probably that owned by the Bischeri family,
which we know from the artist’s catasto declaration of 1480 that he was renting
by that date. This was the same workshop previously inhabited by Michelozzo
and Donatello, located directly behind the Duomo, on the corner of what
is today via dell’Oriuolo.131 Although the buildings Verrocchio rented from
the Bischeri family have long since been replaced by the Palazzo Guadagni
(now the Palazzo Strozzi di Mantova), we know from the contract drawn up
between the owner of the buildings with Donatello that it consisted of a house
with a garden, a bottega, and other buildings.132
Drawing from scholarship undertaken on workshops in Florence in gen-
eral, one can reach some conclusions about Verrocchio’s second bottega. We
know, for instance, that rents for workshops were based on the dimensions
of the buildings, and because we know that Verrocchio rented the Bischeri
casetta for sixteen florins a year, only slightly higher than the average fifteen
florins for sculptors, it is likely that his workshop was equivalent in size to that
of an average sculptor. (Painters’ workshops, by contrast, were substantially
cheaper, at seven florins on average, and presumably smaller.)133 We know that
Verrocchio lived above his bottega, probably for tax reasons.134 Other artists
did this too, though many kept their workshops distinct from their living
quarters.135
Inventories made of Verrocchio’s possessions in 1490, two years after his
death, tell us that he was producing paintings and sculpture in marble in the
same location.136 We know that he had materials delivered to his workshop for
the palla, implying that the hammering of the copper sheets went on there
(this is also suggested by the presence of a model of the cupola recorded in a
document listing items in his workshops after his death).137 Verrocchio’s mixed-
media workshop contrasts with those of other artists, who, if they worked in
different media, tended to do so in separate workshops. The Maiano brothers,
for instance, had three different workshops, according to their 1480 catasto
declaration: a sculpture workshop on via del Castellaccio (where they made
works in marble) and two in the adjoining via dei Servi, one for objects
in wood, and the other subletted to the wax worker Orsino di Niccolò.138
Donatello and Michelozzo rented a double workshop on via dei Servi from
1427 until 1433, one for works in marble, the other for casting bronze.139 In
a small number of cases, inventories made of artists’ workshops suggest that
they were producing work in a variety of media, like Verrocchio, but this was
not the norm.140 Florentine workshops in general must have been extremely
cramped and uncomfortable work spaces, because of the typically small size of
the site and the number of goods kept inside – which included materials and
tools for future works, completed work waiting to be sold, and models and
work in progress141 – but Verrocchio’s must have been exceptionally crowded.
The unusual nature of Verrocchio’s bottega, where he carried out work in dif-
ferent materials in the same space (including painting and sculpture), may
explain in part his practice of moving between media.
1.3 EXPERIMENTAL FLORENCE
Despite Vasari’s claim that Verrocchio worked with different materials to avoid
boredom,142 surely it was due in large part to the vagaries of the art market of
fifteenth-century Florence. In order to survive in this highly competitive world,
artists had to be innovative, entrepreneurial risk-takers.143 Renaissance Italy
witnessed an explosion in technologies and artistic formats that were either
new or revived after many centuries. These included large-scale bronze cast-
ing, large-scale sculpture in terracotta,144 three-dimensional marble sculpture
divorced from its architectural setting, drawing in ink and in chalk, drawings
as finished works of art, various engraving technologies,145 glazed terracotta,146
and painting in oil.147 Many of these developments appeared for the first time
on the Italian peninsula in Florence, or were taken up there quickly.
Not only were new technologies introduced, Florentine artists (including
Verrocchio) were also innovative in the ways they made their objects. Painters
such as Alesso Baldovinetti, Benozzo Gozzoli, and Piero Pollaiuolo experi-
mented in oil painting. Baldovinetti’s Annunciation (Figure 48) for the cardinal
of Portugal’s chapel in San Miniato al Monte was painted in oil directly on
panel, without the conventional preparatory layer, and laid down on oak in
the Flemish manner, instead of poplar, which was more typical in Florence.148
When the Pollaiuolo brothers (or perhaps just Piero) painted the altarpiece for
same chapel (Figure 49), it was executed in oil on oak with a very thin prepa-
ration that included lead white.149 And later, when Piero Pollaiuolo painted
his David (Figure 50), he applied the paint directly onto the poplar panel
without a gesso ground.150 For his frescoes for the cardinal of Portugal’s chapel
(Figure 51), Baldovinetti used lead white, a technique that proved nearly disas-
trous.151 And Benozzo Gozzoli painted his murals for the Medici palace chapel
(Figure 52), completed in 1459, a secco (on dry plaster) in tempera and oil.152
Fifteenth-century Florentine sculptors were just as experimental as paint-
ers. When Donatello wanted to create an impressive altar for il Santo in
Padua (Figure 53), he did not have the skills to cut the notoriously hard por-
phyry, so he painted pietra di Nanto (limestone from Vicenza) to imitate it.153
Figure 48. Alesso Baldovinetti, Annunciation, oil on oak, c. 1466, Chapel of the Cardinal of
Portugal, San Miniato al Monte, Florence. Detail.
Conway Library, The Courtauld Institute of Art, London.
Figure 49. Antono and Piero Pollaiuolo. Altarpiece for the Chapel of the Cardinal of
Portugal, oil on oak, c. 1466–67, Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.
Gianni Dagli Orti/The Art Archive at Art Resource, NY.
Figure 50. Antonio Pollaiuolo, David, tempera and oil on poplar, 1460s, Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie.
Photo: Jörg P. Anders.
Figure 51. Alesso Baldovinetti, Annunciation, fresco, c. 1466, Chapel of the Cardinal of

Portugal, San Miniato al Monte, Florence. Detail.
Conway Library, The Courtauld Institute of Art, London.
Donatello’s bronze Saint Louis of Toulouse (Figure 30), made for the exterior
of Orsanmichele (for a niche that Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas later
came to fill), was technically audacious and unconventional. Made from ten
principal parts, cast separately and fire-gilded, it was then assembled and held
together by copper pins.The very task of fire gilding such a large object posed a
Figure 52. Benozzo Gozzoli. Adoration of the Magi, fresco, 1459–60, Palazzo Medici, Florence.
Figure 53. Donatello. Deposition of Christ, pietra di nanto, 1447–50, Basilica del Santo, Padua.
significant problem that Donatello overcame through his assemblage of smaller

parts.154 Sculptors working in terracotta likewise experimented with assem-
blage, which enabled them to avoid the risk of defects from casting in a single
piece.155 For them, it was a solution for creating sculptures of unprecedented
size. Surviving examples of glazed terracotta reliefs by Luca della Robbia from
the 1440s show that he was refining his technique as he employed it (the reliefs
vary significantly in the success of their firing and glazing).156
Sculptors of wood overcame the challenges of their medium. A number of
Florentine sculptors during the last third of the Quattrocento chose not to
carve from a single block of wood and instead invented a method of assem-
blage from multiple pieces.157 But this assemblage was by no means a straight-
forward method because these wooden sculptures were made from many
separate pieces (sometimes more than twenty),158 and artists faced the formida-
ble challenge of attaching all the parts together.159
When Filippo Brunelleschi made his wooden Crucifix for Santa Maria
Novella (Figure 54), he carved it from half a trunk of pear wood – an unusual
Figure 54. Filippo Brunelleschi. Crucifix, polychromed pear wood and linen, c. 1410–15,
Santa Maria Novella, Florence.
Alinari/Art Resource, NY. Photo: George Tatge, 1998.
choice for wooden sculpture made in Tuscany. But the trunk was too small
for his life-size statue so he was forced to include the pith (the central part of
a trunk and the main source of radial cracks). As a result, his Crucifix features
radial cracks that are especially apparent at the groin area (Figure 55). Because
of this, Brunelleschi made the innovative decision to make his figure’s loin
cloth from real linen, stiffened with glue to hold its folds, instead of carv-
ing it from wood as earlier sculptors had done (including Donatello for his
Crucifix in Santa Croce (Figure 56), with which Brunelleschi was competing,
if we are to believe Vasari’s famous account).160 As Peter Stiberc has emphasized,
by doing this, Brunelleschi established a convention for using linen rather than
wood for the loin cloths of large-scale crucifixes for Florentine crucifixes that
followed.161
Artists experimented with techniques resulting in a huge variety, even within
one medium. As Edilberto Formigli has pointed out, the diversity in bronze cast-
ing techniques in fifteenth-century Florentine sculpture suggests that there was no
standardization and that instead, “each founder seems to have developed his own
casting technology.”162 Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes (Figure 57) was cast using a
Figure 55. Filippo Brunelleschi, Crucifix, polychromed pear wood and linen, c. 1410–15,
Santa Maria Novella, Florence. Detail of radial cracks in groin area.
Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le attività Culturali e del Turismo – Opificio delle Pietre Dure
di Firenze, Archivio dei Restauri e Fotografico.
Figure 56. Donatello, Crucifix, polychromed pear wood, 1412–13, Santa Croce, Florence.
Figure 57. Donatello. Judith and Holofernes, bronze, c. 1455, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence.
particularly idiosyncratic technique.163 Instead of building up his wax model over

a shaped clay core, Donatello made his model from combustible material (save for
the iron armature) that included real linen stiffened in wax, over which he formed
a clay mold in three or four pieces. After firing, the combustible materials burnt
out and the mold sections were taken apart, lined with wax, then reassembled and
packed with wet core material (with core pins inserted through the wax from the
inside).The result was a bronze made with little modeling and that required little
chasing. The Judith and Holofernes would have been quick to produce, and it may
have been time that dictated the unusual procedures by which it was made.164 In
wooden sculpture, too, there was a diversity of methods. Artists employed differ-
ent means for attaching the pieces of their statues (primarily heads and hands) to
the rest of the body. These ranged from dowels and glue to metal bands.165 And
in early engraving the surviving evidence suggests that there was considerable
variety in how prints were made, leading Sean Roberts to assert: “no two artisans
produced these prints in exactly the same way,” including in Florence.166
Roberts explains the diversity among early prints as a result of artists keeping
careful guard of their technical knowledge.167 This attitude of secrecy was not
exclusive to printmakers. Brunelleschi famously kept his work secret, advising his
friend, inventor and engineer Mariano Taccola (known in his day as “the Sienese
Archimedes”), during a visit to Siena: “Do not share your inventions with the
many, share them only with the few who understand and love the sciences. To
disclose too much of one’s inventions and achievements amounts to the same
thing as downplaying one’s own genius.”168 And according to Antonio Manetti,
Brunelleschi became a master of engineering (in preparation for the building
of the dome of Florence’s cathedral) “in secret, while pretending to do some-
thing else.”169 Although he (Brunelleschi) was in Rome with Donatello when
he acquired this knowledge, he did not share his ideas with his companion.170
This clandestine attitude to methods of making is evident too in the arbitrations
drawn up by the Finiguerra family to ensure Maso Finiguerra’s sulfur casts for
niello prints, loose sheets, and books of drawings would remain in their custody.171
As well as facing the challenges of their medium, artists had to deal with
the daunting expectations of patrons. Most famously, perhaps, is the case of
Brunelleschi’s dome for the Florentine Duomo. The planned cupola (Figure 1;
on which Verrocchio’s palla was positioned later) was to be higher and wider
than any pre-existing example, and no trees tall enough existed to provide a
scaffold for it as it was being built. Brunelleschi’s dome is a feat of engineering
whose secrets of construction still are not fully understood (the humanist Carlo
Marsuppini praised Brunelleschi’s achievement on the vault as “Daedalian” – after
the mythic craftsman who flew with wings he had invented – in an inscription
composed for the artist’s funerary monument).172 When the Opera del Duomo
commissioned Donatello to create a colossal sculpture for the exterior of the
Duomo (his Joshua, 1410–12, now lost), he made the innovative choice of working
Figure 58. Lorenzo Ghiberti, Saint Matthew, bronze, finished 1422, Orsanmichele, Florence.
with pieces of terracotta, faced in stucco and painted in lead white instead of
marble. This decision solved the challenge of installing a marble sculpture (the
conventional material for large-scale works at this time) high up on the exterior
of the Florentine Duomo, without the danger of it being destroyed during instal-
lation or afterwards. Terracotta also made it light enough to be installed.173 When
Lorenzo Ghiberti was commissioned in 1419 by the bankers’ guild to cast a statue
in bronze of Saint Matthew (Figure 58) – a large-scale figure – he was requested
to make it in one or two pieces.174 The suggestion that it could be done in a
single pour was extraordinary considering that this had never been done before
(even ancient bronzes of comparable size were cast in sections and then pieced
together).175 Despite Ghiberti’s best efforts, the Saint Matthew was made in parts.176
Ghiberti’s experience was not uncommon. Not only were artists exper-
imental in their approach to making, but adjustments and mistakes – even
failures – were typical. When Ghiberti was unsuccessful in casting his
Saint Matthew in a single pour, he was forced to recast the defective upper
body. He cut away the upper area with chisels and then recast onto the lower
part of the statue that had been cast successfully the first time.177 His Saint John
the Baptist (Figure 59) and Saint Stephen (Figure 60) similarly feature evidence
Figure 59. Lorenzo Ghiberti. Saint John the Baptist, bronze, 1412–16, Orsanmichele, Florence.
Figure 60. Lorenzo Ghiberti. Saint Stephen, bronze, 1427–28, Orsanmichele, Florence.

Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le attività Culturali e del Turismo – Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
Figure 61. Lorenzo Ghiberti. North Doors, gilt bronze, 1421/22–24, Baptistery, Florence.
of casting problems: there are several large areas of repair in the Saint John the
Baptist, including the fingers on the right hand and a large section of drapery
on the right leg178; the face and hair of Saint Stephen were attached after cast-
ing, and there is a large casting in repair on the saint’s chest.179 When Ghiberti
was making his North Doors of the Baptistery (Figure 61), he was forced to
call in expert founders from Burgundy for help after his first casting.180 (That
said, Ghiberti cast many works without problems.)181 A horse’s head in bronze
(Figure 62), long thought to be ancient but recently dated to the Renaissance
and attributed to Donatello, was left incomplete, perhaps because the casting
of the rest of the body was unsuccessful.182 Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes
(Figure 57) is not a failed cast, but it does bear the marks of flaws in its model,
most notably, the fragmenting of the lower part of the band that encircles
Judith’s head, which was made by impressing real linen into the wax.183 Recent
restoration of Nanni di Banco’s marble Four Crowned Martyrs found evidence
of interventions that must have been done after the statues were installed in the
niche.184 Apparently Leon Battista Alberti tried, but failed, to carve porphyry.185
And anonymous artists responsible for some early engravings in Florence
(evidently unaware of how to correct their copper plates) made prints with
some fairly egregious errors.186
Figure 62. Donatello, attributed to. Horse’s head, bronze, mid-fifteenth century, Museo
Archaeologico, Naples.
Verrocchio’s expertise in a wide range of media must be understood in

this environment of innovation, experimentation, and competition. That con-
text may also explain his tendency to work across media, for Verrocchio was
not the only Florentine artist to do this. Masaccio may have been a sculptor as
well as a painter187; Donatello,188 Luca della Robbia,189 Lorenzo Ghiberti,190 and
Matteo Civitali (who trained in Florence)191 are all recorded as painters as well
as sculptors; Desiderio da Settignano worked in terracotta, wood, pietra serena,
and marble (and many of his sculptures were polychromed)192; and the partners
Apollonio di Giovanni and Marco del Buono painted clothes hangers as well as
frescoes and cassoni.193 The Pollaiuolo brothers produced goldsmith work; panel,
canvas, and fresco painting; painted confraternity standards; designs for embroi-
dery; terracotta; engraving; painted and gilded gesso shields; parade armor; small
bronzes and bronze tombs; and a polychrome crucifix made from cork, linen,
gesso, and tow. According to Vasari, they also produced enamels, jewelry, and
objects in wax.194 In the fourteenth century, Arnolfo di Cambio filled the eyes
of his marble Madonna (Figure 63) for the exterior of the Duomo with glass
paste.195 Donatello, Bernardo Rossellino, and others often painted their sculp-
tures.196 Sculptors including Antonio Rossellino and Desiderio da Settignano
made gesso squeezes from molds taken from their relief sculptures in marble.197
Donatello went so far as to make a bronze relief (known as the Chellini Madonna,
Figure 64), from the reverse of which could be made replicas in glass.198 And a
number of sculptors working with wood in the late fifteenth century – includ-
ing Verrocchio, but also Donatello and Michelozzo – modeled up the forms of
their figures in gesso, rather than carving into the wood, an additive approach
taken from works in stucco, terracotta, and wax.199
Apart from the competitive market, workshop practices also explain the ten-
dency to move between media. It was the norm, rather than the exception, for
assistants to move between various botteghe specializing in different media, thus
Figure 63. Arnolfo di Cambio. Madonna, marble and glass, c. 1300, Museo dell’Opera del
Duomo, Florence.
Nicolo Orsi Battaglini/Art Resource, NY.
Figure 64. Donatello. Chellini Madonna, before 1456, bronze,Victoria and Albert Museum,
London.
acquiring skills in working with diverse materials through necessity.200 And mas-
ters often turned to the help of workers in other trades for equipment or exper-
tise, as attested to in contracts and evidence from works of art.201 Cadogan has
gone as far as to suggest that Florence was unusual in the freedom artists had to
move from one medium to another. This situation, she argues, was the result of
the arrangement of Florentine guilds “into loosely related groups for political
purposes [that] meant that the regulation and protection of craft activity that were
the normal functions of medieval guilds were secondary, and the rigidity and
provinciality of artisan activity found in other cities was lacking [in Florence].”202
It may have been as a result of this movement that artists were sometimes
prompted to take an effect from one medium and attempt to re-create it in
another, as we have seen Verrocchio did. For his Piot Madonna (Figure 65),
Donatello surrounded the lightly fired terracotta relief of the Madonna and
Child with small glass roundels with putti and amphorae in finely worked
white wax set on a layer of translucent red wax with lozenge-shaped areas
in green wax between them (unfortunately most of the glass roundels were
replaced with Plexiglas replicas in the 1959 restoration campaign).203 These
details, combined with the gilded surface, suggest Donatello was evoking
the work of a goldsmith.204 Artists including Donatello, Ghiberti, and Luca
Figure 65. Donatello. Piot Madonna, terracotta, wax, glass, partially gilded, c. 1440, Musée du
Louvre, Paris.
Copyright. RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY. Photo: Stéphane Maréchalle.
della Robbia damascened in gold and silver some of their works in bronze, a
technique taken from metalwork.205 Donatello’s gilded bronze Saint Louis of
Toulouse (Figure 30), as we have seen, was made in several parts held together
with rivets, a technique adopted from metalworkers.206 The materials and
methods of his bronze Judith and Holofernes (Figure 57) made, as I have dis-
cussed, from tow and paste over an iron armature and dressed in linen cloth
finished with wax and tallow, resemble ephemeral sculptures.207 Charles Avery
has proposed that Donatello may have encouraged the use of stiacciato relief
for many of the marble sculptures produced by his workshop because it was so
easy to make casts from them (and thus make it easier to replicate the designs),
an argument supported by the existence of faithful copies of Donatello’s Pazzi
Madonna.208 And we have seen how Donatello’s bronze relief known as the
Chellini Madonna (Figure 64) was made for reproductions in glass.209 Giancarlo
Gentilini has proposed that Luca della Robbia developed his invention for
glazed terracotta from his experience with gold enameling as a goldsmith and
his contact with glass makers at the Opera del Duomo (Gentilini goes as far
as to suggest that Luca may have been trying to create a medium that could
compete with the effects of the lost art of mosaic).210 The artist responsible
for the terracotta Madonna and Child in the National Gallery, Washington,
DC, known as the Kress Madonna (Figure 66), used linen fabric to fill a gap
Figure 66. Unknown Florentine Artist. Kress Madonna, polychromed and gilded terracotta on
poplar backing, c. 1425, Samuel H. Kress Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Courtesy: National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, open access.
between his terracotta figures and the wooden poplar backing (a technique
that mimics that employed by painters preparing large panel paintings) and
applied fine hatching in the flesh tones to suggest three-dimensionality (similar
to methods in engraving and painting).211 And it has been argued that the taste
for antique cameos during the Renaissance inspired Florentine sculptors to
include inlays in blue glass or mosaic in their reliefs and to place them against
colored stone.212
The tendency for Renaissance artists, including Verrocchio, to work
between media and to transfer tools and techniques must be seen also against
the backdrop of the taste among Florentine patrons for works that displayed
their processes. The roughness evident in many of Donatello’s bronzes points
to an interest in the model (for instance, the texture from the linen fabric
used in the original model for the bronze Judith [Figure 57]). Nicholas Penny
has read this feature in Donatello’s oeuvre as a kind of guarantee of the art-
ist’s hand (perhaps because they were cast by others), but it is also proof of a
taste for the unfinished and of process. This practice is evident also in some
works by Francesco di Giorgio Martini and Desiderio da Settignano. Penny
has argued that a large plaquette by Francesco di Giorgio (Figure 67) whose
Figure 67. Francesco di Giorgio. The Judgment of Paris, bronze, 1480s or 1490s. Samuel H.
Kress collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Courtesy: National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, open access.
surface is covered with tiny pimples (caused by casting and usually cleaned
away) was left this way to provide a “sfumato” effect and was clearly deliberate
because it recurs in other works by Francesco.213 Antonio Rossellino’s marble
portrait bust of Giovanni di Antonio Chellini (Figure 68) similarly features
details that suggest a fascination with how objects were made, in particular,
the detailed wrinkles and veins and the sagging flesh, which may have been
achieved through the use of a life mask. The precisely realized ears, which
art historians for generations have asserted were achieved by transferring into
marble the ears from a life cast of Chellini, were unlikely to have been included
in a life cast. Nevertheless, as Peter Dent has recently argued, the detail of the
ears does “reproduce the experience of the [life] casting process,” to remind the
viewer of a technique of replication, which Rossellino has not employed and
has in fact exceeded in skill by replicating Chellini’s ears through carving.214
Although Chellini’s bust probably was not made from a death mask, Jeannette
Kohl has drawn attention to many other portrait busts in stucco and terracotta
that were, and furthermore, these do not disguise their derivation from casts
Figure 68. Antonio Rossellino. Portrait bust of Giovanni di Antonio Chellini, marble, 1456.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
after death masks.215 Whereas Kohl has claimed that this tendency suggests a
taste for the factual and a crisis of the “self,”216 an alternative proposition is that
it is proof of an interest in process. Another practice that might be interpreted
as suggesting this fascination is the making of relic casts – casting rough wax
models in order to make them permanent.217
The art of fifteenth-century Florence was remarkably experimental, the
result of intense competition between artists – and also between patrons – to
outdo each other; the development of technologies (including new ones); and
a fascination with process on the part of viewers. This environment provided
fertile ground for Verrocchio, whose unusual workshop – in which he pro-
duced both sculptures and paintings – was the context in which he moved
between media, often transferring tools and techniques from one material to
another, producing objects whose making was crucial for their meaning.
2
VERROCCHIO’S MEDICI TOMB: ART AS

TREATISE
What can a tomb, which is a mute thing, do for a wise man?
LEONARDO BRUNI1
Verrocchio’s Tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici in San Lorenzo (Figures 9, 36,
and 69), made for the uncle and father of Lorenzo il Magnifico, is one of the
most opulent burial monuments of the fifteenth century. The use of materials
and forms suggests an iconographical reading was intended, but the precise
nature of this reading has remained elusive.2 In general, scholars agree that the
tomb’s iconography concerns themes of regeneration and resurrection and
refers to the Medici.3 The interpretation proposed here instead draws atten-
tion to Verrocchio’s emphasis on materials and metaphors of making in his
tomb. I argue that the monument presents Medici wealth as something worthy
and Medici entrepreneurship as the means by which the family could access
heaven and hope for resurrection. Significantly, these arguments are framed
through Verrocchio’s acumen and skill, thus presenting the success of Medici
ambition as dependent on the artist. Ultimately, I demonstrate how Verrocchio
used metaphors of making to express his claims, and thus the tomb stands as a
visual expression of the artist’s theory and practice.
2.1 TOMB AS ORATION AT SAN LORENZO
The tomb is positioned within the aperture of an arch in the church of San
Lorenzo (Figures 9 and 36).The opening is filled with a roped net in bronze that
ends in tassels below a sarcophagus (Figures 9, 36, and 70), and the arch is framed
in marble, decorated with alternating palm fronds and olive branches within
74
Verrocchio’s Medici Tomb: Art as Treatise 75
Figure 69. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici, c. 1473, San
Lorenzo, Florence.View of tomb set into the wall of the Old Sacristy.
Lorenzo, Florence. Detail of bronze tassels and marble platform ornamented with red
porphyry ellipses and circles.
Lorenzo, Florence. Detail of arch decoration, marble.
diamond rings attached to bound vines. The vines are set in vases at the base of
the arch and the vases are adorned with putti, harpies, small lions’ heads, putti
heads, garlands, diamond rings, palm fronds, shells, rams’ heads, acanthus leaves,
and lions’ feet (Figures 71 and 72). A bronze diamond in a rosette marks the arch’s
apex (Figures 9 and 36).A pietra serena frame surrounds the marble arch, and above
this, on the chapel side, is a marble stemma bearing the Medici palle (Figure 36).4
The tomb rests upon a pietra serena plinth on top of which is placed a large
triple cross in white marble. Above this are four bronze turtles (Figures 33 and 73)
and resting on their backs is a hollow marble plinth, the upper surface of
which is ornamented with pieces of red porphyry and serpentine (green
porphyry)5 and gilt bronze or brass disks (Figure 70). The marble plinth is
inscribed: “LAURENT ET IUL PETRI F / POSVER/ PATRI PATRVO
QUE / MCCCCLXXII” (Lorenzo and Giuliano sons of Piero erected this for
their father and uncle, 1472). Four bronze legs in the form of acanthus leaves
and lion’s feet (Figure 72) surmount this and support a brick or terracotta
sarcophagus that is faced with red porphyry. Two green serpentine roundels
placed within bronze wreaths decorate the main faces of the sarcophagus, with
Figure 72. Andrea del Verrocchio. Tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici, c. 1473, Florence,
San Lorenzo. Detail of marble arch decoration, bronze lions’ feet, and acanthus leaves.
San Lorenzo. Detail of turtle, bronze.
Copyright. 2018. Photo SCALA, Florence.
an inscription naming the deceased, followed by the initials of a Roman tomb

formula on one side and an inscription with their ages at the time of their
death on the other (Figures 74 and 75).6 The lid of the sarcophagus is made
from marble and porphyry decorated with bronze netting, on top of which
is placed an elaborate bronze decoration consisting of a diamond resting on a
bowl of acanthus leaves to which two large sea shells are attached and out of
which fall bouquets of fruits, leaves, and seeds (Figures 35 and 76). The mon-
ument is thus an impressive demonstration of Verrocchio’s mastery of a wide
range of materials and the techniques required for working with them.
Located a stone’s throw from the Medici palace (Figure 77), Verrocchio’s
tomb is situated in the family’s parish church of San Lorenzo. The Medici
had played an important role at San Lorenzo since the early fifteenth century.
Construction on the new church began around 1419 following a design by
Filippo Brunelleschi. Although the idea of enlarging the church was probably
motivated by the desire of several patrician families to have family chapels
where divine offices could be celebrated for their souls (and those of their
San Lorenzo. Detail of inscription facing the Old Sacristy.
San Lorenzo. Detail of inscription facing the chapel of Cosmas and Damian.
Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le attività Culturali e del Turismo - Gabinetto Fotografico delle
San Lorenzo. Detail of cornucopia and netting, bronze.
209
156
67
51
79
195 43
69
14
10
42
Figure 77. Detail of Fra Stefano Buonsignori. View of Florence, showing the Medici palace and
the church of San Lorenzo in 1584, etching printed on six sheets of glued paper, Gabinetto
Disegni e Stampe degli Uffizi, Florence, 2614 (st. sc.). The Medici palace is at 156 and San
Lorenzo is at 79 on the map.
ancestors and descendants), the Medici (and their allies) soon took control.7 In
1421 Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici commissioned Brunelleschi to build a sacristy
(later known as the Old Sacristy, Figure 69), originally separate from the church
itself, which would serve as a burial site for the family in addition to functioning
as a sacristy. A few years later the Medici (probably Giovanni di Bicci) commis-
sioned the adjoining chapel of SS. Cosmas and Damian (Figures 78 and 79).8
The sacristy and chapel were linked liturgically from their earliest founda-
tion, with the same canons and deputy canons overseeing services in both.9
Verrocchio’s tomb was situated in the extraordinary position of the open arch in
the wall between these two spaces, thus visible to anyone standing in the nave.10
In his life of Verrocchio, Vasari included architecture among the artist’s many
skills and mentions it specifically in relation to the tomb of Giovanni and Piero
de’ Medici,11 suggesting the possibility that it was Verrocchio who was responsi-
ble for breaking down the wall to create the arch. However, Francesco Caglioti
has argued that the arch had been occupied earlier with another Medici tomb,
that of Lorenzo di Giovanni di Bicci, younger brother of Cosimo de’ Medici.
Lorenzo’s tomb was referred to as double-sided (“urna bifrons”) in a poem by
Gentile de’ Becchi of c. 1454, and the logical place for such a monument is in
the space later taken by Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni and Piero.12
In any case, the position of the tomb, between the Old Sacristy and the
chapel of SS. Cosmas and Damian, invited viewers to connect the spaces.
Figure 78. Anonymous, Plan of San Lorenzo, c. 1500, Archivio di Stato,Venice. 1: Old Sacristy.
2: Chapel of SS. Cosmas and Damian.
Photo courtesy of the Photo Reproduction Unit of the Archivio di Stato,Venice, and published with acts
no. 7563, December 19, 2017 and 5464, October 19, 2018.
Figure 79. Chapel of Cosmas and Damian, view from the crossing (Verrocchio’s tomb of
Giovanni and Piero is on the right wall of the chapel), San Lorenzo, Florence.
This was further made possible by Verrocchio’s bronze grille, which made the
spaces of the family’s mausoleum and chapel visible from each.Verrocchio also
linked the tomb and sacristy through his use of materials, which echo those
employed for the freestanding tomb of Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici, proba-
bly made by Andrea di Lazzaro Calvalcanti (called Buggiano), Brunelleschi’s
adopted son, at the center of the Old Sacristy (Figure 69). This marble tomb is
positioned below a marble table, itself decorated with a porphyry roundel and
Medici emblems in bronze. By echoing the materials for Giovanni di Bicci’s
tomb in the Old Sacristy in his monument for Giovanni and Piero (which
uses porphyry, marble, and bronze), Verrocchio emphasized the dynastic link
between them. Moreover, common to both tombs was the implicit claim of
sanctity of those they commemorated. In Giovanni di Bicci’s case, this was
conveyed through the position of the tomb below a table, evoking an altar
with saint’s relics below, while the form of Verrocchio’s tomb, as we shall see,
deliberately recalls reliquaries to make the same connection.13
In 1442 the Medici again intervened at San Lorenzo when Cosimo de’
Medici granted 40,000 florins for the continued construction of the church,
funds for which were running out rapidly. In exchange, the canons of San
Lorenzo made the astonishing promise to Cosimo that he could be buried
directly in front of the high altar and that no other family could display their
heraldry in that space. The promise was kept, and after his death Cosimo was
buried in a tomb beneath the floor of the crossing of the church (Figure 32),
its place indicated in the floor above with a magnificent tomb marker made
from marble, porphyry, and bronze, attributed convincingly to Verrocchio
(Figure 14).14 As Paolo Giovio remarked (writing in the sixteenth century),
in this position, “[Cosimo guaranteed that he] had an entire church as his
gigantic sepulcher.”15 In fact, the Medici were the only family that could be
buried in the church proper (the tombs of other families were consigned to
the crypt), an extraordinary prohibition that separates San Lorenzo from all
other Florentine churches.16 For the congregation standing in the nave, the use
of the same materials for Cosimo’s tomb marker and the tomb of Giovanni and
Piero would have invited a dialog between them.
Also near Verrocchio’s tomb was Desiderio da Settignano’s marble Taber
nacle of the Sacrament (completed 1461, Figure 80).The tabernacle was origi-
nally in the chapel of SS. Cosmas and Damian (Figure 79), adjacent to the tomb
(the tabernacle was later moved to the nave), and probably commissioned by
the Medici.17 The chapel was dedicated to Sts Cosmas and Damian, but from
at least 1475 (and possibly earlier) it was known as the “capella del corpo del
christo.”18 There seems no doubt that the tomb of Giovanni and Piero was
supposed to be viewed in relation to Desiderio’s tabernacle: the principal face
of Verrocchio’s monument was on the chapel side, indicated by the presence of
the inscription naming the deceased (Figure 75)19 and the escutcheon displaying
Figure 80. Desiderio da Settignano. Tabernacle of the Sacrament, marble, completed 1461,

San Lorenzo, Florence.
the Medici heraldry (Figure 36). Desiderio’s tabernacle (Figure 80) served as the

focus of rituals during Corpus Domini and Holy Week, when the Host was bur-
ied in the altar below it, as well as for regular memorial services for the Medici
family, which predated the tabernacle, going back to the early fifteenth century.20
The tabernacle was located on the wall of the chapel, probably where the present
Baroque altar is positioned (in other words, on the wall adjacent to Verrocchio’s
tomb). Furthermore, several features of Verrocchio’s tomb invite the viewer to see
a connection with Desiderio’s tabernacle: for example, the decoration on the sides
of the tabernacle, which resembles the marble decoration on the arch surrounding
the tomb of Giovanni and Piero (Figure 71).21
Some scholars have gone as far as to propose that the Medici conceived of the
crossing of San Lorenzo as a programmatic whole that included Cosimo’s tomb,
Desiderio’s tabernacle, and two bronze pulpits by Donatello.22 As we have seen,
however, the tabernacle of the Sacrament was made for the chapel of Cosmas
and Damian (not for the capella maggiore, as some have claimed), and Donatello’s
pulpits were probably not brought to San Lorenzo until after 1515 (before that, a
wooden pulpit attached to the southern pier of the crossing was used).23
Medici control of San Lorenzo continued after Cosimo’s death in 1464.

A year later the church’s chapter granted Piero permission to assign the nave
chapels to whomever he wished.24 The Medici family’s interest in the church
continued after Piero’s death in 1469. As well as commissioning the tomb for
his father and uncle, Lorenzo granted 6,570 florins to the church between
1476 and 1480, presumably to complete the building begun by his grandfa-
ther, Cosimo.25 Evidence also reveals the considerable influence that Lorenzo
wielded at San Lorenzo, from clerical appointments;26 to the liturgy itself, with
the purchase of special offices to be said for himself and members of his family,
a tradition that had begun with Cosimo;27 to even commissioning the vest-
ments worn by the clergy, which were decorated with scenes from the lives of
Medicean saints, Lorenzo, Cosmas, and Damian.28
Records indicating the dates of construction of Verrocchio’s tomb of
Giovanni and Piero have not survived. The tomb is inscribed within one
of the wreaths with the date 1472 (Figure 74), which has been taken as proof
of the year of the tomb’s completion. But Lorenzo mentions the monument
in a letter dated 1472 and seems to suggest the tomb was not yet complete.29 It
must have been completed circa 1473, and records indicate that it was admired
from an early date. For instance, an early ricordo apparently mentions that upon
the tomb’s unveiling, all of Florence “flocked to see it as though it were a
wonder of the world.”30 Certainly its importance was recognized by the mid-
1470s when Naldo Naldi wrote a poem about it, dedicated to Lorenzo il
Magnifico, in which Naldo compared it to the sepulcher Aeneas built for his
father Anchises and to the mausoleum of Halicarnussus:
Desinat Eneas celebrarier amplius, olim

Anchisen quanquam substulit ille patrem,
Ossa pia quanquam genitoris condidit urna
Atque patri, sapiens, annua sacra dedit,
Neve sepulchra suis deducta per aera summum
Laudibus in caelum Cares, ut ante ferant:
Ipse ducem sacro Phrigium quia vincis honore,
Inferias patruo dum facis atque patri.
Marmore praeterea quod surgit et aere polito
Iam nunc arte nova quod tibi constat, opus
Laurenti, superat Cariam superatque laborem
Icareum, Medices dum capit urna sacros.31
[Let Aeneas cease to be celebrated so greatly, although he once carried his

father Anchises, although he buried his father in a pious urn and, wise man,
gave annual sacrifices to his father, nor let the Cares exalt that sepulcher to
highest heaven with their praises, as before:You surpass the Phrygian leader
in this sacred honor, while you make offerings for your uncle and father. In
marble and polished bronze it hereafter rises, and even now with new art it
is established by you, a work of Lorenzo; and it surpasses the labor of Caria
and the labor of Icarus, so long as the urn holds the sainted Medici.]
With this commission, Verrocchio faced the considerable challenge of

how to memorialize and eulogize two members of the Medici family at a
time of political upheaval and make a case for Lorenzo il Magnifico’s right
to rule as leader after his father’s death. At the moment when Verrocchio’s
tomb was created, the Medici hold on power in Florence was uncertain.
Piero was buried in San Lorenzo on December 3, 1469 (the day after his
death) with little public ceremony.32 Early sources note the lack of pomp.
Scipione Ammirato (1531–1601), for instance, records that Piero’s funeral
was without ostentation, “perhaps because he had in his lifetime given
directions to that effect; or because the parade of a magnificent interment
might have excited the envy of the populace toward his successors, to whom
it was of more importance to be great, than to appear to be so.”33 After Piero
de’ Medici’s death, the family’s ascendency was not secure. Indeed, many
Florentines believed the constitutional government would be restored, but
this was not the case. On the night of Piero’s death, the Medicean amici
held a meeting made up of hundreds of rank-and-file supporters to call
for the preservation of the family. Although the meeting did not have any
official standing, it served to ensure the safe passage of a bill securing the
Medici hold on power by the Signoria a few days later (and succeeded in
doing so).34 Years after the fact, Lorenzo recorded how on the night of his
father’s death, the city’s principal citizens had come to his house to ask him
to assume the governance of the state.35 Lorenzo, a mere twenty years old,
faced considerable opposition in Florence at this moment because of his
youth, and for many years the threat of assassination loomed. Lorenzo wrote
in his ricordo that he was reluctant to accept the role of leader left vacant
after his father’s death, “as it was contrary to my age, and on account of
the great responsibility and peril it involved.”36 However, although Lorenzo
may not have appeared keen to take over the leadership of the city, he fully
intended to do so. His apprenticeship had begun well before his father’s
death and through that the young Lorenzo had become well aware of all the
responsibilities that would befall him as leader.37 Indeed, there is no sense
that Lorenzo did not plan on accepting the role. The day before his father’s
death he wrote to the Duke of Milan requesting protection (the same that
had been granted to his father). Even so, Lorenzo’s hold on power remained
tenuous throughout the 1470s, and Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni and Piero
must be viewed through this lens.38
Verrocchio’s monument played the important role of expressing through
visual form a eulogy for the deceased Giovanni and Piero in terms accept-
able to its audience during a period of unrest for the Medici and also of
proclaiming Lorenzo as a suitable leader. The tomb did something, therefore,
that was not possible in any other form: through its materials and iconogra-
phy it expressed ideas that could not be stated outright because of the polit-
ical atmosphere of the time. Verrocchio made a complex argument using the
language of materials and nonfigural iconography that avoided the problem

of direct expression, which would have been both dangerous and unwise.39
Unfortunately, because Verrocchio’s “argument” was never explained verbally
at the time, its meaning has been lost, and modern art historians have had dif-
ficulty comprehending the tomb’s complex iconography.
The form of Verrocchio’s tomb is unusual though it does resemble earlier
examples. In particular, it recalls a type known as the avello, which consists of
a chest surmounted by a stone canopy in a Gothic arch. Sometimes, as in the
fourteenth-century avelli in the Bardi and Baroncelli chapels in Santa Croce
(Figure 81), such tombs are positioned in a wall between two spaces with a
grille filling the aperture, a feature that Verrocchio’s tomb recalls.40 The avello
was a form of tomb favored by knights and members of important families, but
by the time Verrocchio’s tomb was constructed, this type of tomb monument
Figure 81. Giovanni di Balducci (attributed to), Baroncelli monument, marble and bronze,
after 1328, Santa Croce, Florence.
Figure 82. Anonymous, Tomb of Onofrio Strozzi, marble, c. 1422, Santa Trinita, Florence.
Scala/Art Resource, NY. Photo courtesy of the Ministero Beni e Att. Culturali, 1990.
had been out of fashion for some thirty years (though family members are
known to have been buried in older avelli for decades afterwards). The Medici
tomb also resembles the arcosolium, a variation on the avello form (Figure 82).
The arcosolium differs from the avello, in that the tomb chest is separate rather
than engaged, and the arch is rounded, not pointed. Arcosolia were reserved for
the most powerful men in Florence, and common to all of them, including
Verrocchio’s, is an inscription recording the status of the interred as a knight.41
Unlike most arcosolia, though, Verrocchio’s tomb is not located in a niche; it
is positioned in a wall between two spaces. In this, the tomb of Maso di Luca
degli Albizzi (d. 1417), attributed to Donatello or Lorenzo Ghiberti, from
San Pier Maggiore, and the anonymous tomb of Onofrio di Palla di Jacopo
Strozzi (d. 1418) in Santa Trìnita (Figure 82), are important precedents.42 The
peaked lid of Verrocchio’s sarcophagus also recalls a tomb type known as “the
house of the dead,” consisting of a chest that resembles a miniature building,
developed in Asia Minor for burials of important personages (Figure 83), that
became popular in Italy during the thirteenth century.43 And the decision to
face Verrocchio’s tomb with fragments of red and green porphyry recalls the
earlier practice of incorporating classical marble tombs in the Middle Ages.44
Many of the details of Verrocchio’s monument occur in other Renaissance
tombs, but their particular combination is unique. Porphyry had been used in
tombs before, but it was a material reserved for the tombs of imperial family
Figure 83. Unfinished pagan sarcophagus, second century ce, garden of San Vitale, Ravenna.
Photo: Debra Pincus.
members in antiquity45 and later for popes, saints, and bishops.46 It was used
only rarely during the Renaissance, appearing in tombs of people of political
eminence and rarely in sarcophaguses.47 Porphyry was so unusual that its use
was noted in the case of Cosimo de Medici’s tomb slab (Figure 14) by the men
responsible for constructing it, who, according to a 1464 account, claim that
“since this material is never used anymore, it will be extremely worthy and
dignified.”48
Bronze was used rarely in Renaissance tombs and generally not as exten-
sively as it was in the tomb of Giovanni and Piero. It featured on some secular
tombs where it was reserved for inscriptions or heraldic decoration. Only the
tomb of Baldassare Coscia, the anti-pope Pope John XXIII, by Donatello and
Michelozzo in the Florentine Baptistery (Figure 84), compares to Verrocchio’s
in the use of bronze, but that monument was dedicated to a person of religious
significance.49
The net that fills the aperture above Verrocchio’s tomb (Figure 36), which
Vasari singled out for praise,50 features in some earlier tombs, such as those in the
Bardi and Baroncelli chapels in Santa Croce, as we have seen.51 And it was a char-
acteristic of some chapels housing relics, such as Michelozzo’s balustrade around
the tabernacle protecting the miraculous image of the Annunciation at Santissima
Annunziata (Figure 85), the chapel enclosure for the miraculous image of the
Virgin at Santa Maria dell’Impruneta by Luca della Robbia and Michelozzo
Figure 84. Donatello and Michelozzo, tomb of Baldassare Coscia, marble, bronze and gilding,
1422–28, Baptistery, Florence.
Figure 85. Michelozzo. Balustrade around the tabernacle protecting the miraculous image of
the Annunciation, marble and bronze, 1448, Santissima Annunziata, Florence.
Figure 86. Michelozzo and Luca della Robbia. Enclosure for the miraculous image of the
Virgin, marble and bronze, 1450s, Santa Maria dell’Impruneta, Impruneta.
(Figure 86), and the grille of the Capella della Sacra Cintola enshrining the
Virgin’s sacred girdle relic in the Cathedral of Prato by Maso di Bartolomeo
and Pasquino da Montepulciano.52 Certainly Verrocchio would have been
familiar with the first of these enclosures, which was in Florence, and the last,
because in 1473 he went to the Duomo in Prato to appraise the pulpit, for
which he may have made the harpies at the base.53 In all of these cases the
net marked a boundary point between the profane world of the beholder and
the sacred realm of a relic, an allusion that Verrocchio sought to suggest with
his tomb.54 This hypothesis is strengthened by considering the position of the
tomb between the Old Sacristy and the adjoining chapel of Sts Damian and
Cosmas (Figure 69), with its principal face on the chapel side as we have seen
(Figure 36). In addition to serving as the location for memorial services for the
Medici, the chapel was the site where the feast of Corpus Domini was cele-
brated, and probably also the consecration of the Eucharist on Holy Thursday,
when the altar in the chapel became the Altar of Repose, where Christ in the
form of the consecrated Eucharist was buried symbolically in anticipation for
the Mass on Good Friday (when transubstantiation cannot take place).55 The
Figure 87. Lorenzo Ghiberti. Reliquary of Saints Protus, Hyacinth, and Nemesius, bronze,
1428, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence.
focus of these Eucharistic rites was Desiderio da Settignano’s Tabernacle of

the Sacrament (Figure 80) on the wall adjacent to Verrocchio’s tomb. Given
the rituals associated with the adjacent chapel and the position of Verrocchio’s
tomb, it is likely that Verrocchio intended his viewers to interpret it in relation to
Christ’s death and resurrection.56
The position and appearance of the tomb likewise invite the viewer to
regard Giovanni and Piero as sacred personages, specifically as martyrs. As we
have seen, the netting above the tomb recalls the decoration of holy spaces,
marking the boundary between sacred and profane. And some features of
Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni and Piero are reminiscent of Renaissance rel-
iquaries, further encouraging this connection. In particular, the peaked lid,
the acanthus ornamentation, the lion’s feet, and the shape of the sarcophagus
resemble the reliquary form of the coffret.Verrocchio’s tomb is especially close
in design to Ghiberti’s reliquary of Saints Protus, Hyacinth, and Nemesius
(Figure 87),57 a commission delegated to Cosimo and his brother Lorenzo de’
Medici by Ambrogio Traversari.58 Ghiberti’s reliquary was originally set in an
arched opening between the monk’s choir and the chiesino of Santa Maria degli
Angeli, a location strongly reminiscent of the position of Verrocchio’s tomb.59
And Verrocchio may have used another reliquary, that of San Giordiano, in the
tesoro of the Badia as a model for his monument.60 Verrocchio’s tomb is also
close in design to a wood, hard stone, and silver reliquary casket (Figure 88),
generally dated c. 1460–70, from the Baptistery, which may be an autograph
work by Verrocchio.61
Figure 88. Andrea del Verrocchio, attributed to. Reliquary casket, hardstone, c. 1460–70,
Opera di S. Maria del Fiore, Florence.
These connections between the tomb, reliquaries, and sacred spaces marked
by bronze nets are not simply formal borrowings on Verrocchio’s part. They
suggest a link between the Medici and sacred remains, a connection reflecting
how the family grounded their rule in claims of sacred authority and models.62
After Lorenzo’s birth on January 1, 1449, his parents delayed their son’s baptism
so that it would fall on January 6, the feast of the Magi (Epiphany), thus estab-
lishing a link between Lorenzo and Christ, and between his godparents and
the Magi (to whom the Medici had a special dedication);63 and in 1466 one
contemporary called the Medici regime a “governo santo” (holy government)
after Piero had successfully quashed a challenge to his authority.64
2.2 TOMB AND COLLECTION: A PORTRAIT THROUGH MATERIALS
Considering that the tomb was a Medici commission, it is not surprising that
much of its iconography alludes to the Medici family, and to Giovanni and Piero
specifically, and also to Lorenzo, the monument’s primary patron. The tomb
was the first significant commission by Lorenzo who, along with his brother
Giuliano, had it built for his father and uncle.65 Although the inscription on
the tomb declares Giuliano and Lorenzo as joint patrons, Lorenzo appears to
have been the major driving force. This is suggested by Naldo’s poem about
the monument, in which he declares that it was an “opus Laurenti.” Moreover,
Vasari calls Lorenzo the patron of the monument in a letter of 1569, with no
mention of Giuliano.66
The diamonds on the tomb allude to the Medici. Large pyramidal bronze
diamonds appear on the top of the sarcophagus and at the apex of the arch
on both sides of the aperture, and smaller ones in marble are depicted atop
rings in the repeated pattern decorating the arch (Figures 9, 35, and 36). By the
mid-fifteenth century diamonds had become a Medici device, specifically the
diamond ring, which was a symbol of eternity.67 Verrocchio’s diamonds may
refer to examples in the Medici collection: there are twenty-seven pointed
diamonds listed among Piero’s possessions in the inventory of 1465.68
The turtle (Figures 33 and 73), on whose back the sarcophagus and marble
plinth rest at each corner, may be read as a Medici symbol. They recall the
favorite motto Festina lente (make haste slowly) of Roman leaders, which was
familiar to the Medici certainly by the sixteenth century, and probably earlier
too. It would have appealed to the Medici because of its use by Augustus,
whose political situation, as an emperor who governed a republic, was similar
to theirs.69
The colors of the tomb (red, green, and white) refer to the Medici family.
By 1459 these colors had become Medici symbols.70 And the repeated motif of
alternating palm fronds and olive branches in the marble arch surrounding the
tomb (Figures 71 and 72) refers to the “palme e ulive” supplied by the Medici
every year on Palm Sunday. The branches and fronds were stored close to the
tomb of Giovanni and Piero, in the Old Sacristy, in anticipation of their use.
Also, the representation of the metamorphosis of acanthus into cornucopia
on the lid of the sarcophagus (Figure 76) was a symbol of the return of the
Golden Age, expressed in Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue, with which, from the 1450s
onwards, the Medici were associated. Lorenzo il Magnifico, in particular, was
regarded as a ruler of a saeculum aureum: his motto for a joust in 1469 was
“le tems revient,” for which Verrocchio designed his banner, he described the
return of the Golden Age in his poem Selve d’amore (1460s/70s), and acanthus
transformed into cornucopia were a feature of much of his heraldry.71
In addition to the allusions through the use of symbols,Verrocchio expressed
ideas about the Medici through the tomb’s materials. The porphyry sarcoph-
agus may be read as a pun on Piero’s name. One of the devices of Piero
di Lorenzo de’ Medici (Piero di Cosimo’s grandson) was a stone, sometimes
represented in the form of porphyry specifically held between two wheels
(Figure 89).72 The device referred to the fine qualities of Piero di Lorenzo
(“petrus”), and the shape of the porphyry created with wheels and the sheen
Figure 89. Device of Piero di Lorenzo de’ Medici showing porphyry between wheels, Plut.
18.6, fol. 1r, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence.
Su concessione del MiBACT e la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Firenze.
produced by polishing with diamond abrasives served to emphasize the fine

qualities of the stone.73 Verrocchio may have been making the same pun with
reference to Piero di Cosimo (this Piero could hardly have been oblivious to
the stony connotation of his name, given Petrarch’s allusions to his own name
(Petra/Petrarch) in his poetry;74 Piero owned a lavishly illuminated manuscript
of Petrarch’s sonnets).75 Porphyry was associated also with the Magi (to whose
confraternity the Medici belonged), who were “wise men,” a link deriving
from Lactantius (whose writings were collected by the Medici), who connected
porphyry with wisdom, specifically sophia, or prephilosophical wisdom.76 The
frequent use of porphyry in Medici commissions (including the pavement of
the Medici palace chapel) was part of a scheme by Piero to present the young
Lorenzo de’ Medici as an occidental Porphyrogenitus (“born to the imperial
purple”), the most honorific of Byzantine imperial titles.77 The prevalence of
bronze on Verrocchio’s tomb, which, as we have seen, was unusual, may be read
in the light of Medici ambitions too. In one of his poems, the Selve d’amore,
Lorenzo refers to bronze specifically, noting that the metal preserves fame.78
The materials of Verrocchio’s tomb would have been understood also by the
original audience as metaphors for the virtues of Piero, Giovanni, and Lorenzo.
Porphyry resists fire and hammer and was famous for the difficulty it presents
stone carvers who cut it.79 This led some – such as Leon Battista Alberti and
Francesco Colonna – to claim that it conveys the virtue of patience.80 For
Vasari, hardstones in general express constancy and resolve in the face of chal-
lenges, and Vasari compares them to Duke Cosimo for this reason.81
The diamond, which appears in bronze in Verrocchio’s tomb, nestled within
a bed of acanthus atop the sarcophagus (Figure 35), may have been read as an
allusion to certain virtues. The late eleventh-century to early twelfth-century
bishop and poet Marbode of Rennes, for instance, notes the strength of the
diamond, which could withstand the assault of iron and fire,82 and Agostino del
Riccio, the Florentine naturalist and Dominican friar, writing at the end of the
sixteenth century, notes that the diamond took its name from the Greek word
meaning indomitable virtue83 and that those who wore them were daring and
virtuous.84 Paolo Giovio compares explicitly Lorenzo’s fortitude in the face of
the 1466 Pitti–Neroni conspiracy to the diamond: “the firmness of the afore-
said Magnificent in the face of the conspiracies and intrigues of messer Luca
Pitti was as miraculous as that attributed to the diamond’s capacity to resist the
assaults of fire and hammer”;85 and an anonymous poem compares Lorenzo to
the diamond after the death of Piero, writing: “This [Lorenzo] is the diamond,
or rather the fiery pyrope.”86
That the Medici intended the materials of Verrocchio’s tomb to be inter-
preted in terms of their qualities as metaphors for the virtues of Piero, Giovanni,
and Lorenzo is suggested also by Lorenzo’s use of inscriptions with his own
name on his collection of hardstone vases. This practice has vexed schol-
ars, who have been shocked by Lorenzo’s arrogance in endangering antique
vases (Figure 90).87 These acts of apparent vandalism are more understandable
(though no less arrogant) if we consider the vases as self-portraits of Lorenzo,
who wanted viewers to see a conflation between himself and the precious
materials from which they were made. In the case of the vases specifically,
the inscriptions can be read also in the light of the belief in the talismanic
power of stones, which was frowned upon by some (such as Petrarch), but
shared by others (including Marsilio Ficino, with whom Lorenzo was close in
the 1470s).88 Talismans often featured inscriptions, a favorite referring to the
three Magi, with whom the Medici were associated, and Christ, with whom
Lorenzo was connected (which may explain the “R” – generally regarded as
an abbreviation for REX – on several of Lorenzo’s vases).89 That there was a
belief in a connection between Lorenzo and his collection of gems is suggested
by a contemporary legend that tells how his death was predicted by the actions
of a spiritello trapped inside his ring, which escaped and wreaked havoc on the
Figure 90. Anonymous, sardonyx ewer with fifteenth-century mount, Museo degli Argenti,
Florence.
Duomo, bringing down to the ground great slabs of marble from the lantern
shortly before Lorenzo died.90
The choice of porphyry, serpentine, marble, and bronze in Verrocchio’s tomb
speaks to the taste of the Medici, who collected objects made from precious
stones (such as Lorenzo’s hardstone vases) and metals and material fragments.91
Although Giovanni and Piero were both deceased by the time Verrocchio was
making the tomb, it is worth exploring how the monument expressed their
taste, even if it was filtered through the patronage of Lorenzo il Magnifico. In
his Trattato di architettura (1461–64), Filarete describes how Giovanni delighted in
antique gemstones (“d’intagli antichi”) at the Medici villa at Fiesole.92 Giovanni
had two agents who worked for him in Rome, searching for antiquities on his
behalf: Carlo, his half-brother, whose acquisition for Giovanni of thirty “med-
aglie d’ariento” from the studio of the recently deceased Pisanello was prevented
by Cardinal Pietro Barbo, future Pope Paul II, who stole them from him;93 and
Bartolommeo di Paolo di Giovanni Serragli, who wrote about objects that
Giovanni might want to acquire in twenty-three surviving letters, with refer-
ences to various antiquities, including ancient marble statues and heads.94
From the Medici inventories of 1456, 1463, 1464, and 1465, we know that
Piero was a keen collector of vases, cups, and other objects made from pre-
cious materials.95 Filarete celebrates Piero’s love for such objects in his famous
verbal portrait in the Trattato di architettura, a description of the contents of the
Medici scrittoio (study), in which Filarete notes that the materials from which
the works of art in Piero’s collection were made (gold, silver, bronze, pietre fine,
marble, etc.) “fill him [Piero] with delight and pleasure at their sight.” On look-
ing at his jewels and precious stones specifically, Filarete says, Piero “takes great
pleasure and delight in looking at those and in discussing their various powers
and excellences.” And the vast quantity and variety of objects in the scrittoio was
such that “it would take him a whole month [to see them all].”96 Inventories
indicate that among the objects collected by the Medici (including Piero, but
not only him) were material fragments. For instance, in the 1456 inventory, a
piece of jasper is listed, as well as a Byzantine sacred stone, which was composed
of pieces of jasper, surrounded by relics and mounted in silver.The 1465 inven-
tory indicates that Piero had acquired eight Byzantine mosaics by that year.97
A selective reading of Piero’s acquisitions and commissions has suggested to
some that his taste can be characterized as “decorative.” Francis Ames-Lewis,
for example, building on Ernst Gombrich’s assessment of Piero, presented him
as a lover of surfaces, details, colors, and imagery that alluded to his family.98
Verrocchio’s tomb could be read in this way, especially in the light of the
choice of materials and in their presentation. As we have seen, the diamonds on
the tomb may allude to gems in Piero’s collection, and the porphyry, serpen-
tine, and marble would have appealed to Piero, who collected objects, includ-
ing fragments, made from hard stones.Yet more recent scholarship on Medici
patronage has emphasized how Piero’s taste was not as distinctive as previously
thought and that it was in line with that of other members of his family
(and, indeed, with other Renaissance patrons). Piero’s collection of hardstones
continued a tradition of Medici collecting begun by his father, Cosimo, but
practiced also by other early Renaissance men, such as the humanist Niccolò
Niccoli and collectors north and south of the Alps. Furthermore, it has been
demonstrated that Piero’s interests in art collecting went beyond the merely
“decorative.”99
Like his ancestors, Lorenzo valued unusual objects, even as a boy when, as
his biographer, Niccolò Valori, reports, Lorenzo showed a fascination for “any-
thing precious and rare.”100 During the very years when Verrocchio was work-
ing on the tomb of Giovanni and Piero, Lorenzo was developing his taste for
the antique, which included objects in different materials. Letters published by
Gino Corti and Laurie Fusco establish that Lorenzo was interested in acquir-
ing coins and ancient marble statues from as early as 1465.101 In 1471, during
a diplomatic mission to Rome, when Lorenzo served as ambassador, he and
Donato Accaiauoli toured the ancient ruins with Alberti,102 and in September
Figure 91. Tazza Farnese, sardonyx-agate, second to first century bce, Museo Archaeologico,
Naples.
Copyright.Vanni Archive/Art Resource, NY.
of the same year Lorenzo recorded that he had acquired various antiquities,
including marble heads, a dish of carved chalcedony (the Alexandrian Tazza
Farnese, Figure 91), and many gems and coins. These specific acquisitions of
Lorenzo’s had belonged to the great collector, the recently deceased Paul II,
and they were not “bought.” Instead, Lorenzo received them from Pope Sixtus
IV to cancel past papal debts and as new loans.103
In addition, Lorenzo added hardstone vases to the fifteen already in the
collection, bringing the total number to sixty-three, making the Medici col-
lection the largest of the fifteenth century. Like his ancestors, Lorenzo also
procured stone fragments, a tendency he shared also with other late fifteenth-
century collectors. The 1492 inventory refers to fragments made from marble,
porphyry, Soria jasper, alabaster, and multicolored serpentine and porphyry.
Lorenzo also purchased mosaics, adding three Byzantine mosaics to the seven
or eight owned by his father. And he acquired five modern mosaics by Davide
Ghirlandaio, a taste that apparently was not shared by his father or uncle.
In addition, Lorenzo collected objects made from valuable metals, includ-
ing archaeological fragments such as bronze nails from an ancient ship and a
bronze tablet excavated from San Lorenzo near Panisperna. Lorenzo’s collec-
tion of gems, which numbered 127, was not the largest of the fifteenth century,
but it was certainly the most famous. As well as objects in precious materials,
Lorenzo and Piero both acquired inscriptions.104 Lorenzo’s appreciation for
objects and their materials served as inspiration for his poetry. In his Selve
d’amore, he compares the beauty of his beloved to different materials (gems, sil-
ver, and gold) and to works of art (painting, sculpture, and mosaic) and nature,
concluding that she is more impressive than anything else.105
As well as referring to the Medici collection of hardstones, mounted gems,
vases, and reliquaries through his use of materials and forms,Verrocchio’s tomb
sought to link the two spaces of palace and church. Two poems dating from
c. 1459 suggest that many contemporaries would have recognized a link
between the Medici palace, its collection, and the tombs in San Lorenzo on the
basis of their materials (though it is only the tomb of Cosimo that was under
construction at the time the poems were written). In one, Giovanni Avogadro
gives a verbal description of the Medici palace, emphasizing its materials: “The
top is taken up by shining alabaster,/ the right-hand side by porphyry,/ the left
is of the stone which our ancestors called/ serpentine in the vulgar tongue.”106
In the other anonymous poem, which was probably Avogradro’s source, the
same description is given but the subject is works in the Medici collection,
rather than the palace itself.107 (By applying the materials to the exterior of
the palace, rather than to the sculpture collection, Avogadro was taking artistic
license with his source, perhaps to describe the ideal noble palace.)108 In their
concentration on materials (and in the choice of colors, which were associated
with the Medici), the poems allow us to see how contemporaries would have
connected the palace, its collection, and Verrocchio’s tombs in San Lorenzo.109
The tomb enabled the Medici to allude to their collection of hardstone ves-
sels without displaying it, something about which they seem to have been
concerned.110 At the same time, the tomb of Giovanni and Piero would have
satisfied the need for restraint, expressed by a fictional Cosimo in Bartolomeo
Platina’s De optimo cive owned by Lorenzo:111 in Platina’s tract “Cosimo” advises
his grandson to devote himself to completing and adorning buildings begun
by his ancestors, thereby “avoiding suspicion of lordly aspirations.”112
Through its collection of materials and the particular virtues conveyed via
their specific combinations,Verrocchio’s tomb served as a kind of portrait of its
patron (Lorenzo) and those whom it commemorated (Giovanni and Piero). In
this sense Verrocchio’s monument is similar to a scrittoio or studiolo, that space
within a Renaissance palace that contained the owner’s most precious pos-
sessions, notably manuscripts, coins, and gems and which expressed, as Paula
Findlen has explained (about the Venetian Giacomo Contarini), “in its most
essential sense, . . . his self. In his studio in Venice, the core of his very being was
on display.”113 Indeed, one could argue that Filarete’s description of Piero’s
scrittoio was a sort of portrait of the ruler through materials and objects. In its
profusion of materials and techniques, and the sophisticated metaphorical lan-
guage it used to communicate, Verrocchio’s tomb recalls Filarete’s description
of the contents of Piero’s study.Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni and Piero would
have stimulated its viewers to remember those it commemorated through ref-
erences to their personalities and characters via symbols and an iconography
of materials common to several monuments in San Lorenzo, thus realizing one
of the chief aims of Christian burial: conscious remembrance.114
2.3 ARTISANSHIP AS MAGNIFICENCE
The value Lorenzo placed on certain objects can be reconstructed from a letter
of 1480 from Antonio da Montecatini describing how Lorenzo showed car-
dinal Giovanni d’Aragona (1456–85) his collection in the Palazzo Medici. The
climax of the visit was the display of hardstone vases, two basins overflowing
with coins, and a box of jewels and gems.115 And in a series of re-created scenes
describing Lorenzo’s hospitality to visitors to his collection in his Vita (1513–15),
Valori characterizes the realization of Federico da Montefeltro of Lorenzo’s
collecting impulses during a visit as being based on knowledge, effort, money,
and passion, writing: “What zeal and love can accomplish!”116 Although Valori’s
text should be treated with caution, as it belongs to the genre of lives of
illustrious men (which tends toward exaggeration), there is much that can be
corroborated.117 Valori also reports that Galeazzo Maria Sforza (while lodging
at the Palazzo Medici in 1471) said of Lorenzo’s collection:
In every kind of magnificence Lorenzo had surpassed not only himself

but any King you might name. He [Galeazzo] could not help marveling
at the extraordinary wealth and abundance of everything for someone of
private means: the gold, the jewels/gems [gemmas], the royal household
furnishings. [He said] he himself could show treasures of money, but the
most noble objects had flowed together into Lorenzo’s private domicile
from all over the world.118
Valori’s use of the expression “magnificence” in describing Lorenzo’s collec-

tion points us to one of most important concepts linked to Renaissance col-
lecting and one that can be usefully employed for understanding Verrocchio’s
tomb. Although the accumulation of wealth was frowned upon during the
fourteenth century, a change took place during that century and accelerated in
the following century, as has been noted many times.119 This change in attitude
is summed up, for instance, in Alberti’s On the Family (1430s), where he writes:
“Fame and influence can be obtained with wealth, when it is used with magna-
nimity and magnificence to do great and noble things.”120 The idea of magnifi-
cence as an appropriate virtue for a ruler derives from Aristotle’s Nichomachean
Ethics and is used, for instance, by Galvano Fiamma in his fourteenth-century

chronicle about the Milanese duke, Azzone Visconti,
Since it behooves a magnificent prince to outlay large expenditures for

the sake of the whole community – as the philosopher [Aristotle] states
in the Ethics, the common good has something in common with the
good sacred to God, for the divine good is defectively presented in a sin-
gle person, or private or particular individual, but in the whole commu-
nity devotion to religion or to the divine religion or to the good shines
forth more beautifully. . .121
Thus, expenditure was celebrated in some circles as a demonstration of a rul-

er’s virtue and as a contribution to the good of the broader community.122
Verrocchio’s own knowledge of contemporary debates about the virtue of
magnificence is suggested by one of the texts contained in a manuscript made
in his workshop, a vernacular translation of the popular Treatise on Nobility, com-
posed sometime before 1429 by humanist Buonaccorso da Montemagno.123 In
it, one of the speakers (Publius Cornelius Scipio) recognizes that wealth was
a useful accessory for nobility by blood. With wealth the nobleman could
exercise liberality: “A family’s nobility is enhanced by its wealth and made
more apparent through its domestic appearance: it is also the means by which
friendships outside the family are maintained . . . It therefore follows that to
exercise magnificence, one must be wealthy . . . Thus an abundance of goods is
the greatest help in the enhancement of nobility.”124
The next step of understanding how magnificence operates in Verrocchio’s
tomb opens up larger questions about spending and the motivation behind
the acquisition of goods during the Renaissance in general. For Richard
Goldthwaite, the Renaissance was a period when “people entered into a new
world of goods as they became more self-conscious about taste and extended
taste throughout the material world.” Economic developments that brought
wealth to many more people than ever before created the context in which
consumption became “a cultural force [with which patrons] . . . could con-
struct a cultural identity.”125 Consumption also begat behavior: for instance,
luxury tableware motivated a revolution in the way people ate their food. The
desire for collecting, Goldthwaite argues, was the result of the demand for new
things, an outcome of the economic developments during the Renaissance.
And it was with taste, according to Goldthwaite, “that one established social
credentials”; it was a product of consumption through which a patron refined
his or her appreciation for objects.126
Nevertheless, there remained strong misgivings about wealth and spending
during the fifteenth century. A number of sources from the early-to-mid-
fifteenth century express consternation about Medici spending, with accu-
sations centering on how Cosimo was paying for his building projects with
communal funds, rather than his own; that the family’s stemma was emblazoned
on the buildings he constructed; and that his sumptuous palace was built for
his family, not for the common good.127 Furthermore, one night during the
construction of the Medici palace someone rebuked the family by vandal-
izing the entrance with blood.128 Suspicion was especially acute for wealth
acquired through usury. As the chronicler Giovanni Calvalcanti reports, despite
the Medici family’s acknowledged generosity toward ecclesiastical institutions,
like Cosimo de’ Medici’s toward the Augustinian convent and church of the
Badia at Fiesole, the presence of the family’s heraldry (the palle) all over those
buildings was criticized and made all the worse because the Medici had used
other people’s money to fund it.129 Lorenzo took note of this, insisting that
in the case of his patronage at the Benedictine convent of Le Murate in the
early 1470s, neither his “heraldic arms nor anything else should reveal what
God alone knew and had given” (according to a chronicle written by Giustina
Niccolini, a nun at the convent, in 1597, drawing from historical correspond-
ence between Lorenzo and Le Murate’s abbess).130 It was in the early 1470s
too that Lorenzo accepted Bartolomeo Platina’s De optimo cive (1473–74)
from the author. Although usually parsimonious toward writers of unsolic-
ited works, Lorenzo rewarded Platina with one hundred florins, a demon-
stration of his approval of the book’s contents, which warned of restraint
in expenditure.131 Verrocchio’s awareness of adverse attitudes toward Medici
wealth is supported by the inclusion of a sonnet by Burchiello in one of the
commonplace books made in the artist’s workshop, which Alessandro Polcri
has identified as one of a number of negative commentaries on Cosimo
from the mid-fifteenth century composed in Latin and the vernacular. In
Burchiello’s sonnet, the quasi-r uler is referred to as the “unjust and perfid-
ious tyrant” with “your great treasure” (“iniquo e perfido tiranno . . . [col]
tuo gran tesoro”), and the poem’s concluding lines concern a dove, which,
after consuming a meal, turns into a predatory vulture.132 Although there has
been a general acceptance of a celebratory attitude toward the accumulation
of objects during the Renaissance, a closer examination of primary textual
sources reveals wariness about spending, especially as a means to cultivating
the self.133
2.4 MAKING AS A DEFENSE OF MEDICI WEALTH
As a visual statement in a public setting, a tomb had the potential to announce

something about the interred. In the case of Venice in the thirteenth century,
the ducal tomb was the preeminent site for political expressions, coinciding
precisely with the moment when that city was experiencing a unified political
unit in the form of the doge during a period of tremendous economic devel-
opment and international importance.134 As we have seen, because the Medici
hold on power was particularly uncertain at this moment, Verrocchio’s tomb
served as a permanent funerary oration through materials and iconography,

especially for Piero, who was buried with little public ceremony, and a decla-
ration of Lorenzo’s right to rule.135
The tomb can also be read as an assertion of Medici authority through dec-
orous noble expenditure. Their wealth was the basis of their hold on politi-
cal power, which was in turn dependent on their cultural program, expressed
through their commissioning and ownership of objects, both for public display
and private enjoyment.136 Indeed, Piero went as far as to identify Verrocchio’s
tomb for Cosimo as proof of the latter’s modesty: “He was buried in the tomb
ordered for him in the ground at the church of San Lorenzo without any funer-
ary honors or pomp.”137 It is noteworthy that in this description – which in its
entirety concerns all of Cosimo’s commissions – Piero does not mention the
family palace, a deliberate attempt to avoid any charge of princely ostentation.138
One solution to the problem of spending as a means for cultivating a sense
of self was the creation of art that “professe[d] to disclose a certain kind of
knowledge: knowledge de rerum natura, of the nature of things.” In this way
objects become enlivened (and productive), rather than lifeless.139 This strategy
can be identified in the Medici tomb where Verrocchio used his materials and
references to techniques of making to argue how art could serve as a defense
of the accumulation of wealth as natural.
What exactly was the nature of the Medici attitude to money, spending,
and wealth, and how was this expressed in the tomb? Magnificence was a
term used in a variety of contexts to refer to the spending of the Medici
family.140 Several times references are made to how members of the Medici
family expended vast amounts of money. In his description of Piero’s scrittoio,
for instance, Filarete emphasizes the importance of the monetary value of the
collection: “for worthy and unusual objects, he does not look at the cost.”
And he describes Piero looking at his books as if they were a “solid mass of
gold.”141 A now-lost inscription on the reliquary of Saints Protus, Hyacinthus,
and Nemesius by Ghiberti (Figure 87) proclaimed the brothers Cosimo and
Lorenzo as its patrons and declared: “Those most notable men, the brothers
Cosmas and Laurentius, looked after the honouring of the long neglected rel-
ics of the holy martyrs with religious zeal and holy piety, and laying them up in
bronze caskets at their own expense.”142 A similar concern with cost is evident
in the inscription on Piero’s tabernacle for Santissima Annunziata that reads
“costò fiorini 4,000 el marmo” (the marble cost 4,000 florins).143
Often these discussions of cost were situated within the framework of the
Aristotelian doctrine of glad and generous spending.144 For instance, in his
ricordo, Lorenzo writes:
I find we have spent a large sum of money from 1434 up to 1471, as

appears from an account book covering that period. It shows an incred-
ible sum, for it amounts to 663,775 florins spent on buildings, charities
and taxes, not counting other expenses, nor would I complain about this,
for though many a man would like to have even part of that sum in his
purse I think it gave great luster to the state and this money seems to be
well spent and I am very satisfied.145
The Medici bank played a major role in the acquisition of objects for the
family. On occasion members obtained goods taken as collateral for loans for
collectors. After the death of collectors, the goods were accepted by the Medici
if the heirs did not pay off the debt.146 And Leonardo Vernacci, who served as
assistant bank manager in Rome between 1448 and 1461, also found antiquities
for Giovanni and Piero.
In its use of expensive materials, one can imagine that Lorenzo approved of
the way that Verrocchio’s tomb expressed the same attitude toward spending
that he espoused in his note to his sons:“I think it gave great luster to the state.”
Despite the restricted access to the tomb (on the side in the Old Sacristy), the
monument’s position between the Old Sacristy and the chapel of Cosmas and
Damian meant that Verrocchio’s tomb would have been visible to any visitor
to the church. As we have seen, the materials used in Verrocchio’s tomb are
various and splendid, and they resemble the gems and hardstone vases in the
Medici collection. As such, the monument serves as a declaration of the gen-
erous spending of the Medici in a church.
Another important component of appropriate spending was the workman-
ship that went into objects, and it is here that Verrocchio’s artistry takes on special
importance. Before we turn to the artist’s role, let us first consider the centrality
of making to magnificence and its relevance to Medici commissions and col-
lecting practices. In his description of the objects and buildings of the duke of
Milan, Fiamma draws attention to their materials and to the ingenuity and skill
of the artists who made them.147 Similarly the Neapolitan court humanist and
secretary, Giovanni Pontano, in his treatise De splendore (one of a series of trea-
tises begun in the 1460s and published in 1498 but worked on and circulated in
the years between), notes that the splendid man should acquire domestic fur-
nishings that are of the most excellent quality, evident from the superior artistry
that went into making them and their materials.148 Pontano goes on to praise a
collection of cups that is made up of objects that represent variety:
Some should be in gold, silver and porcelain; and they should be of differ-
ent forms, some as chalices, some as bowls for mixing wine, some in the
form of a jug, or as plates with long or short handles . . . Some should be
made precious by their cost and size, others exclusively by the refinement
and rarity which comes either from the hand of the artist or from some
other reason.149
Pontano’s treatises were not written with a specific ruler in mind – indeed
they were dedicated to members of Pontano’s literary circle – and De splendore
concerns splendor as distinct from magnificence (splendor is a quality con-

veyed through domestic furnishings and personal dress, whereas magnificence
finds expression in buildings), Pontano’s ideas nevertheless communicate a cer-
tain attitude toward splendor and collecting that can be usefully employed as a
backdrop to understanding some of the issues at work in Verrocchio’s tomb.150
Begun in the 1460s by a writer who had spent time in Florence, De splendore
characterizes attitudes to spending during the very period when Verrocchio’s
tomb was made.151
A fascination with technical mastery was an important aspect of both Piero’s
and Lorenzo’s taste in objects. In Filarete’s description of Piero and his col-
lection, he emphasizes Piero’s pleasure in objects as consisting of two parts:
his appreciation for the subject represented and “for the worthy mastery of
ancient and angelic spirits who, through their sublime talent, have made such
base things as bronze, marble and similar materials be valued greatly.” And
on the collection of hardstone vases specifically, Filarete says of Piero, “[h]e
delights greatly in these, extolling their dignity and the mastery of their mak-
ing.”152 We get a sense of Lorenzo’s appreciation for artistry in a letter to him
from Nofri Tornabuoni about a cornelian he was considering acquiring: “I
think the carving is very subtle and full of artistry, and truly you are right to
want it.”153 Luigi da Barberino wrote the following about the Phaethon intaglio
in Lorenzo’s collection in a letter addressed to Niccolò Michelozzi:
To me it seemed a very artful thing, but then this man to whom it

belonged [Giovanni Cimpolini] . . . showed me the artistry and difficulty
of every detail, it seems to me still more wonderful. One has to consider
every part, and one will see what a hand and what an eye and judgment
the artist had . . . There are so many things and so perfectly finished.154
And in his Orationes (late 1480s–1492), Angelo Poliziano praised Lorenzo’s

Tazza Farnese (Figure 91) as an “excellent thing owing to its own brilliance, a
gift of Nature, but the hand of the craftsman made it worthier still.”155
As well as an appreciation for the technical mastery of ancient artists, Piero
and Lorenzo cultivated certain techniques among the artists of their day, includ-
ing many that had been lost. Lorenzo encouraged master intagliatori to settle in
Florence to encourage the production of hardstones.156 Piero di Neri Razzanti,
for instance, was exempted from taxes in 1477 on condition that he teach the art
of cutting precious stones to local artists.157 The Medici commissioned mounts by
contemporary goldsmiths for many of their antique vases, including Verrocchio,
inviting comparisons between antique and contemporary artists. And Lorenzo
sponsored the work of medalists, metalworkers, mosaicists, and gem cutters.158
Lorenzo also made available objects in the Medici collection to Florentine
artists.159 In a letter to Isabella d’Este of 1502, Francesco Malatesta reported that
Leonardo da Vinci,Verrocchio’s pupil, was apparently well acquainted with the
collection of hardstone vases.160 The interest in encouraging ancient techniques

should be seen in the light of the Medici interest, especially Lorenzo’s, in ele-
vating Florentine cultural traditions so that they were on a par with that of
antiquity (and signorial dynasties throughout Italy).161
In making a connection between the Medici collection in their palace and the
tomb of Giovanni and Piero in San Lorenzo,Verrocchio also realized a plan that
the Medici had considered many decades earlier. According to Antonio Billi, in
his biography of Brunelleschi, the architect had planned a palace for Cosimo de’
Medici, “which was to have been sited on the piazza of San Lorenzo so that the
portal of the palace would have faced the portal of San Lorenzo. . .”162 According
to Billi, Cosimo rejected the plan (much to Brunelleschi’s fury) because it was
too sumptuous. Isabelle Hyman has more plausibly argued that Cosimo did
not dare accept the proposal, as it would link the Medici palace with what was
ostensibly a Medici church across a Medici piazza, a design that would rival that
of a bishop’s residence and cathedral, or a town hall and cathedral.163 If he had
accepted the plan, Cosimo would have been sending the message that his fam-
ily’s authority was on a par with the religious and civic institutions of the city,
a comparison Cosimo, who preferred to be seen as a citizen, not a ruler, was
keen to avoid. Although the design was rejected, the building of both church
and palace was undertaken under the guidance of the same architect (probably
Michelozzo) between 1446 and 1452, materials were acquired from the same
places, decorations were carved at the same locations, and many of the same
laborers were employed at both sites, as a ledger in San Lorenzo demonstrates.
And although it was never realized, the Medici desire to connect church and
palace continued well into the sixteenth century.164 If it had succeeded, the
design would have declared powerfully and explicitly that San Lorenzo was the
Medici family church. Through his use of materials that referred specifically to
the Medici palace and collection, Verrocchio’s tomb realized the connection
between the spaces of church and palace that Brunelleschi had proposed, but
communicated it less overtly than the original plan would have.
Verrocchio’s tomb also engages with the fundamental message of Filarete’s
verbal picture of Piero, which is a defense of wealth through the suggestion
of how brute metals could be turned into virtues. The monument expresses
this idea through its emphasis on artistic processes and material transforma-
tions. It is here that the sophistication of Verrocchio’s iconography becomes
clear. For it is thanks to the artist’s intervention that materials come to acquire
their value. As Filarete put it about Piero’s collection in the Medici scrittoio:
“Valuable things such as gold and silver have become even greater through
their mastery, for, as it is noted, there is nothing, from gems on, that is worth
more than gold. [Gold] they have made worth more than gold by means of
their skill . . . they have made those materials more base than gold worth more
than gold itself.”165
Filarete’s emphasis on transformation in his description of Piero’s collection

serves not simply as a defense of wealth but of usury specifically, the practice
on which Medici wealth depended, and Verrocchio’s metaphors of making in
the tomb serve the same end. During the Renaissance usury was regarded as
unnatural because, by breeding money, it was seen to perform a function that
stood in marked contrast to procreation in the natural world.166 Many medi-
eval scholastics held that money was sterile and barren, and that therefore it
could not breed.167 Nevertheless some thinkers proposed ways in which money
could be seen to be fruitful. Thomas Aquinas (1225–74), for instance, observes
that money did breed, but it did so in a way that was unnatural (money’s
purpose was as a medium of exchange; when money increases – or breeds, it
should be used for the acquisition of natural objects, not for money). Richard
of Middleton (c. 1249–c. 1302) proposes how money could be made fertile: if
money can be said to produce human industry, human industry can be said to
produce money. Richard’s claim had wide currency and was used explicitly
by Renaissance critics of scholastic usury theory.168 In some theological dis-
cussions of usury, namely William of Auxerre’s enormously influential Summa
aurea (of or c. 1220), money’s ability to produce fruit was contrasted with
human labor and industry, the former being “accidental,” whereas the latter
was “true.”169 But for others, it was through human intervention (industry) that
money becomes fruitful. In this branch of writing on usury, the entrepreneur
becomes an active agent in money’s ability to fructify based on his sagacity. As
Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746), Adam Smith’s first teacher of economics, put
it: “Labor employed in managing money in trade, or manufactures, will make
it as fruitful as any thing.” Although Hutcheson was writing in the eighteenth
century, the idea he expresses was one widely shared during Verrocchio’s
day. It is echoed, for instance, by the Franciscan theologian Astesanus of Asti
(d. c. 1330), who claims that wealth does have the potential to become fruitful:
“Money does not have any fruit from its nature but only from the user’s indus-
try. . .”170 This quotation comes from Astesanus’s Summa de casibus (commonly
known as Astesana, c. 1317), which was widely read during the Renaissance
and often mined by confessors.171 Hutcheson’s idea also finds expression
in works by archbishop Antoninus of Florence (1380–459) and sermons of
Bernardino of Siena (1380–444). According to Antoninus: “though the circu-
lating coin might be sterile, money capital is not so because command of it is
a condition for embarking upon business.”172 Bernardino admits that money
is barren in one sermon, but he argues in another that it can be fruitful when
it assumes “the purpose of seeding profit . . . [, which] we commonly call . . .
capital.”173 The idea of wealth being used productively was also addressed in
the life of Saint John the Evangelist in The Golden Legend, which was well
known in Florence among all social strata. In it, John chastises a philoso-
pher who had ordered two wealthy brothers to acquire priceless gems with
their patrimony and then demonstrate their renunciation of worldly goods by

destroying them in the public square. The apostle’s response was to denounce
the gems’ destruction and to call for a more productive transformation of
wealth: converting their material richness into spiritual currency (by selling
them and giving away the proceeds to the poor).174 The story demonstrated
to a wide audience how material splendor could (and should) be harnessed
for spiritual benefit, a message shared with Verrocchio’s tomb, which showed
how Medici wealth could be transformed into something spiritually benefi-
cial through its materiality.
Verrocchio’s defense of Medici wealth is framed within his demonstra-
tion of his own artistic virtuosity, which is a meditation de rerum natura (on
the nature of things), in particular through the prevalence of metaphors of
creation and enlivenment. For instance, the net that encases the sarcophagus
ends in tassels that appear to be waving in the wind (Figure 70). This feature
occurs in no other tomb, as far as I know. In suggesting that his bronze can
move, Verrocchio is playing with the idea that the metal was alive, a com-
mon conceit during the Renaissance, when bronze was regarded as a petrified
material, formed by congealed water trapped beneath the earth’s surface and
brought back to life by the metallurgist.175 As Antonio Allegreti, the sixteenth-
century dilettante alchemist, later put it: “[Metal is] a hard and dense material
holding within it that living spirit which infuses all created things and which
alone gives them life, motion, and sense. It cannot show its forces unless its
hot and lively virtue is quickly freed from where it lies, encumbered.”176 The
tassels below Verrocchio’s sarcophagus that seem to rustle gently as if awak-
ening present the bronze as a slumbering material and serve to emphasize
Verrocchio’s role as the enlivener who will bring it back to life, making it
molten and forming it.
The allusion to the generative aspect of bronze was further made by
Verrocchio in the lifelike turtles on which the marble plinth rests (Figures 33
and 73), and in the fruits, seeds, and leaves that adorn the wreaths on the
sarcophagus (Figures 34, 74, 75, 92, and 93), which were cast from life.177 By
casting them from nature, Verrocchio again played the role of the creator,
petrifying life but drawing attention to the potential within the material for
re-enlivening, which could be done by the bronze caster.178 Verrocchio was
celebrated in precisely these terms in an inscription in Renaissance script on
one of his drawings, his Studies of Infants (Figure 94). It reads:
Viderunt equum mirandaque arte confectum

Quem nobiles Veneti tibi dedere facturum
Florentiae decus crasse mihi crede Varochie
Qui te plus oculis amant dilliguntque [sic] coluntque
Atque cum Jupiter animas infuderit ipsi
Hoc tibi Dominus rogat Salmonicus idem
Vale et bene qui legis.179
Lorenzo, Florence. Detail of fruits, seeds, and leaves that adorn the sarcophagus, bronze.
Lorenzo, Florence. Detail of fruits, seeds, and leaves that adorn the sarcophagus, bronze.
Figure 94. Andrea del Verrocchio. Studies of Infants, recto, pen and brown ink with faint traces
of black chalk or leadpoint, late 1460s or 1470s, Musée du Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, Paris,
RF 2.
Copyright. RMN-Grand Palais/Art Resource, NY. Photo: René-Gabriel Ojéda.
[They have seen the horse wrought with wondrous skill,

Which the noble Venetians gave to you to make
A glory to Florence, believe me, stout Verrocchio
Who love you, delight in you and esteem you more than just with
their eyes.
And as Jove has infused spirits into it [the horse],
the Lord Salmonicus asks the same regard for you.
Fare you well who read this]
The horse in the poem must be Verrocchio’s Colleoni monument (Figure 6),

which was left incomplete at the artist’s death in 1488, indicating that the
inscription must have been written sometime after the 1480s. In the poem,
the writer – probably an early owner of the drawing – compares Verrocchio
to Jove, thus underlining the artist’s role as creator. Moreover, the term “ani-
mas,” used in the same phrase, refers not only to souls but also serves as a pun
on the artist’s technique, as the word “anima” was used for the solid core in
hollow metal casting.180 The bronze caster and metalworker’s tasks were often
compared to those of God or of a Magus. For instance, the metalworker’s cru-
cible, in which metals were melted, was described in Renaissance treatises as a
“matrix” (womb), and the metalworker’s task was compared to Mother Earth,
bringing the ores to term.181 Albertus Magnus (whose works were popular in
Figure 95. Benvenuto Cellini. Perseus, bronze, 1545, Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence.
Renaissance Italy), quoting Hermes Trismegistus’ Emerald Table, describes the

process of liquefaction of metals as follows: “The Mother of metal is Earth,
that carries it in her belly.”182 And in his well-known account of the casting of
the Perseus (Figure 95), Cellini describes the act of casting (not the Perseus but
another work of art) as bringing something back to life: “owing to my thor-
ough knowledge of the art [of bronze casting], I was here again able to bring
a dead thing (un morto) to life.”183 Thus, the netting and the plants and animals
on Verrocchio’s tomb, which appear to be slumbering, awaiting regeneration
from the artist, serve as a metaphor for Giovanni and Piero de Medici’s res-
urrection, just as their souls await resurrection from God. And it is Verrocchio
who presents himself as a kind of Magus figure, foregrounding his creative role
as the means through which the metaphor for Medici resurrection operates.
The artist’s foregrounding of his own artistic practice occurs also in his
presentation of porphyry. Porphyry’s markings signified blood, a connection
deriving from the etymology of the word porphyry, which received its name
from a dye (“sea purple”), made from the blood of the murex.184 Porphyry
was also associated specifically with the sacrificial blood of Christ and of the
martyrs (including Saint Lawrence, patron saint of San Lorenzo).185 Evidently
Verrocchio was acquainted with the idea of porphyry as blood, as he used the
material in a sculpture to represent flayed Marsyas’ bloody state for his cele-
brated renovation of an ancient statue in the Medici garden that has not sur-
vived.186 Vasari praised Verrocchio’s use of the markings in the porphyry for his
Marsyas for “certain delicate white veins . . . carved by the craftsman exactly in
the right place, so as to appear to be little nerves, such as are seen in real bodies
when they have been flayed; which must have given to that work, when it had
its original finish, a most lifelike appearance.”187 Johannes Fichard, a Frankfurt
jurist who saw Verrocchio’s statue in 1536, admired the artist’s use of porphyry
to represent Marsyas’ flayed body.188
Verrocchio’s sarcophagus for the tomb of Giovanni and Piero at San Lorenzo
is covered with acanthus leaves, and this can be read as a witty reference to the
artist’s skill, in this case, in working with porphyry. According to Domenico
Buoninsegni, in a recommendation to another artist composed before 1533,
acanthus gives steel a good hard “temper,” necessary for tools for working with
porphyry. Giuliano da Sangallo records a similar recipe, also using acanthus, in
his Taccuino Senese (before 1516).189 By encasing his porphyry sarcophagus in
acanthus, Verrocchio was punning on his own technique: he had mastered the
difficult challenge of working with porphyry and presents this to the viewer. A
similar idea is suggested by the presentation of the bronze diamond on top of the
porphyry sarcophagus. Here one may read porphyry’s associations as an allusion
to blood’s use as an ingredient for cutting stones and gems (such as diamonds).190
The material metaphors of the tomb, and the emphasis on artistry, also
suggest a specifically Christian message was intended, as they recall Marsilio
Ficino’s neo-Platonic use of workshop and material metaphors to describe the
Christian soul, as laid out by Ficino in a letter to Cardinal Bessarion:
You are well aware, venerable father, that when our Plato discoursed on
beauty in the Phaedrus with such insight and at such length, it was beauty
of the soul he sought from God, which he called wisdom and most pre-
cious gold. When this gold was given to Plato by God, it shone in him
most brilliantly, because he was so pure in heart.
Although this great brilliance is revealed in his words and writings, yet
the treasure became enveloped by darkness in the mind, and difficult
to see, as if covered with a cloak of earth. It lay hidden from any man
who did not have eyes like a lynx. For this reason some men of narrow
learning were once deceived by the outer crust and, since they could not
penetrate to the core, they despised the hidden treasure.
But when that gold was put into the workshop first of Plotinus then of
Porphyry, Iamblichus and eventually of Proclus, the earth was removed
by the searching test of fire, and the gold so shone that it filled the whole
world again with marvelous spendour [. . .] 191
Ficino’s imagery resonates with Verrocchio’s use of materials in his tomb of

Giovanni and Piero: like Plato’s soul, those of the Medici are presented like
precious treasure. Although Ficino’s “artists” are all ancient philosophers, it is
significant that he uses the metaphor of the artist’s workshop and that it is only
here, according to Ficino, that the materials (which had become obscured) are
transformed and fill the world “with marvelous splendor.”
The precious stones on Verrocchio’s tomb are mounted as they would be
in a jewel or vase, and Verrocchio, of course, was a goldsmith. Although no
jewelry by him survives, his talents in this area were recognized by Vasari, who
singled out bottoni da piviali (clasps for priestly vestments) for praise in his vita
of the artist.192 Verrocchio may have been responsible for producing mounts
for some of the antique vases in the Medici collection, and he drew from this
experience in making his tomb. Surviving examples of mounts for Medici
vases, one of which can be attributed to Verrocchio on stylistic grounds, serve
as a useful comparison for the way that the artist’s gilt bronze decoration on the
San Lorenzo tomb presents the porphyry sarcophagus, the serpentine roun-
dels, and the bronze diamond on top of the sarcophagus, like gems mounted
in a precious piece of jewelry – for instance, the attribution to Verrocchio
of a mount for a sardonyx ewer that formed part of the Medici collection
(Figure 96), which consists of a stepped, raised base, lid, and handle.193 Two
Figure 96. Andrea del Verrocchio. Mounting of a sardonyx ewer, c. 1465–77, Museo degli
Argenti, Florence.
other Quattrocento mounts of antique vases by unknown Florentine gold-

smiths originally in the Medici collection indicate how Verrocchio’s tomb imi-
tates contemporary goldsmith’s settings: a double cup in amethyst mounted
in gilded silver (Figure 97) and a rock crystal Reliquary of San Nicola in a
gilded silver mount (Figure 98). Like the acanthus leaves on Verrocchio’s tomb
of Giovanni and Piero, the gilded metal leaves of the mounts of these objects
support and present the precious materials (in this case, amethyst and rock
crystal) to the viewer.Verrocchio’s tomb also resembles some of the hardstone
vases in the Medici collection in the presentation of the sarcophagus, with
its marble cornice separating the top and bottom of the structure and with
the elaborate decoration on the top of the sarcophagus that culminates in a
diamond. Several of the hardstone vases in the Medici collection (includ-
ing some known only from sixteenth-century drawings, Figure 99) featured
mounts around their centers, though admittedly in gilt metal rather than
in marble, and similar decoration.194 In his presentation of materials for the
Medici tomb, Verrocchio evoked contemporary gem settings, drawing from
his own experience.
Figure 97. Double cup in amethyst with silver-gilt mount, fifteenth century, Museo degli
Argenti, Florence.
Alfredo Dagli Orti/Art Resource, NY.
Figure 98. Florentine goldsmith active in Rome, Reliquary of San Nicola, rock crystal with a
silver-gilt mount, early sixteenth century, San Lorenzo, Florence.
Figure 99. Fifteenth century, double cup, jasper, with silver-gilt mounts, recorded in a
sixteenth-century drawing, detail, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Florence, Cod. Palatino
C.B. 3, 27.
Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Firenze.
More than that, though, the settings of materials in his Medici tomb also
make an assertion about the role of the artist in bringing out and improving
his gems. This corresponds to contemporary claims made about setting jewels,
such as a late fifteenth-century verse praising the jeweler Caradosso by the
Florentine Bernardo Bellincioni: “Nature does not tie an apple to the branch/
Or Spring the flowers to the grass./ As well as precious stones from the hand
of/ Caradosso come forth/ Set in jewelry for the person who judges them.”195
Here the poet praises the jeweler’s ability to surpass nature. Cellini makes a
similar assertion in his Trattati: employing foils and coatings, the Renaissance
jeweler, according to Cellini, could enhance a gem’s sparkle or color. Although
Cellini regards only the ruby, sapphire, emerald, and diamond as true jewels
and worthy of the jeweler, his contemporaries considered the range to include
many more, and jewelers employed at the Medici court in the sixteenth cen-
tury also set hardstones, like those found on Verrocchio’s tomb, into jewelery.196
Verrocchio’s tomb makes a visual statement of how Medici money could
become worthy through the artist’s acumen and skill, and how Medici entre-
preneurship could be turned into the means to access heaven and hope for
resurrection. The mind and products of the maker (Verrocchio) serve as orna-
ments for the Medici. As Manuel Chrysoloras explained in his consideration of
why one finds “beauty not in living bodies but in stones, marbles, and images”
(Chrysoloras was thinking of the antiquities collections of Renaissance Rome,
but his argument can be extended to materials and art in general), “It is that
we admire not so much the beauties of the bodies in statues and paintings
as the beauty of the mind (νοῦς) of their maker.”197 Verrocchio’s emphasis on
metamorphosis and the enlivenment of materials serves to demonstrate how
brute matter, like money, could be transformed into something else, thus ech-
oing the procreative workings of nature.198 This suggests an attitude toward
artistic production that aligns it with theological discussions of usury that priv-
ileged work and making. But whereas some scholastics, most notably William
of Auxerre (d. 1231), contrasted human industry with money’s ability to accu-
mulate, on the tomb Verrocchio’s labor is the means through which Medici
wealth – much of which was obtained through usury (considered unnatural) –
is transformed into something virtuous.
Verrocchio’s monument can be read as a treatise on the artist’s theory
and practice, a demonstration of how practice (materials and techniques)
can express complex ideas, achieved metaphorically on the tomb, and of
Verrocchio’s wide and varied expertise. What Verrocchio achieved in his tomb
of Piero and Giovanni de’ Medici was a monument that presented the interred
as something like a sacred relic, thus promoting the Medici family socially and
spiritually. Through its position in San Lorenzo, close to the family palace, and
in its evocation of the Medici treasury through its use of opulent materials, the
tomb presents a portrait of the family as generous spenders, a declaration of
their magnificence in a church. And in case any of their many enemies wanted
to accuse the Medici of greed and ostentation, the tomb uses puns on mate-
rials and making to suggest how wealth is not always evil; used productively,
money can become like nature, procreative. By framing Medici wealth in this
way,Verrocchio asserts the power of the artist, who can manipulate matter and
present it so that the powerful Medici family can benefit from it spiritually,
experiencing resurrection and regeneration after death. If Verrocchio’s mes-
sage has been obscured, it is because he was working at a time when overt
communication about Medici ambitions (spiritual or political) was dangerous.
Verrocchio’s tomb was a clever and witty solution to the challenges facing the
Medici and their allies, expressing the family’s right to govern, claiming that
the death and resurrection of family members was like that of saintly martyrs,
and arguing through visual, material, and technical puns that Medici banking
was the basis of their ability to be generous spenders and spiritually beneficial.
3
BRIDGING DIMENSIONS: VERROCCHIO’S

CHRIST AND SAINT THOMAS AS ABSENT
PRESENCE
What profit is an idol when its maker has shaped it, a metal image, a teacher of lies? For the
workman trusts in his own creation when he makes dumb idols! Woe to him who says to a
wooden thing, Awake; to a dumb stone, Arise! Can this give revelation? Behold, it is overlaid
with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in it. But the Lord is in his holy temple; let
all the earth keep silence before him.
(Habbakuk 2:18–20)1
Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas (Figure 5) is an unusual representation of

a subject that was well known during the Renaissance. Most depictions are
pictorial rather than sculptural and show Thomas touching Christ’s wound
(for example, Figure 100). By contrast,Verrocchio’s work consists of two relief
sculptures and shows Thomas reaching in as if to touch Christ’s wound but he
does not do so. These differences are significant and demonstrate Verrocchio’s
solution to the challenges of the work’s site of display: a preexisting niche, built
decades earlier. Moreover, Thomas’ encounter with Christ’s side wound serves
as a metaphor for the soul’s yearning for mystical union with God, understood
as the desire for wisdom and knowledge with implications for the patron, the
Mercanzia – the commercial tribunal of Florence, an institution dedicated
to searching for the truth. It will be proposed here that by showing Thomas
reaching forward to touch Christ but not doing so,Verrocchio is emphasizing
that Thomas’ realization was indirect (he came to understand Christ’s state
at the Resurrection without touching), just as Verrocchio’s experience of his
material was indirect (his hands created the model from which the bronze
118
BRIDGING DIMENSIONS 119
Figure 100. Unknown artist. Christ and Saint Thomas, Palazzo Comunale, Scarperia, Florence.
Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le attività Culturali e del Turismo – Comune di Scarperia.
Photo: Luigi Artini, Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz–Max-Planck-Institut.
sculpture was made, but he did not touch the bronze directly during cast-
ing). Thomas is presented, therefore, as an analog for the sculptor working in
bronze.2
3.1 THE COMMISSION FOR CHRIST AND SAINT THOMAS
Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas is one of the best-documented sculptures

of the Quattrocento. It was commissioned by the Florentine Università della
Mercanzia, the institution that regulated trade and the guilds, and served as the
city’s highest court of commercial law. Made for the exterior of Orsanmichele
(Figure 29), a church and former grain warehouse and market, it was placed in
the most prestigious position, at the central pier of the eastern (and most visi-
ble) facade.3 The decoration of Orsanmichele’s other niches had been commis-
sioned by the city’s twelve major guilds and the Parte Guelfa (which represented
the city’s merchants), and consisted of representations of the institutions’ patron
saints.The Mercanzia acquired their niche from the Parte Guelfa, which negoti-
ated the sale in 1459 and 1460, though they formally transferred their rights only
in 1463 (the Parte Guelfa being forced to give up their space because of lack of
Figure 101. Luca della Robbia. Stemma, glazed terracotta, 1463–64, Orsanmichele, Florence.
Alinari Archive, Florence.
funds). Thus, Verrocchio’s sculpture was made for a preexisting site: the niche
was completed by 1422, and Donatello’s Saint Louis of Toulouse (Figure 30) was
placed there in 1425,4 where it stood until 1451/52.5 It was sold to Santa Croce
on December 29, 1459. The Sei of the Mercanzia (the executive board of
the tribunal) appointed five operai, a group of men who were responsible for
the commission of the new statue, in 1463.6 In January or February of that
year the Mercanzia commissioned Luca della Robbia to make a stemma (crest;
Figure 101) to be placed above the niche, replacing that of the Parte Guelfa,7
and final payment to Luca for his work is recorded on March 22, 1464. This
same document indicates that the sculpture for the niche was to be of bronze.
Money was set aside for the purchase of the metal (bronze, along with cop-
per) from the Arte di Calimala (the cloth merchants’ guild) in 1464, the price
of which was negotiated by Piero de’ Medici and came to a total of 400 gold
florins.8 Initially the operai left open the possibility of one statue or two for
their niche.9 A document of 1464 refers to a figure or figures,10 indicating that
the decision had not yet been made, and documents up until 1476 variously
mention one or two statues.11
It appears that no artist had been selected until January 15, 1467 (mod-
ern style), when Verrocchio is first mentioned.12 Certainly as late as May 14,
1466, a document records that the sculpture had not yet been commissioned.13
Giorgio Vasari claims that the operai had planned to give the commission to
Lorenzo Ghiberti or Donatello (and that Donatello made the marble taber-
nacle with the intention of filling it with two statues but did not complete the
commission because he could not agree on a price).14 As Ghiberti died in 1455,
this cannot be correct (though it is possible that the operai hoped to entrust
the sculpture to his son, Vittorio, who continued the Ghiberti workshop).
The operai indeed may have intended to choose Donatello, but he died on
December 13, 1466.15 Material evidence suggests the possibility that Luca della
Robbia may have been involved in the commission for the statues, as well as
for the stemma: a small-scale terracotta group of Christ and Saint Thomas plau-
sibly attributed to him (Figure 102) may have been a model for the sculpture,
Figure 102. Luca della Robbia. Model of Christ and Saint Thomas, terracotta with traces
of polychromy, 1463–65, Szépmüvészeti Múzeum, Budapest.
Copyright. Szépmüvészeti Múzeum – Museum of Fine Arts, 2018.
a proposal first set forth by Paul Schubring.16 The model also provides possible
proof of a competition for the commission. In any case, by January 15, 1467, it
was decided that Verrocchio was to make the sculptures.
Beginning on April 24, 1468, Verrocchio was paid a monthly salary of
twenty-five lire, and on August 2, 1470, the Sei ordered the bronze and other
metals be reweighed for one of the sculptures in the presence of two of its
members.17 By August, 1470 the statue of Christ was ready for casting, which
occurred sometime between then and March, 1476.18 The model for Saint
Thomas appears to have been brought to a finished state sometime between
1476 and 1479. It was cast in 1479 and chased between then and fall or winter
of 1480.19 Work on the sculpture was suspended in March, 1481, and nothing
further was done until April, 1483, when the Signoria intervened to convince
Verrocchio to finish the sculptures in time for the Feast of Saint John the
Baptist (June 24).20 The sculpture was unveiled on June 21, 1483, as the apoth-
ecary Luca Landucci records in his diary.21 A document of January 2, 1488
(which postdates Verrocchio’s death) indicates that an additional inscription
was intended for the sculpture:Verrocchio’s brother, Tommaso, and Lorenzo di
Credi were asked to add a gilded inscription, though there are no records that
this happened. It is unlikely that this was the inscription on the hem of the
figures’ robes; more probably, it was one intended for the base of the sculpture.
Unfortunately, its content is unknown.22
Christ and Saint Thomas was a popular subject for law courts and govern-
ment assembly halls in Tuscany (for instance, Figure 100), including that of
the Mercanzia itself.23 As Andrew Butterfield has noted, the story expressed
two key attributes of the ideal magistrate: clemency and the desire for truth.
Therefore, Verrocchio’s sculpture can be read as emblematizing the essence
of one of the Mercanzia’s most important functions (its role as a tribunal for
commercial law in Florence).24 Like many institutions in Florence during the
late fifteenth century, the Mercanzia was controlled by the Medici. Lorenzo il
Magnifico used it to grant favors to allies and to punish enemies. In the very
years that Verrocchio was making his sculpture, the Mercanzia, like all branches
of the Florentine judiciary, was being reformed, thanks to the intervention
of Lorenzo. And the specific group from the Mercanzia responsible for the
commission of the sculpture for Orsanmichele (the operai) was a board made
up of five men, each one a representative from the major guilds of Florence,
and all members of the Medici inner circle.25 The subject of Doubting Thomas
appealed to the Medici, who were the principal patrons of the church of San
Tommaso Apostolo; Cosimo de’ Medici emphasized the importance of Thomas
by declaring the saint’s feast day a communal holiday in 1435 while serving in
the Florentine government. Given Lorenzo’s important role in reshaping the
Florentine legal sphere at this time (and because all of the Sei were members
of the Medici inner circle), the sculpture has been read as serving to convince
the Florentine people that Lorenzo was a wise ruler who governed for the
common good, an issue about which there was much debate at the time.26
There is no denying the importance of the Medici and their allies as moti-
vators for the iconography of Verrocchio’s sculpture, but what has too often
been overlooked is the artist’s own crafting of a particular presentation of his
subject that would have appealed to his patrons, expressed through his engage-
ment with the material from which it was made (bronze) and the method
by which it was constructed (modeling in wax and casting in bronze). By
attending to this aspect of the sculpture, we gain a deeper appreciation for the
sophistication of the sculpture’s theological message – a commentary on the
nature of faith – and Verrocchio’s role in fashioning that.
In Verrocchio’s sculpture (Figure 103), Christ stands in contrapposto, facing
frontally with his proper right arm raised. His head is tilted downwards and his
gaze is lowered. With his proper left hand, Christ pulls open his robe to reveal
the wound in his side. In its original location in the niche, Christ was posi-
tioned near the center but slightly to the right, standing on a step installed by
Verrocchio. Outside the niche and on the step below Christ was Saint Thomas
Florence.
whose lower body faces out but twists toward Christ so that his upper body is
in profile and his head is seen almost in reverse. The multitude of folds on the
drapery of both figures captures our attention and invites a slow viewing expe-
rience.Visual echoes between the figures encourage us to read each in relation
to the other: both are in contrapposto, both have a sweeping lower lip of dra-
pery, both hold a bulk of fabric at their centers, and their hair is similarly curly.
The pose of Thomas suggests a moment unfolding in time as he turns away
from the viewer and toward Christ, reaching in as if to touch Christ’s wound.
As Thomas moves toward him, Christ appears to respond by raising his arm
and opening his garment. The artist carefully choreographed the relationship
between the two figures, so precisely, in fact, that Thomas’ middle finger is
just half a centimeter from Christ’s garment and only six centimeters from his
wound (Figure 104).27 Nevertheless, Thomas does not touch Christ (though
Florence. Detail.
the composition encourages the eye to see that as the implied next moment of
the narrative – and in fact Vasari makes the mistake in his Lives of assuming that
Verrocchio’s Thomas touches the wound, writing “he [Thomas] put his hand
into the wound of Christ.”)28 Instead, Thomas turns and looks directly at the
wound and though his hand hovers near, it never touches it.
How are we to interpret Verrocchio’s intention here? Can we see the supe-
riority of sight over touch, as one might expect on the basis of much exe-
gesis of the Gospel story of the Doubting Thomas? The sculpture does not
encourage this reading. Although Thomas does not touch Christ, it is the log-
ical next step in the implied narrative taking place. Moreover, we do not see
Thomas being reprimanded by Christ for reaching forward to touch him.
Indeed, Christ responds to Thomas’ movement toward him by lifting his arm
and opening the tear in his garment to facilitate Thomas’ gesture. Most of
Verrocchio’s contemporaries depicted Thomas actually touching the wound
(for example, Figures 100 and 105),29 and it is striking that Thomas is not touch-
ing it in Verrocchio’s group. Because of this, it does not seem obvious to read it
as a judgment on touching when Thomas is shown not touching (and, indeed,
in other versions there is little to suggest a judgment against touching, even
when they are touching; Christ, for instance, is often shown holding open his
Figure 105. Bicci di Lorenzo. Christ and Saint Thomas, fresco, c. 1439, Santa Maria del Fiore,
Florence.
garment to aid Thomas or giving him the sign of benediction; see Figures 100,
102, 105–08).30
But what alternative interpretation of Verrocchio’s representation is there?
Unlike other examples, Verrocchio shows the very moment when Thomas
reaches forward as if to touch Christ’s wound.Verrocchio dramatizes this spe-
cific moment and suggests a correspondence between seeing and touching as
the means to reaching a higher truth. What Verrocchio is depicting is Thomas
focusing his entire attention and desire, of which his intention to touch and his
gaze seem to be different aspects in parallel.This implies that touch, when prop-
erly directed, can be usefully employed toward understanding and knowledge.
With its emphasis on touching and seeing, Verrocchio’s representation of
Doubting Thomas accords with the interpretation of the Gospel story of two
prominent writers in the vernacular with whose works Verrocchio would have
been familiar. In a verse inscribed below a late fourteenth-century fresco of
Doubting Thomas (now lost) that was painted above the door outside the
audience chamber of the Signoria in the Florentine town hall, the poet Franco
Sacchetti wrote: “Touch the Truth as I do, and you will believe . . . Direct your
Figure 106. Ottonian, Diptych: Moses and Christ and Saint Thomas, ivory, c. 990, Staatliche
Museen zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Skulpturensammlung.
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Photo: Antje Voigt.
Figure 107. Christ and Saint Thomas from the Salerno ivories, ivory, eleventh to twelfth
century, Museo Diocesano, Salerno.
Museo Diocesano, Salerno. Photo: Roberto Sigismondi, Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz
- Max-Planck-Institut.
Figure 108. Christ and Saint Thomas from Epistolae et Evangelia, Florence: Lorenzo Morgiani
and Johannes Petri, for Piero Pacini, July 27, 1495, folio LXXII left side, Library of Congress,
Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Washington, D.C.
Library of Congress, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Washington, D.C., DSQ-010990-2
hand to the Truth and your eyes to heaven.”31 And in the life of Saint Thomas
in his well-known Golden Legend, Jacopo da Voragine notes how Thomas’
name (which means twofold, the Greek for which is didimus) mirrored his
dual understanding of Christ’s Resurrection: “He is called twofold because he
came to know the Lord’s resurrection in two ways – not only by sight, like the
others, but by seeing and touching.”32 In both of these well-known sources,
touching and seeing are regarded as equals in the quest for knowledge.33
Another useful source for considering how Verrocchio may have approached
his subject is the story of Geta and Birria, contained in the three commonplace
books made in the artist’s workshop. This widely known vernacular tale is a
comedy of mistaken identity and tells of a servant named Geta, who is tricked
into believing that he is no longer himself after returning from Greece, where
he had accompanied his master for study. On their return home, Geta is wel-
comed by a voice that declares that Geta is already at home (it is Arcas, who is
guarding the door, while his father, Jove, cavorts with the master’s wife inside).
This sends Geta into confusion, and he concludes that he has been turned
into nothing. As he ponders his situation, he considers the value of knowl-
edge through touch: “Even though I speak, I hear, see and feel, and from this
I detach myself . . .; then if I touch myself saying ‘By God, I touch myself,’ how
can this be that my being has been extinguished?”34 For readers of this ver-
nacular tale, the conclusion presented is that philosophical knowledge – of the
sort that Geta and his master received in Greece – was of no use and that it is
only through sensory experience, and the judgment that follows, that one can
reach the truth.
The tale of Geta and Birria presents knowledge through the senses – especially
through touch – as superior to all other forms (when Geta tries to determine
whether he exists or not, he employs the sense of the touch). Apart from via
vernacular tales, Verrocchio would have been familiar with the supremacy of
touch through other means too. It was fundamental to spirituality in vernacu-
lar devotional manuals, such as the enormously popular Meditations on the Life
of Christ, which instructed readers to kiss, touch, and hold the Infant Christ
Child.35 Tactility often formed part of devotional experiences for the laity, for
instance, those who handled life-size wooden figures of Christ in rituals for
Holy Week, which were taken down from their crosses on Good Friday, carried
and mourned over in the church, and buried in altar-tombs (as we shall see,
Verrocchio’s Bargello Crucifix may have been made for this purpose).36 It was
also experienced during the Mass when the laity pressed their lips to a pax, a
small board, often decorated with the Crucifixion, passing it among themselves
after it was kissed by the priest.37 Touch played a role in the power of cult objects
via secondary objects that had come into contact with the original, such as prints
and tokens, which retained the power of the original and was experienced by
devotees through touching (in this case, the devotee touched something that
Figure 109. Andrea di Buonaiuto, People Reaching Up to Touch Saint Peter Martyr’s Marble
Sarcophagus, fresco, 1366–67, Spanish Chapel in Santa Maria Novella, Florence.
itself had touched a cult object, and the experience was regarded as equivalent
to direct contact with the original).38 In healing miracles touch likewise played
a crucial role. According to the Pistoian chronicler Luca Dominici, for instance,
it was only when a man with a withered hand touched a miraculous Crucifix
that he was healed.39 As a result, devotees were anxious to touch relics and reli-
quaries because of their healing powers.40 Artists emphasized the power of touch
to heal in countless representations (including Andrea di Buonaiuto’s fresco in
the Spanish Chapel in Santa Maria Novella showing people – including some
with crutches and bandages – reaching up to touch Saint Peter Martyr’s marble
sarcophagus [Figure 109] and Gentile da Fabriano’s Pilgrims Visiting the Shrine of
Saint Nicholas of Bari [Figure 110]).41 Touch could be important also in verifying
sacred presence in miraculous objects. When Dominici witnessed a miraculous
tear in the eye of Saint John the Evangelist in a painting of the Crucifixion,
he confirmed the tear’s material presence by touching it.42 Mystics were often
rewarded for their devotion with being able to touch and hold the Infant Christ
Child, whose appearance evoked the carved wooden holy dolls common in
Figure 110. Gentile da Fabriano, Pilgrims Visiting the Shrine of Saint Nicholas of Bari, tempera
on panel, 1425, Samuel H. Kress Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., open access.
religious devotion; or with embracing Christ crucified.43 And as Roger Ekirch

has explored, touch was essential to a premodern person’s understanding of the
world at night (when they had to pinch, prod, and push to comprehend their
surroundings and to find their way in the dark).44 Touch was also fundamental
to the Renaissance physiological explanation of falling in love in which little
spirits (spiritelli d’amore) were believed to pass from the beloved’s eyes into those
of the lover, impressing an image of the beloved on the lover’s heart. We will
discuss this further in the chapter that follows, but suffice it to say Verrocchio was
familiar with the theory, as it was basic to descriptions contained in vernacular
love poetry.45
The importance of tactility as a concept may also have been accessible to
Verrocchio from texts in the vernacular, or in Latin, the contents of which the
artist could have become familiar with via his patrons, the members of the operai
that commissioned the Christ and Saint Thomas. Among Verrocchio’s patrons
were a number of humanists, who conceivably could have discussed theology or
ancient philosophy with him, just as Ambrogio Traversari, Poggio Bracciolini, and
Niccolò Niccoli conversed with Lorenzo Ghiberti as he prepared the Florentine

Baptistery Doors.46 Niccoli also discussed these matters on a more casual basis
with Ghiberti and his other artist-friends Filippo Brunelleschi, Donatello, and
Luca della Robbia.47 A significant strand of thought dating from antiquity up until
the Renaissance held the tactile in equal esteem with, and sometimes superior
to, the visual in the quest for knowledge and understanding.48 The ancient Stoics
used touch as a metaphor for vision. According to Galen, in his criticism of their
theory of vision, Stoics held that the operation of sight was like touching with a
walking stick.49 The belief in an essential connection between seeing and touch-
ing existed also in the theory of vision known as “extramission,” introduced by
Euclid, developed by Ptolemy, and widely held during the Renaissance, whereby
sight occurred because a ray was emitted from the eye that “felt” (“impressed”
according to Adelard of Bath) the object it encountered and then returned to
the eye.50 Piero della Francesca, to name one prominent fifteenth-century artist,
describes the theory of extramission.51 Lucretius, whose poem De rerum natura
was rediscovered in 1417 by Poggio Bracciolini,52 claims that touch was the basis
for all the senses and describes sight using the metaphor of touch: sight strikes the
eyes.53 Augustine’s influential tripartite scheme of vision, which moves from the
corporeal to the spiritual to the intellectual,54 was often understood in “embod-
ied, even tactile terms,” as Jacqueline Jung has written,55 and in his commen-
tary on the Gospel of Saint John, Augustine notes that sight is a kind of touch
because one says “touch it, and see how hot it is.” Therefore, Augustine argues,
when the Resurrected Christ says “‘Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
hands:’ . . . what else does He mean but,Touch and see?”56 Augustine’s exegesis on
the Resurrection was widely available, thanks to its incorporation into Jacopo de
Voragine’s Golden Legend.57 The Scholastic philosopher Robert Grosseteste
(c. 1168–1253) compared intellectual dexterity to seeing, where sight is considered
an active, physical sense that delves into its object, implying a mode of seeing
that touches:
Sollertia [intellectual dexterity] is the penetrating power in virtue of

which the mind’s eye does not rest on the outer surface of an object, but
penetrates to something below the visual image. For instance, when the
mind’s eye falls on a colored surface, it does not rest there, but descends
to the physical structure of which the color is an effect. It then penetrates
this structure until it detects the elemental qualities of which the struc-
ture is itself an effect.58
Grosseteste’s disciple, Roger Bacon (1214/20–92), developed a theory of vision

that explains how in seeing, the species of the object – a corporeal form pro-
duced in the air or other transparent medium (light, water, or the humors of
the eye) – brings about a transformation in the viewer that involves touch.59
Vision “receives the species of the thing seen, and exerts its own force in the
medium as far as the visible object.”60 Significantly, this experience of see-

ing was, for Bacon, a form of physical touching (and a painful one at that).
According to Bacon, sight involves a change in the humors and membranes
of the eye, a kind of penetration: “[The anterior glacialis] must be somewhat
thick, in order that it may experience a feeling from the impressions [species]
that is a kind of pain.”61 Bacon’s Opus maius was known in artist circles in
fifteenth-century Florence – Lorenzo Ghiberti cites it in his treatise on art,
the Commentaries.62 Verrocchio’s pupil Leonardo da Vinci describes touch in
his treatise on the Paragone as “the older brother of sight,”63 explaining a few
chapters later how touch and sight worked hand in hand in the appreciation
of beauty and naturalism in painting. Leonardo cites the comment of King
Matthias of Hungary, who reproached the poet with the words:
Give me something I can see and touch and not only hear, and do not
blame my choice to put work under my elbow while I hold the work
of the painter with both hands to place it before my eyes. For, on their
own, my hands have taken your work away in order to serve the more
honorable sense [sight].64
Therefore, although sight was important in the medieval and Renaissance sen-
sory apparatus, touch was important too.
But touching was more than just equivalent to sight; there was a belief
that touch enabled a form of understanding that was not possible through
sight. Some medieval theologians went as far as recognizing the unreliability
of vision as a means of knowing in favor of the tactile.65 Jeffrey Hamburger has
stressed how
visions inspired by works of art [during the Middle Ages (but also true
of the Renaissance)] . . . [were] objective in that their imagery becomes
insistently and increasingly concrete, corporeal, and material; they insist,
often not without embarrassment, on the truth as something material,
sensible, even tangible, in short as accessible to the imagination. Rather
than insisting on the incorporeality of vision, they stake their claim to
truth by referring to corporeal images seen with corporeal sight, in par-
ticular reliquaries and cult images in the form of statues. The naked truth
is no longer invisible; it can be seen and has a body.66
In accounts of visions from the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the final
reward on earth is often experienced through touch.67 Jacopone da Todi, for
instance, describes the body of Saint Francis of Assisi at the stigmatization as being
impressed – that is, touched – with the wounds of Christ: “Francis’ deep desire
was such that he was incorporated into him [Christ], his heart was softened like
wax for a seal, impressing on it that [Christ] into whom he was transformed.”68In
his De anima Aristotle celebrates the sense of touch in its ability to convey infor-
mation, comparing the hand to the soul, and writing: “The soul, then, acts
like a hand; for the hand is an instrument which employs instruments, and in the
same way the mind is a form which employs forms, and sense is a form which
employs the forms of sensible objects.”69 Bernard of Clairvaux uses touch as a
metaphor for faith, writing that “faith . . . grasps what cannot be measured, takes
hold of what is least expected, and in a way encompasses even eternity itself in
the limitless bosom of its garment.”70 For Bernard, drawing from the language
of the Song of Songs, it was with touch (and taste) that we know God. Using the
metaphor of touch, Bernard explains how true understanding occurs when the
wisdom of God touches the Christian and the faithful responds by grasping
and touching God.71 According to Bernard, Christ encourages the devotee to
touch him “with the hand of faith, the finger of desire, the embrace of love; you
will touch me with the mind’s eye.”72 The sense about which Bernard writes is
spiritual, not physical, but he implies that the bodily senses must be employed to
reach spiritual and divine things.73 In spiritual union, according to Bernard, the
individual soul “adheres” to God in an “embrace” or a kiss, “to whom adher-
ing in a sacred kiss, we are made one spirit by his merits.”74 The basis of this
spiritual touching is another tactile metaphor: the Incarnation was a touch (a
kiss).75 Bernard’s works were well known in the vernacular, evident from their
presence in a number of Florentine zibaldoni.76 A number of other mystical the-
ologians – including several whose works were available in the vernacular and
widely referred to in vernacular sermons – took the Song of Songs as their point
of departure to argue for a spiritual hierarchy of the senses in which spiritual
touching toppled the supremacy of spiritual seeing and hearing.77 Bonaventure
ranks the spiritual sense of touch as the highest in service of mystical union
because, drawing from Bernard, “it unites the most to him who is the highest
spirit. This is why it is said in I Cor 6: ‘Who adheres to God is one spirit with
him.’”78 This sense of touch, though spiritual, is also experienced bodily: “in
this transition it is necessary that all intellectual operations are suspended, and
the ‘apex affectus’ (the highest part of the soul) is completely transferred and
transformed into God.”79 Bonaventure’s works were widely known, including in
the vernacular, having been copied in a number of Florentine zibaldoni.80 In his
commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, Thomas Aquinas asserts that tactuality (the
ability to touch and to be touched) would be possible after the Resurrection.81
And Thomas claims that touch is superior to vision because touch is distrib-
uted throughout the body, which leads to greater intellectual understanding.82
Thomas’ ideas were well known in Florence – his works were contained in
the libraries of San Marco and Santa Croce – and disseminated widely. His
Summa Theologiae was recommended by influential Archbishop Antoninus as
the primary source for preachers to turn to for doctrinal matters,83 and the
fourteenth- century Dominican preacher Giordano da Pisa popularized the
Summa Theologiae in many of his sermons, which he preached to a lay audience
at the studia of Santa Maria Novella and Santa Croce in Florence.84 Proof of
Thomas’ influence on Renaissance preaching can be found in an amusing story
told by Antoninus, clearly based on a vernacular source, of the Devil mas-

querading as a preacher and preparing for his sermon by consulting Thomas’
Summa in the convent’s library.85 Aldobrandino da Siena, in his thirteenth-
century vernacular treatise Trattato dei cinque sensi dell’uomo, writes that touch
is distributed throughout the body and that other senses depend upon it
(for instance, tasting with the tongue and mouth).86 Lorenzo Ghiberti, in
the third book of his Commentaries, claims that touch can supersede sight in
comprehension: he describes an encounter with an ancient statue excavated
in Florence, whose many fine details, he stresses, cannot be comprehended by
sight; only the hand, in touching the statue, can perceive these refinements.87
And in the Codex atlanticus Leonardo refers to touch as that which directs
information to the senso comune but is also an extension of senso comune: “Even
in the sense of touch,” he writes, “which derives from the senso comune, one
does not see its power reaching only as far as the finger-tips for, as soon as the
finger-tips have touched the object, the sense [of touch] determines whether
it is hot or cold, hard or soft, sharp or flat.”88 It is worth noting, too, that the
word apprehensio has the dual definition of taking hold of something and
becoming cognizant of it,89 something that Verrocchio seems to be playing
with by placing unusual emphasis on Thomas’ knowledge of Christ as both
tactile and visual.
Saint Thomas’ encounter with Christ after the Resurrection was frequently
employed specifically as an example for explaining the power of touch as
a means to knowledge and understanding. Augustine acknowledges that it
was through touch that Thomas became convinced of Christ’s resurrection.90
Bonaventure makes a similar point, singling out Thomas as an exemplum for
the soul in its desire for God and celebrating Thomas’ tactile experience:
Draw near, O handmaid, with loving steps to Jesus wounded for you . . .
Gaze with the Blessed Apostle St Thomas, not merely on the print of
the nails in Christ’s hands; be not satisfied with putting your finger into
the holes made by the nails in his hands; neither let it be sufficient to put
your hand into the wound in his side; but enter entirely by the door in
his side and go straight up to the very Heart of Jesus.There, burning with
love for Christ Crucified, be transformed into Christ . . . [T]ransfixed by
the lance of the love of your inmost heart, pierced through and through
by the sword of the tenderest compassion, seek for nothing else, wish for
nothing else except dying with Christ on the Cross.91
Anthony of Padua compares all Christians to Thomas in one of his sermons for
the Easter cycle and presents touching as a form of understanding and belief:
“[M]ay he [Christ] imprint in our minds faith in his passion and resurrec-
tion, so that with the apostles and the faithful of the Church we might merit
to receive eternal life.”92 Girolamo Savonarola emphasizes the importance of
touch for Saint Thomas in a sermon, pointing out how touch is a powerful
means of comprehension, one that is different from (and can be more pow-
erful than) understanding through words. Drawing from the Song of Songs,
Savonarola claims that the touching and handling about which Saint John
writes concerning Thomas is the Christian soul’s desire for mystical union
with Christ, an experience that depends on both the intellect and love:
The loving heart is consumed with desire to become dissolved [with

Christ], just as the bride says: ‘I implore you, daughters of Jerusalem, if
you find my beloved, tell me, because I am consumed with love for him
[Cant. 5]. I want to be dissolved with and be with Christ [Phil. 1]; and
that is my only desire.’ Therefore I tell you that this is touching and han-
dling the Word, because this knowledge and love can only be from God;
because it is beyond nature that man, leaving all things that are tangible
[behind], follows with all his heart those invisible things with so much
light, so much love and desire.93
Thomas thus serves as an exemplum for the faithful who are unable to see
Christ (because of historical circumstances), yet desire to do so.94
3.2 VERROCCHIO’S EXEGESIS
The common assumption made for centuries was that Thomas believes in the
Resurrection because he touches Christ’s body.95 Augustine, for instance, whose
writings were well known in Renaissance Florence, writes that Thomas “saw
and touched the man [Christ] and confessed the God whom he did not see
and did not touch.” According to Augustine, Thomas touched the flesh of man
(Christ), not the word (God).96 In a sermon based on John 20:19–31, Gregory
the Great – whose sermons were widely known in fifteenth-century Florence –
claims that Thomas had touched the Resurrected Christ and that this was a
privilege brought about by divine dispensation.97 Thomas Aquinas notes that
Thomas not only saw but also touched Christ’s flesh.98 The claim is made too
in vernacular sources.The author of the Meditations on the Life of Christ declares:
“Thomas, prostrating himself, touched the wounds of the Lord and said, ‘My
Lord and my God’. For he saw the Man and believed in the God.”99 And The
Golden Legend states that Christ “let himself be touched [at the Resurrection].”100
In fact, according to the Gospel (including the version in the widely avail-
able Tuscan Gospel harmonies and the first printed vernacular editions of the
Vulgate [Venice, 1471]), although Thomas states that unless he could put his
fingers into the wounds left by the nails and thrust his hand into Christ’s
side, he would not believe in the Resurrection,101 Thomas comes to believe
without touching Christ.102 As Glenn Most has noted, Thomas’ demand for
tactile proof of Christ’s resurrection rests on his desire for “incontrovertible
evidence of Jesus’ full physical materiality.”103 This sets up an aporia in the text
of the Gospel of Saint John that is resolved only by Christ offering his body
to be touched (suggesting that it can be touched and therefore is a truly liv-

ing body, though never actually proving that) and by Thomas responding by
withdrawing his demand that he will believe only by touching Christ’s body.
Significantly, then, Thomas comes to believe without the nature of Christ’s
materiality being revealed, and Thomas’ revelation is of Christ’s absent pres-
ence.104 As Jean-Luc Nancy has explored, the story of the Doubting Thomas is
one of several encounters of Christ’s followers with the resurrected Christ in
the Gospel of Saint John. Rather than reading the story as one about Thomas
coming to believe in Christ’s resurrection, Nancy proposes that the series of
which it is a part restores sight or blindness “to those who have already seen.”105
In the case of Noli me tangere (but also relevant to the Doubting Thomas), the
“revelation” of Christ’s resurrected body “is not the sudden appearance of a
celestial glory. To the contrary, it consists in the departure of the body raised
into glory. It is an absenting, in going absent, that there is revelation...”106
What exactly is the exegesis on the story of Doubting Thomas presented by
Verrocchio in his sculpture? To explore this, let us look closely at the object
itself.Verrocchio’s two figures are shallow reliefs (Figures 111 and 112).Although
they appear to be sculptures in the round, they are not. Both heads are in the
Florence. Detail of side of Christ.
Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali e del Turismo - Opificio delle Pietre Dure
Florence. Detail of 1476–83 of Thomas.
round, but the bodies are open at the back (Figures 111 and 112) and Christ’s
raised arm is even open from above (Figure 46).The decision to create them in
this way may have been dictated by several factors, most importantly, the size
of the niche (Verrocchio was forced to fit his sculpture into a preexisting niche
made for one figure) and the cost of the material (by creating his statues as
reliefs, less bronze would be required). But there may have been another reason
for the choice. By presenting his figures as reliefs, they are somewhere between
three-dimensional sculptures and two-dimensional paintings or drawings; thus,
they exist somewhere between the tactile and the visual.107
This play between the two senses – and dimensions – is suggested also in
the iconography.Verrocchio shows Thomas stepping forward from outside the
niche toward Christ (Figure 103). Propelled forward, with his hair stream-
ing behind him, Thomas reaches in as if to touch Christ’s wound but does
not.108 The juxtaposition of Thomas’ actions and Christ’s words sets up a strug-
gle between the tactile and the visual as expressions of faith and as forms of
knowledge. William Diebold has noted a similar juxtaposition in the case of
an Ottonian ivory diptych (Figure 106) that represents Moses receiving the
tablets and Christ and Saint Thomas in the two wings.109 There, the exception-
ally deep carving of the ivory suggests the superiority of tactility over visual-
ity.110 In the case of Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas, the outcome is more
ambivalent. On the one hand,Thomas is shown stepping and reaching forward
as if to touch Christ’s wound, which might suggest a preference for the tactile.
However, notably Thomas’ hand does not reach Christ’s wound (Figure 104).
Rather than regarding the tactile and the visual as antitheses, Verrocchio’s
sculpture seems to suggest the possibility of a relationship between the two,
where seeing is touching and knowing through touching is equivalent to
knowing through sight.111 This reading of Verrocchio’s sculpture may appear
radical, given the predominant attitude of the superiority of the visual over
the tactile in the exegetical tradition, but there coexisted with that a belief
that seeing and touching were equals, rather than opposites, as we have seen.
I would like to propose that the artist went further by presenting the tactile
sense as a metaphor for spiritual seeing, which Verrocchio explores through his
sophisticated use of light effects on his sculpture. Paul Barolsky has emphasized
how lustrous are Verrocchio’s polished bronzes, convincingly reading their sur-
faces as a metaphor for truth via divine illumination (an interpretation consist-
ent with Vasari’s description of the statues: “In Saint Thomas we see incredulity
and an inordinate desire for illumination of the truth”).112 And as Butterfield
has eloquently addressed, the unusual position of Verrocchio’s statues in rela-
tion to their niche leads to the creation of a complex chiaroscuro that lends
spiritual weight to the encounter shown. Christ’s raised hand is designed to
catch the sunlight, and when it does, the top and back of Thomas’ head are
likewise illuminated, which can be read as a manifestation of the Holy Spirit
at this moment of blessing.113
But the play of light across the sculpture can also be interpreted as an expres-
sion of spiritual seeing, an intellectual seeing that metaphorically (but not
physically) touches, thus the viewer’s encounter with the sculptures resembles
the soul in its pursuit of God, as outlined by Bonaventure, for whom Thomas’
touch is a metaphor for spiritual seeing. Verrocchio encourages this reading
of his sculpture through the high degree of polish for his statues and the
careful positioning of them to reflect sunlight. Like Tilman Riemenschneider
at Rothenburg, who considered the effects of light in the church when he
carved his Altar of the Holy Blood (1499–505, St. Jakobskirche, Rothenburg),
Verrocchio appears to have carefully planned his sculptural group with the
changing light conditions on the exterior of Orsanmichele throughout the day
in mind.114 Verrocchio’s sculpture further implicates the beholder as Thomas
by showing him stepping forward into the niche using a pose that echoes
that of the viewer approaching the statues along via Calzaiuoli (Figures 113
and 114), the principal street on which Orsanmichele is located. The result
of these preparations is that Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas would have
Florence.
encouraged Renaissance viewers to recognize as perceptible the rays that

passed from their eyes, touched the statues’ surfaces, and returned to them,
according to the theory of extramission vision. Thus, Verrocchio’s sculpture
can be read as suggesting an equivalence between seeing and touching, where
physical touching is a metaphor for spiritual seeing.
It is significant that that which Thomas reaches out to touch in Verrocchio’s
sculpture is the resurrected body of Christ, which Verrocchio emphasizes with
the concluding words of the inscription along Thomas’ robe:“ET SALVATOR
GENTIVM” (Figure 115). As Kristen van Ausdall has pointed out, these words
stress Christ as redeemer and are a departure from the concluding lines of the
story of Doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John (“Christus Filius Dei”).115
Verrocchio thus presents Christ as the source of salvation. To explain this con-
cept, commentators often turn to the metaphor of Christ as door, drawing
from Christ’s own words, “I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be
saved.”116 Ubertino da Casale, for instance, uses the metaphor of Christ as door
to describe Thomas’ revelation at the Resurrection, writing: “[Thomas] had
put his hand through the doors of the incandescent furnace of Jesus’ love.”117
Florence.
Florence. Detail of Thomas.
di Firenze, Archivio dei Restauri e Fotografico and Museo Nazionale del Bargello.
Figure 116. Luca della Robbia, Tabernacle of the Eucharist, marble and enameled terracotta with
bronze tondo and modern copy of lost original door, 1441–43, Santa Maria, Peretola, Florence.
Ubertino’s Arbor vitae crucifixae was well known; it was contained in the library
at Santa Croce, his work was translated into the vernacular, and his words
were well known in Verrocchio’s day, having been plundered by Bernardino
da Siena and diffused across Europe with his sermons.118 And Origen of
Alexandria (c. 185–c. 254), whose ideas (though controversial) were well known
in fifteenth-century Florence, used Christ’s passing through closed doors after
the Resurrection to explain Christ’s resurrected state as being between a body
and a soul.119 The connection of Christ with a door is made explicit in a num-
ber of representations of the Doubting Thomas in which he appears either
in front of or behind a door.120 For instance, in one of the eleventh-century
Salerno ivories showing Christ and Saint Thomas (Figure 107), the lower half
is filled with a wall that features closed doors at its center. The wall and door
are positioned directly below Christ, who holds his arm up and pulls back
his tunic to invite Saint Thomas to reach forward and touch his wound. The
composition of the ivory thus emphasizes the idea that Christ’s wound serves
as a door for Thomas.121 The resurrected Christ was also a favorite subject
on doors (sportelli) of sacramental tabernacles – church furniture designed to
house unconsumed Eucharistic wafers, the bread that had been transubstanti-
ated into Christ’s body – including one commissioned from Verrocchio for a
tabernacle made by Luca dell Robbia (stolen in 1919; Figures 116 and 117), fur-
ther establishing the association of Christ as door.122 The metaphor of Christ
Figure 117. Workshop of Andrea del Verrocchio. Sportello with Christ the Redeemer, probably
bronze, formerly Santa Maria, Peretola, Florence (missing since 1919).
as door on Host tabernacles emphasizes how the Eucharist – Christ’s suffering

body – is the means to salvation.123 Christ was the threshold through which
salvation was assured, the door through which the soul desires entry to mysti-
cal union with God.
As several scholars have stressed, the niche within which Verrocchio’s sculp-
ture was placed (Figure 5; built decades earlier to house Donatello’s St Louis of
Toulouse [Figure 30]) was the inspiration for countless Eucharistic tabernacles,
especially in its classicizing style, which marked a departure from earlier Gothic
niches and was derived from antique funerary monuments.124 The site in which
the Christ and Saint Thomas was positioned, therefore, would have reminded
many viewers of a Host receptacle.Verrocchio took advantage of this association
to stress Christ’s resurrected bodily state, a subject of interest for the members
of the Mercanzia, who commissioned the sculpture, and who were patrons of
Corpus Christi, the feast of the sacrament.125 But Verrocchio took this further
by presenting his sculptured Christ as a door. This is suggested by the position
of Christ on the step at the front of the niche (where a sportello would be on
a Host receptacle) and because of the bronze medium from which the figure
was made (metal was the material of choice for sportelli).126 That some viewers
of Verrocchio’s sculpture understood this as his intention is supported by a
woodcut made c. 1495 in Florence based on Verrocchio’s design (Figure 108)

that shows Christ and Saint Thomas behind a wall with emphatically closed
doors.127
But this allusion to Christ as door is not mere visual metaphor inVerrocchio’s
sculpture. It operates on a more profound level.Verrocchio emphasizes that the
wound in Christ’s side is the place where mystical union can occur. He does
this by amplifying the wound, repeating its mandorla shape in the precisely
rendered tear in Christ’s drapery through which the Savior directs Thomas’
hand.This highlighting of the hole in the cloth draws attention to the material
existence of the wound – its bodiliness – as the means through which salva-
tion is possible, a connection that recalls Paul’s letter to the Hebrews: “Having
therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by
a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that
is to say, his flesh...”128 The conflation of veil and flesh occurs also in the words
of Epiphanius the Deacon at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787: “Thus,
this Christ, while visible to men by means of the curtain, that is, his flesh,
made the divine nature – even though this remained concealed – manifest
through signs. Therefore, it is in this form, seen by men, that the holy Church
of God depicts Christ.” Paul’s words, which formed the basis of the 1215
Fourth Lateran Council’s assertion of the salvific importance of the Eucharist,
and those of Epiphanius the Deacon, contained in the proceedings from the
Second Council of Nicea, were both well known during the Renaissance.129
These sources point to salvation occurring through Christ’s body and blood –
in other words, through Christ’s material existence.Verrocchio highlights this
in his sculpture by repeating the mandorla shape of Christ’s wound in the
drapery (or veil) around it. Verrocchio’s representation, with its stress on the
similarities between wound and drapery, serves to encourage the idea that
the spiritual journey is enacted through the material reality of Christ’s suffering
body, rather than by turning away from the bodily senses. Thus, Christ’s side
wound becomes the gate through which a devotee could pass into the heart
of Jesus, as Bonaventure describes it (and he presents Thomas explicitly as
exemplum for this).
The connection between fleshy wound and the tear in Christ’s garment
also suggests an emblematic link to Christ as cloth (a comparison made, for
example, by John the Scot (810-c. 877), who refers to the Incarnate Christ as
“maximum velamen”). The cloth may be read likewise as an allusion to the
conflation between images, allegories, and flesh as veils covering the light of
God made by John the Scot in his commentary on Pseudo-Dionysius.130 The
metaphor of veil is employed also by Verrocchio through his decision to cast
his sculptures as reliefs, rather than in the round, so that they are a kind of veil.
If Verrocchio’s Christ is a door, and his wound a door to God, it should
be noted that Thomas is a door too. Made from bronze, the two figures of
Figure 118. Lorenzo Ghiberti, Gates of Paradise, gilt bronze, 1425–52, Museo dell’Opera del
Duomo, Florence.
Christ and Saint Thomas are like a pair of doors – Verrocchio’s equivalent to
Ghiberti’s Gates of Paradise on the nearby Baptistery (Figure 118). The space
between Thomas’ finger and Christ’s wound (Figure 104) then is like a chink
between two doors, inviting the viewer in, and by keeping the figures close
but separate, Verrocchio amplifies the drama of this moment and the viewer’s
desire by creating a narrative opening into which the viewer can participate.
Indeed, if Thomas’ finger was touching Christ’s wound, the bolt would be shot,
the latch lowered, and the viewer shut out (just as occurs in the image on the
Salerno ivories and others).131 By maintaining the space between finger and
wound, Verrocchio left open the possibility for mystical union to occur. The
result of Thomas’ touch (whether physical or spiritual) is knowledge, an under-
standing that supersedes that available via sight (an attitude held by a number
of thinkers, as we have seen). By drawing attention to Christ’s side wound,
Verrocchio points to it as the font of mystical knowledge, the seat of wisdom.
In framing Christ’s wound as the gate to wisdom with two relief sculptures
whose material existence mimics veils, Verrocchio is also hinting at the limits
of earthly perception.The bronze reliefs as veils thus represent the idea of indi-
rect revelation described by Dante in the final Canto of Paradiso in the Divina
Commedia in which his perfect understanding of the visage of the Trinity, which
hit him like a bolt of lightning, fades from memory just as “the sun unseals an
imprint in the snow.”132 Verrocchio’s sculptures convey Thomas’ comprehen-
sion of Christ’s state at the Resurrection as absent presence. He does this by
placing the figures outside the niche, leaving the space behind them empty.
This literal absence of the niche serves as metaphor for Christ’s absent state,
reinforced further through the form of the statues as reliefs, figures with empty
reverses. Even if the viewer could not actually see this detail (which was not
visible when the sculptures were in place on the façade of Orsanmichele), the
position of the statues in front of, and not inside, the niche would have estab-
lished the sculpture’s intended message as representing Christ’s absent presence.
Verrocchio’s sculpture communicates Thomas’ revelation, therefore, as one not
of carnal realization of Christ’s material body, or a realization through faith
alone (via sight); instead, it demonstrates how Thomas’ revelation is one of
absence, a body that cannot be touched.133
3.3 THE MEANING OF BRONZE IN CHRIST AND SAINT THOMAS
Verrocchio further encourages the association between Christ and absent pres-
ence through his treatment of the medium of bronze, which offered an oppor-
tunity for viewers to contemplate theological metaphors of matter appropriate
to the subject represented. The sculpture was made by taking an impression
of something else (a wax model) that has become absent (like Christ’s body at
the Resurrection) and by replacing one material (wax; the model) with bronze.
Bronze was a material especially suitable to the subject of Christ and Saint
Thomas because it was believed to be a petrified substance brought back to
life by the artist. Significantly, in Benvenuto Cellini’s famous account of rescu-
ing his Perseus, the artist compares explicitly his revivification of the bronze to
Christ’s resurrection: “O Christ, how with your immense virtù you resuscitated
from the dead, and climbed gloriously to Heaven.”134
Moreover, some sources describe Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected
Christ in words that conjure up the heat and molten state of bronze used in
casting. Ubertino da Casale, as we have seen, uses the metaphor of the door
to explain Thomas’ encounter with Christ at the Resurrection, and through
that door, Ubertino writes, Thomas reaches toward “the incandescent furnace
of Jesus’ love.”135 And we have seen how Bonaventure describes Thomas’ expe-
rience as an entry “by the door in his [Christ’s] side . . . [so that he could] go
straight up to the very Heart of Jesus. There, burning with love for Christ
Crucified, be transformed into Christ.”136
Metal casting was commonly employed as a metaphor in discussions on the
resurrection of the body,137 the event compared to the reforging of a statue
that had been melted down (in other words, a sculpture made from metal,
possibly bronze), though the significance of remaking was interpreted vari-

ously. Methodius of Olympus, for instance, writing in the later third century
CE, compares resurrection to metal casting in a way that appears to depend
upon the technique of indirect casting (because the same mold is used):
If, certainly, an artist does not wish to have a statue which has been
defiled when he created it with so much skill and taste, it will clearly
come back to his mind that when it is melted down he can remake it as
it was before. But if it does not please him to remelt it and restore and set
it up again as it was, but rather to cure and improve the way it is, then it
must be that the statue, purified by fire and corrected by the skill of the
artist, is not preserved as it was, but changed and refined.138
Augustine uses the metaphor of a statue that was destroyed or melted down but
reforged from the same material to explain the Resurrection in his Enchiridion,
available at Santa Croce’s library.139 Peter Lombard, borrowing from Augustine,
later argued that although the particles of the material do not return necessar-
ily to the same part of the statue, they are all incorporated into the sculpture,
and therefore the remade sculpture is the same as the original.140 Lombard’s
Sentences was known in Florence; for instance, it was available at the Santa
Croce library.141 Later, Thomas Aquinas argued that the earthly body was not
the same as a resurrected one using the metaphor of casting: even if it was
made from the same brass, a reforged statue is different because it has a second
form.142 The metaphor is echoed in the account of the martyrdom of Saint
Polycarp, known in the vernacular in fifteenth-century Italy, that describes
how the holy man’s body, when placed on the burning pyre, resembled not
burning flesh but “gold and silver being purified in a smelting-furnace.”143
As a sculpture in bronze, a medium made by replacing an area previously
filled with wax, and as an object that is neither three-dimensional sculpture nor
two-dimensional painting or drawing but something in between,Verrocchio’s
Christ and Saint Thomas represents through its material facture Christ’s body
between two states. In this way Verrocchio’s sculpture might be understood
as a metaphor for a reading of the scriptural source that stresses Christ’s status
during his encounter with Thomas as being between two states. Christ appears
as a material body that converses with his disciples but passes through closed
doors, just as a Tuscan Gospel Harmony and the vernacular printed Bible put
it: “his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Jesus cometh, the doors
being shut, and stood in the midst, and said: Peace be to you.”144 As Origen
expresses it in his Contra Celsum, “he [Christ] was moreover after his resur-
rection as if halfway between the solid body which he had before he suffered
and the subtle one infused with a soul in which he appeared after he had pre-
viously put off that body.”145 For Origen, Christ’s state was a manifestation of
the soul, which he explained as an apparition that appears to some around the
tombs of the dead and that are “caused by the fact that the soul is subsisting
in what is called the luminous body.”146 Aristotle, according to Diogenes
Laertius (whose Vite e detti di filosofi featured in Florentine zibaldoni),147 com-
pares the soul to a wax model and to a bronze statue made from wax. Just as
a soul can exist potentially (in wax and bronze) or actually (in bronze after
it has been cast, cleaned, and chased), so the soul can exist potentially or
actually, Aristotle contends.148 In Physics, which was known in Renaissance
Florence,149 Aristotle again uses the metaphor of bronze sculpture, equat-
ing actuality or existence with the modeling and casting of a bronze statue
(because, like the creation of a bronze sculpture, actuality requires material,
a form, a force to forge it and an intention for the object).150 In casting his
statues in bronze and as reliefs, Verrocchio’s sculpture can be read, there-
fore, as a metaphor for Christ’s status between two states: materiality and
immateriality.
3.4 MAKING THE CHRIST AND SAINT THOMAS: THE ARTIST AS THOMAS
To fully appreciate Verrocchio’s use of material and technical metaphors in

his Christ and Saint Thomas, we need to examine the sculpture’s manufacture.
In particular, we want to pay careful attention to how Verrocchio developed
a method for making his bronzes that enabled him to create two figures in
relief, which, I am arguing, he used as a metaphor of Christ’s resurrected state
(between three and two dimensions). Verrocchio probably began by working
out the composition with clay or wax models draped with cloth and setting
them within a small wooden model of the niche. The terracotta model attrib-
uted to Luca della Robbia (Figure 102) gives us a sense of what Verrocchio’s
model may have looked like.151 We know that Verrocchio used models of
this sort for his small-scale metalwork,152 and a painting on linen that relates
directly to the Christ and Saint Thomas (Figure 44) suggests he used both two-
and three-dimensional models for his Orsanmichele sculpture.153 The drapery
study on linen is one of a group of twenty such studies to have survived and
convincingly attributed to Verrocchio by Günter Passavant.154 The similari-
ties with the sculptured figure of Christ, especially in the angular folds and
the pose, support a connection. Verrocchio would have made his study on
linen after a model constructed from wax or clay onto which cloth dipped in
gesso was arranged.155 It was not unusual for Quattrocento artists to depend on
three-dimensional modelli for their sculptures, though typically they served as a
kind of preview of the final work for the patron’s benefit, rather than serving
in any creative sense.156 The relationship between Verrocchio’s drapery study
and his final sculpture, however, appears to have been fundamental to the crea-
tion of the final work in bronze.157 The lights in Verrocchio’s drapery study are
presented in broad washes with a more restricted tonal range than the other
studies on linen, perhaps referring to its intended object, a bronze sculpture.

The emphasis on light and shade suggests that it was these qualities that the
artist sought to study and then translate into bronze, rather than creating it as
a structural guide for the sculpture.158 Verrocchio’s practice suggests that in his
attitude about the control of light as an important feature of sculpture, he dif-
fered from his pupil, Leonardo. One of the chief differences between a painter
and a sculptor, according to Leonardo, is that the former can control and depict
light, whereas sculptors, though they depend on light, treat light as an external
element to their representation.159 The painting on linen alerts us to the care
Verrocchio took with planning the effect of light as it fell on his sculpture,
and as we have seen, light played a crucial role in the experience and intended
meaning of the work.
It is not known whether Verrocchio cast the Christ and Saint Thomas him-
self. The two figures were cast differently – runners are visible only on the
reverse of Saint Thomas (Figure 31) – which might suggest that they were
made by different craftsmen. On the other hand, they were cast about five
years apart, which might explain the discrepancy.160 Many fifteenth-century
sculptors, such as Donatello, did not cast their own bronzes; instead, they
allocated that work to another person.161 In the case of Donatello, this may
have been due to his lack of knowledge about the science of making alloys,
a claim made by Gauricus.162 (Gauricus’ assertion is supported by technical
evidence: Bruno Bearzi has argued, based on the high tin content of the
alloy of the bronze doors of the Old Sacristy in San Lorenzo, that they were
cast by a founder who specialized in making bells.)163 Lorenzo Ghiberti,
too, turned to others for help in casting. He depended on the expertise of
Burgundian founders for his North Doors of the Baptistery.164 For the Gates
of Paradise, however, Ghiberti appears to have been more closely involved,
traveling to Venice either to source his copper or to make sure the alloys
being made corresponded to those he requested.165 Verrocchio may well have
cast his own bronzes.Vasari says explicitly that Verrocchio cast the Christ and
Saint Thomas: “he [Verrocchio] made the models and the molds, and he cast
them.”166 Vasari claims also that Verrocchio had intended to cast the Colleoni
monument in Venice (Figure 6) and, indeed, that the artist had begun the task
but that it was interrupted by the artist’s untimely death, due to Verrocchio
having “caught a chill by overheating himself during the casting.”167 Even
if he did not cast the Christ and Saint Thomas personally, it seems likely that
Verrocchio would have supervised the casting, given the care with which
he made his other works in metal (for instance, in acquiring personally the
metal for his palla in Treviso and learning the technique of repoussé from
craftsmen there).168
There is some controversy about how the two figures of the Christ and Saint
Thomas were cast, whether via the direct or indirect lost wax casting method
(in the direct method, the original model is destroyed, whereas in the indi-
rect lost wax casting method, the model is preserved).169 Direct casting seems
most likely, given the discrepancies between the fronts and backs of the statues
(which should be the same if the work was made using the indirect method).
Regardless of whether Verrocchio’s sculpture was cast directly or indirectly,
bronze replaces an area filled by wax in both methods. In constructing his
sculpture from bronze, Verrocchio’s encounter with the holy figures echoed
that of Thomas with the resurrected Christ: the artist made a model in wax out
of which the bronze sculpture was fashioned (just as Thomas met Christ phys-
ically before the Resurrection), while the casting of the bronze did not involve
Verrocchio’s immediate touch (an experience that resembles Thomas’ encoun-
ter with Christ after the Resurrection).170 As Theophilus Presbyter wrote in his
early twelfth-century treatise on metalworking (De Diversis Artibus), the bronze
caster cannot depend on sight or touch to know when the bronze should be
poured (Theophilus was discussing bells); instead, the craftsman must turn to
indirect means:
Meanwhile, lie down near the mouth of the mold and, by listening, care-
fully determine how it is progressing within. If you hear a slight murmur,
as of thunder, tell them to hold a little and then pour again. So, by at
one time checking and another time pouring, the metal is made to settle
evenly until the crucible is emptied.171
Furthermore, the material from which Verrocchio made his sculpture (bronze)
was understood as a petrified substance that was revivified by the artist, and the
process of casting mirrored the miraculous Resurrection of Christ (a connec-
tion made explicitly by Cellini, as we have seen).
In his engagement with the material of bronze through the making of his
sculpture, Verrocchio’s experience would have been equivalent to Thomas’
own comprehension of Christ at the moment of the Resurrection: like
Thomas,Verrocchio’s “not touching” was a form of knowledge, even if it was
indirect. The bronze sculpture was itself a revelation of absent presence, in that
the wax model has been replaced by bronze, which the artist has not touched
directly.172 By dramatizing the moment of Thomas reaching in as if to touch
Christ,Verrocchio establishes the eternal truth of God’s immaterial presence at
the Resurrection through material means: Christ’s body is shown to be both
physically present and materially absent (it is a bronze shell that records a lost
wax model). The sculpture also depicts the manifestation of the soul as some-
thing between materiality and immateriality, and it is this truth that Thomas
apprehends in Verrocchio’s sculpture where he serves as a guide for the human
soul.
By displaying his sculptures in bronze and in relief,Verrocchio presents the
viewer with a material metaphor for the resurrected body of Christ that exists
between material solidity and immaterial infinity. This reading is in keeping

with the sculpture’s role as visually declaring the chief purpose of the Mercanzia
as a tribunal that was dedicated to the searching for the truth. Thomas’ revela-
tion in Verrocchio’s sculpture is not of the carnal presence of Christ’s material
body, or a realization through faith alone (via sight). Instead,Thomas’ revelation
involves a distance, a realization of the departure of Christ’s material body in
his resurrected state.Whereas Verrocchio’s contemporary (and possible teacher)
Desiderio da Settignano used the technique of marble carving in his Tabernacle
of the Sacrament (Figure 80) to construct objects that encouraged viewers to
move from the material to the immaterial,173 Verrocchio’s bronze Christ and
Saint Thomas represents the revelation of Christ’s state at the Resurrection as
being between the material and immaterial. In other words,Verrocchio’s sculp-
ture figures the truth it represents through its material construction, but it does
this in such a way that the beholder must acknowledge the truth as figuration
rather than use the sculpture as a stepping stone to a higher immaterial level
of comprehension.Verrocchio’s Christ is a material approximation of his being
between two states; thus, the sculpture asserts the necessity of materiality as a
means for reaching higher truths even as that truth is itself immaterial.174
Verrocchio’s treatment of the subject of Doubting Thomas as a representa-
tion of spiritual seeing displayed in his bronze sculpture finds analogies with
an ekphrasis on a mosaic depicting the Doubting Thomas in the Church of
the Holy Apostles in Constantinople by the Byzantine Nikolaos Mesarites
(d. c. 1220), composed in the late twelfth century. Mesarites argues that the
visual arts were inferior to the literary arts as a means to understanding the
logos, noting that although mosaics can help, they are but a springboard to a
higher level of comprehension, whereas understanding via ekphrasis is more
direct. For Mesarites, mosaics fail because they can represent only outwardly;
ekphrasis, on the other hand, can successfully communicate with the outward
and inner senses (the eyes of the soul).175 At the end of this ekphrasis (xxxiv.8),
Mesarites addresses the figures of the disciples represented in the mosaic and
speaks of “lifeless” art:
And in the picture, these are the things that the side of the Lord suffers.
But you [in the picture] who are feeling it, why are you still delaying and
shrinking back, and why do you not, now as formerly, in a loud voice
proclaim as Lord and God Him whom you have touched, and why do
you not make manifest to us the things that have been revealed to you
in mysterious fashion through the truthful touch/ But you will not give
heed to us, and rightly so, for the things which we see and which are
described in this discourse are not real and living things but are lifeless
and painted. One would say, however, that though silent you are in agree-
ment and that you approve what we say and assent and that, though not
speaking, you express the same opinion.176
Verrocchio’s sculpture, which posits touch as equivalent to an inner sense,

addresses (and overcomes) the failure Mesarites perceives in the visual arts.
Verrocchio does this by showing a narrative unfolding before our eyes and
using material facture as a means for expressing spiritual metaphors.
Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas represents Thomas’ revelation of Christ
between two states as a metaphor for the soul’s desire for mystical union with
God. Instead of serving to enable the soul’s movement from the material to
the immaterial, the sculpture figures the experience through its iconography
and material facture. It represents Thomas’ revelation as the absence of Christ,
a realization that mirrors the technique used for making the sculpture (because
in bronze casting the artist does not touch the sculpture directly), and it rep-
resents the idea of mystical union of the soul with God in Christ’s wound as
a source of wisdom, a fitting emphasis for its patron, the Mercanzia, that was
dedicated to searching for the truth.
4
THE SCULPTURED IMAGINATION
The equating of touching and seeing that Verrocchio suggested in his Christ
and Saint Thomas occurs also in his drawing of an Ideal Head of a Woman
(Figure 10),1 but here the comparison serves a different purpose. In his sculp-
ture the conflation of touch and sight serves to draw the devotee through the
material world to the divine. The drawing, by contrast, mimics the effect of a
marble relief sculpture between life and marble – representing the act of met-
amorphosis as if it were occurring before the viewer’s eyes – to make the case
that perception through the senses is a form of cognition (that one can per-
ceive and come to know an object simultaneously).Verrocchio’s defense of this
position is presented through the process of making. By smudging the black
chalk with his fingers, he produced a rich tonal range and areas of sfumato.
These actions evoke those of the poet conjuring up the beloved in matter such
as clouds and rock faces. Verrocchio’s intention with this drawing, it will be
argued, was to create a portrait of the beloved as carved on the lover’s heart, a
portrait of Love and of the poetic imagination as if sculptured.
4.1 THE DRAWING’S ROLE
Verrocchio’s drawing shows the head of a woman in three-quarter pose, gaz-

ing down and off to the left, her right arm apparently extended. Her hair is
bound with ribbons and a veil that flutter in the breeze. Running down both
shoulders are plaits of hair, which become disheveled at their ends.Verrocchio
152
The Sculptured Imagination 153
began by sketching his figure in black chalk, delineating the woman’s head and
then stumping (smudging) the chalk in areas within the outlines.2 Verrocchio’s
technique is extraordinary. Artists up until this point had used black chalk only
to form sharp outlines, but Verrocchio recognized the potential of black chalk
for tonal possibilities and stumped the chalk to create a sculptural tonal range.3
The chalk was supplemented with hatching in light brown ink, mostly applied
in tiny strokes across the forehead, left eyebrow, and left cheek; above the left
eye; and in the shadows of the neck and collarbone, furthering enhancing the
sculptural effects of the black chalk.4 More definite areas of hatching were
made below the nose and around the point of the chin.5 The drawing was
pricked, presumably for transfer, at an unknown date.6
Given the pricking, and the resemblance between the woman in the draw-
ing and those in paintings and other drawings by Verrocchio and his workshop,
the Christ Church Ideal Head may have been made as a cartoon.7 Certainly
it served that purpose at some point, as there remains charcoal pouncing dust
in its perforated holes. But there is no surviving painting to which the draw-
ing relates directly. Furthermore, there are significant discrepancies between
the drawing and the pricking.8 Most importantly, the highly finished quality
of the drawing, with the considerable attention paid to subtle surface effects
(unnecessary in a preparatory study for a painting), suggests that its purpose
was much more than merely preparatory and that it stood as a demonstration
of the artist’s technical virtuosity.9
The final decades of the Quattrocento witnessed significant developments
in the history of drawing, and it was in the graphic medium that many impor-
tant attitudes to art making were forged. As Elizabeth Cropper has argued:
Between the lifetimes of Vasari and Cennini, or even Ghiberti, there

came into being a new kind of art made by the hand of a new kind
of professional who was no longer called an artigiano, but an artista (as
Michelangelo called himself). Whatever the social, political or economic
circumstances of that change, there can be no doubt that drawing was its
form of expression, its instrument, its justification, its trace, its nursery,
and sometimes its battleground.10
In particular, it was during these final decades of the Quattrocento that the
idea of disegno as a transcendental idea in the mind was formulated, explored
in the technical experimentation of artists like Verrocchio and his contempo-
raries, as we shall see, and later theorized in writings.11
Giorgio Vasari singled out Verrocchio’s drawings of heads of women as influ-
ential, writing: “[T]here are some drawings by his hand in our book [Vasari’s
drawing album, his Libro dei Disegni] made with much patience and great
judgment, and among these are some heads of women, with graceful manner
and hairstyles that, because of their great beauty, Leonardo always imitated.”12
Figure 119. Leonardo da Vinci. Head of the Virgin, black and red chalk with pen and brown
ink, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1951, open access.
Vasari’s practice of collecting Verrocchio’s Ideal Heads points to the tendency

among sixteenth-century connoisseurs to treat drawings as works of art in
their own right, among which those depicting beautiful women were espe-
cially prized. Although scholars have assumed that it was only in the sixteenth
century that drawings came to be regarded as independent works of art, some
held this attitude in the preceding centuries.13 Certainly works on paper were
collected earlier, and a number of works by fifteenth-century artists have been
identified plausibly as examples of finished drawings, among them works by
Leonardo (Figure 119), Francesco di Giorgio, Pisanello, Lorenzo Costa, Jacopo
Bellini, and Andrea Mantegna.14 As we shall see, the poetic context in which
Verrocchio’s drawing must be understood suggests that his Ideal Head would
have been considered an independent object.
4.2 DRAWING AS DEFENSE OF SCULPTURED RELIEF
The intricate and varied techniques employed by Verrocchio in his drawing

bring about a complex and slow viewing experience that, when combined
with the tremendous tonal range produced through his use of materials, sug-
gests that the represented form is undergoing a metamorphosis. Verrocchio’s
technique demonstrates an interest in evoking actual sculptural materials. His
representation of the effects of light on the surface of the woman’s face, espe-
cially across her cheek, creates a marmoreal luster, achieved by stumping the
chalk and leaving some areas of the face untouched.15 In addition to evoking
a marble surface, the parallel lines of hatching in ink blur when viewed from
a distance, creating a golden tone that suggests the warmth of living flesh.16
Through his processes of making, Verrocchio creates the effect of a woman’s
head as if between marble and living flesh.
Verrocchio’s stumping in his Ideal Head of a Young Woman is extraordinary. It
is an early – perhaps the earliest – example of sfumato, a technique associated
above all with his pupil Leonardo.17 Verrocchio’s use of the technique, however,
is different from Leonardo’s. Whereas Leonardo blurred the outlines of his
forms (Figure 119), creating a haziness that suggests his figures are emerging
from the background, as they would in nature, Verrocchio used sfumato solely
within the contours of his forms and maintained an outline.18 This adherence
to a boundary has been interpreted by scholars as a failure on Verrocchio’s
part to represent a form in the round.19 But given Verrocchio’s demonstrated
technical capabilities in his use of sfumato for the areas of flesh tones, which
come close to Leonardo’s revolutionary procedures, it is worth considering the
possibility that Verrocchio chose to represent his forms in this way.Verrocchio’s
novel use of materials, combined with the unsmudged outlines of his forms,
suggests a drawing of a head carved in low relief. Although the figure we are
observing seems to shift between stone and living flesh, this metamorphosis
is in fact mediated through a specific type of sculpture: Verrocchio’s refusal
to represent his form in the round suggests that what we are looking at is a
sculptured relief, and his drawing can be read as a defense of actual sculptured
relief carving. Leonardo celebrated imitated relief at the expense of sculptural
relief in his writings on the basis that imitated relief was a form of men-
tal speculation, whereas actual relief required only physical labor (underlying
Leonardo’s attitude was his belief that painting was superior to sculpture).20
While Leonardo promoted imitated relief because it was rendered in two
dimensions, Verrocchio’s drawing suggests something different. His refusal to
represent his form in the round implies that through his evocation of a mar-
ble sculpture, he was promoting an appreciation of sculptural relief, which he
expressed through the graphic medium.
Why did Verrocchio use a drawing to defend sculptural relief? His interest
in re-creating textural effects suggests the possibility that Verrocchio sought to
establish an analogy between touching and seeing, and thus between draw-
ing and sculpturing. This is supported by a technical point: some of the sfu-
mato in the Christ Church drawing seems to have been achieved by the artist
smudging with his finger closely spaced, parallel lines that he had drawn, and
thus using his own sense of touch to achieve an effect on the viewer’s eye.21
Verrocchio’s practice reinforces quite literally a connection between seeing
and touching, implying an assertion of the power of tactility as a mode of
knowing. In his innovative use of stumping, and by leaving areas devoid of
matter, Verrocchio created sensuous marmoreal surfaces whose effect on the
eye evokes the experience of touching, thus the sfumato suggests to the viewer
the sensation of touch caressing cold marble and living flesh. In other words,
Verrocchio proposes that to look at the woman in his drawing is the same
as to touch her, whether she is sculptured or real. This equivalence between
touching and seeing in the drawing can be read as a visual argument about
perception being a form of cognition, where perceiving something through
the senses is the same as knowing.
4.3 TOUCHING AS SEEING, PERCEIVING AS KNOWING
The link between perception and cognition was one made in Renaissance
theories of disegno. Although it has been assumed that this concept of disegno
as a method of knowing the world and of representing it was a product of
sixteenth-century art theory,22 the graphic output of several fifteenth-century
artists, including Verrocchio, suggests that the notion was already being
explored in the late fifteenth century. Moreover, as Carmen C. Bambach has
pointed out, twice in his fourteenth-century Libro dell’arte, Cennino Cennini’s
use of disegno anticipates the Cinquecento use of the term.23 In his section on
practicing drawing with a quill, Cennino writes: “Do you know what will
happen to you if you practice drawing with a quill? It will make you skillful,
accomplished and capable of a lot of drawing of your own invention.”24 And
in his chapter on drawing on paper with charcoal, Cennino recommends a
system of measurement that could be transferred from figure to figure and to
buildings. If his reader did this, Cennino claims, they would be guided by their
judgment, and with this they would find the truth.25 The second of Cennino’s
maxims on disegno is remarkably similar to that espoused later by Vasari in
which he outlines how drawing involves the simultaneous understanding and
representation of an object:
Because design, the father of our three arts of architecture, sculpture,

and painting, proceeding from the intellect, derives from many things a
universal judgment, like a form or idea of all things in nature – which
[nature] is most consistent in its measures – it happens that not only in
human bodies and those of animals, but in plants as well and building and
sculptures and paintings it [design] understands the proportion that the
whole has to the parts and the parts to one another and to the whole.
And because from this there arises a certain notion and judgement which
forms in the mind that which, expressed with the hands, is called design,
one may conclude that this design is nothing other than a visible expres-
sion and declaration of that notion of the mind, or of that which others
have imagined in their minds or given shape to in their idea.26
Leon Battista Alberti also appears to have attributed to disegno the potential
to represent and know its subject.27 This is suggested, above all, by his use of the
term lineamenta in his treatise on architecture, De Re Aedificatoria.28 As Caroline
van Eck has convincingly argued, lineamenta is best translated as “design,”
because this implies how “it can refer both to the mental activity of planning
or designing and its material form, a drawn line or even a ground plan.”29
That Alberti intended “intellectual design” by the term lineamenta (something
created in the mind and realized through drawing) is suggested by his use of
the term in his definition of a building, where he sets it against the term mate-
ria.30 Later Leonardo espoused the view that drawing was an instrument both
of knowing and investigating reality: “this disegno is of such excellence that it
not only investigates the works of nature, but infinitely more than those that
nature produces. This demands of the sculptor that he finish his images with
knowledge.”31 In their attitude toward disegno, then, artists and theorists from
the fourteenth century onwards indicated the potential for a close relation-
ship between the idea in the artist’s mind and that which they represented in
drawing, an opinion Verrocchio appears to have shared and attempted to prove
through his practice.
The relationship between representation and thing suggested in Verrocchio’s
drawing – how to describe something (perception) and know it (cognition),
and whether those two were the same or different – was the subject of dramatic
transformation during the Renaissance, and it appears likely that Verrocchio
would have been familiar with it.32 It is central, for instance, to the story of
Geta and Birria, contained in three commonplace books made in Verrocchio’s
workshop. As we have seen, in the vernacular version known to Verrocchio
and his contemporaries, this comedy of mistaken identity centers around the
character of Geta, a foolish servant recently returned home from Athens, who
is tricked into believing he is no longer himself. As Geta contemplates his situ-
ation, he concludes that word (his name) and thing (his essence) have become
separated:
‘Who can speak with the voice of Geta if he is not Geta? Well, how could
this happen? I know very well that logic does not prevent two people
from speaking with similar voices. And it is also very common for the
same name to be given to two people’ . . . [Geta ponders his situation]:
‘The voice and the evidence clearly suggest that this is Geta . . .Thus have
we become two that formerly were one? This I cannot understand’ . . .
[After more thought, he concludes]: ‘Undoubtedly, I have found out that

I have become two.’33
The target of satire in Geta and Birria, like its medieval source, is Scholastic
thought,34 in particular, the concept of universals. Geta’s concern about his
name is closely tied to Peter Abélard’s discussion of universals and the issue of
names.35 In a nutshell, the problem of universals (the common designation for
individual objects of the same kind) concerns the question of whether things
“have any independent reality or exist as mere notions and if that is the case
if they are corporeal or incorporeal, if they are independent of the sense or
require them, or if they are merely the products of thought.”36 Such issues are
central to the story of Geta and Birria for, as Birria, a wise fool and the other
servant in the story, remarks: “Geta is crazy . . . [thanks to] his great knowledge
[(logic)].”37 In the course of the story Geta is philosophically and metaphori-
cally destroyed.38 The relationship between object and representation, which I
am arguing is central to understanding Verrocchio’s drawing of an Ideal Head
of a Young Woman, then, was a topic in Renaissance vernacular culture and one
with which Verrocchio would have been familiar.
4.4 PERCEIVING AND KNOWING THROUGH ARTISTIC PRACTICE
In addition to Verrocchio’s awareness about the relationship between percep-

tion and knowledge from vernacular tales like Geta and Birria, the artist would
have encountered it every day through his experience of working with matter.
At the heart of Verrocchio’s practice was his use of the senses as the gateway
to knowledge and understanding of his materials. Over many years Verrocchio
would have refined his skills in working with materials to understand how they
should be treated. For objects in bronze, for instance, Verrocchio would have
used the senses of sight, hearing, and touch to locate the best materials with
which to begin preparing his alloy.To recognize pure tin, he would have looked
for the whitest and hardest tin he could find, listening for it to “crackle” (like
the sound of breaking ice), bending it with his hands, or holding it tightly in his
teeth, as the sixteenth-century metallurgist Vannoccio Biringuccio explained
it was done.39 Different types of objects were made from alloys of various pro-
portions, and Verrocchio would have depended on his sense of touch to decide
how much to use, by feeling the weight of the alloy.40 To determine how much
tin to use for making the alloy for his bronzes, Verrocchio would have used
sight: copper changes from red to white with the addition of tin, and from
a malleable consistency to one that is hard and brittle.41 Verrocchio’s skills in
alloying bronze appear to have been recognized by his contemporaries: in 1473
Verrocchio was paid for alloying metal for a bell for the Opera del Duomo.42
Verrocchio would have used his senses also to recognize a good clay with
which to make the core for his bronzes. Sight could not help in this, accord-
ing to Biringuccio, for there was no visible way to distinguish between clays,
despite their varied colors. Instead, the modeler would have used touch to find
a clay that was suitably fine, lean (but not too lean or it would be too powdery
and would not hold together), held its shape well when dried and, above all,
resisted fire.43 A document records that on one occasion Verrocchio sought a
very specific type of clay for a work of his in bronze (never completed): clay
from a glassmaker’s oven.44 Finally, casting itself required great skill and knowl-
edge, and there was much room for error. Many little things could go wrong,
from a badly fitted joint or leaking of the mold through a crack, to a piece of
earth or charcoal blocking the gate or filling a hole.45 Verrocchio would have
watched the metal until it turned red or white and began to melt, and he had
to be on guard so that the fire did not “form a kind of skin on top.” After
the addition of tin, he would have recognized when the bronze was ready by
sight because it would flash “like the sun,” and he would see flames that were
“almost white and without smoke,” as Biringuccio explains.46
As a sculptor in marble,Verrocchio would have developed skills in identifying
different types of marbles through sight and touch.47 Using a variety of mallets,
hammers, axes, punches, chisels, drills, saws, files, and rasps,Verrocchio created
virtuosic effects in his marble sculptures.48 To suggest the transparent veil that
covers the chest of his female subject in the Woman with a Posy (Figure 120),
he used a gouge for the tiny folds in the dress, a punch for the delicate border
of her partlet, and a pumice stone, and perhaps earth and straw in bunches, for
the polished surface.49 For the curls and nostrils of the same sitter and the space
between the petals of the flowers that she holds, he used a drill.50 The pitting
across the face of Francesco Sassetti (Figure 121), which suggests the sitter’s stub-
ble, was produced with a sharp-pointed percussive instrument.
Verrocchio’s understanding of his materials and techniques was acquired
through practice, based on years of experience using his senses. Only through
countless experiments of working with nature could he acquire the appropri-
ate judgment necessary for making his objects and in an impressive variety of
materials.Through this training, the artist developed such sophisticated skills and
understanding of matter that an idea could be formed in his mind and rep-
resented effortlessly with his hand. The belief that judgment could be trained
through experience was one shared by many Renaissance artists, among them
Donatello, about whom Pomponius Gauricus (writing in 1504) told the follow-
ing anecdote: When Marco Barbo, bishop of Vicenza and nephew of Paul II,
asked Donatello to let him see his abacus, Donatello invited him to come and see
it the next day. When Barbo arrived, however, Donatello had nothing to show
him, claiming that he was himself his abacus, which he always consulted and car-
ried with him everywhere without effort.According to Gauricus, Donatello then
asserted that if his visitor wanted to see something he should bring him paper
Figure 120. Andrea del Verrocchio. Woman with a Posy, marble, c. 1475, Museo Nazionale del
Bargello, Florence.
Figure 121. Andrea del Verrocchio, attributed to Bust of Francesco Sassetti, marble, Museo
Nazionale del Bargello, Florence.
Finsiel/Alinari/Art Resource, NY.
and a stylus, then he might admire the result drawn from his abacus.51 David
Summers interpreted Gauricus’ story as proof of a belief in an artist’s innate sense
of judgment with no need for practical training.52 However, Elizabeth Cropper
and Charles Dempsey have rightly pointed out how the story of Donatello’s
abacus points to the necessary coexistence of training and judgment in the prac-
tice of art, where training was the precondition for judgment (that was why
Donatello could throw away his abacus).53 As Pamela H. Smith has emphasized,
the development of an artist’s judgment required careful and laborious practical
experience, a form of knowledge that she has aptly termed “artisanal literacy.”
Renaissance artists learned through practice and the errors of others to develop
sophisticated skills in working with their materials, the “giudizio dell’occhio”
(judgment of the eye) of Donatello expressed in Gauricus’ tale.54
Verrocchio not only acquired this “artisanal literacy” through his practice;
he highlighted it as a theme in his work. Verrocchio’s emphasis on sculptural
effects rendered graphically in his Ideal Head of a Young Woman (Figure 10)
suggests that he was demonstrating the notion of drawing as both percep-
tion and knowledge. In his Ideal Head of a Young Woman, the artist pursued
the close relationship between sculpture and drawing to suggest that what we
are observing is a woman between life and marble. In so doing, Verrocchio
appears to be claiming through his graphic practice the potential for drawing
to state visually how one could both know and perceive something at the
same time. His drawing is a demonstration of a hands-on understanding of the
world, acquired through the senses and refined through training, that was a
way of knowing, not just describing, the world.
4.5 REPRESENTING METAMORPHOSIS
In his evocation of metamorphosis in the drawing of a living woman turning

into a marble sculpture or vice versa,Verrocchio was demonstrating the widely
held belief that matter was not fixed, but always mutable. Since Aristotle and
Theophrastus, marble had been regarded as living, earthly matter suspended in
water that responded to the humors.55 Thus, a rabbi visiting Rome in the first
century could explain why the marble columns in Roman churches were cov-
ered in tapestries (“so that they might not crack during the heat and not congeal
during the cold”).56 And in medieval Latin editions of Aristotle’s Meteorology,
marble was said to be created from water transformed into stone.57 The belief
was widespread. Dante referred to it in “Amor, tu vedi ben che questa donna”
from his Rime petrose:“Lord, you know that in the freezing cold/water becomes
crystalline stone.”58 Artists were certainly familiar with the theory that marble
was made from water. Filarete, for instance, disproved it by cooking a piece of
marble from a column from the Roman church of the Aracoeli.59
The motif of a lady transformed into matter occurs frequently in vernac-
ular love poetry, where she stands for the poet’s imagination. Giacomo da
Lentini (c. 1210–60?) – the Sicilian poet whose works were widely available
in Tuscan and to whom Lorenzo de’ Medici,Verrocchio’s patron, devoted the
most attention in his Raccolta Aragona (the collection of vernacular lyric poetry
Lorenzo assembled and sent to Federico d’Aragona in 1477) – wrote in one
of his sonnets: “I bear your image in my heart. It seems I bear you [my lady]
in my heart, painted as you look . . . Feeling great desire I painted an image,
my fair, your likeness.”60 For Dante in his Rime petrose, the Lady – who repre-
sents Poetry – is a stony one: over and over she is compared to stones.61 Dante
describes his beloved in “Io son venuto al punto de la rota,” as an “image of
stone” that he held in his imagination, and in “Amor, tu vedi ben” as “a lady
carved from some lovely precious stone by the hand of some master carver of
stone.”62 Petrarch – whose sonnets were a favorite in Florentine common-
place books63 – famously refers in two poems (77 and 78) to a portrait of Laura
by the painter Simone Martini, executed on paper and presumably in metal-
point.64 And in another sonnet, Petrarch sees Laura transformed materially
from flesh into wood, specifically into a laurel tree.65 Of course, the topos of the
beloved turned into a tree derives from Ovid’s telling of Apollo and Daphne,
which was well known during the Renaissance. Lorenzo il Magnifico, in his
commentary on one of his sonnets (XV), describes how the beloved’s image
could be preserved in his heart so that it “might endure in the fashion of the
hardness of a diamond.”66 And in Lorenzo’s Ambra, a nymph pledged to the
goddess Diana is transformed into stone after Ombrone attempts to rape her.67
The close connection between seeing and touching that Verrocchio suggests
in his drawing also occurs in love poetry. According to the Renaissance theory
of falling in love, little spirits (spiritelli d’amore) pass from the eye of the beloved
into those of the lover, impressing the image of the beloved on the lover’s heart.
Sometimes the spirits are sent via little arrows that would strike wounds in the
lover’s heart (“the shot from your eyes pass[ed] straight into my inward parts,” as
Petrarch describes).68 The idea of arrows delivering love’s wounds occurs also
in devotional literature and in descriptions of divine love. The twelfth-century
Cistercian, Gilbert of Hoyland, whose sermons were popular in Renaissance
Florence, writes how Love pierces the heart through the eyes: “Would that he
[Christ] might multiply such wounds in me, from the sole of my foot to the
crown of my head, that there might be no health in me! For health is evil with-
out the wounds that Christ’s gracious gaze inflicts.”69 And in his Confessions,
Augustine writes that God “pierced my heart with the arrow of your [his] love,
and we carried your words transfixing my innermost being.”70 This sentence
reached a wide vernacular readership, thanks to a paraphrasing of it by Jacopo de
Voragine in his Legenda Aurea.71
Falling in love was often described in terms that mimic the actions of a sculptor,
using metaphors of carving, incising, and forming with the hands. For instance,
Giacomo da Lentini writes how he “was greatly delighted, my lady, that day when
I formed in wax your beautiful image.”72 In his Amorosa visione, Boccaccio (whose
Decameron Verrocchio owned)73 describes how his lady-love inscribed her name
upon her lover’s heart.74 And in one of his sonnets (XIII), Lorenzo il Magnifico
praises the beautiful hand of his beloved, with which she drew out his heart, tying
it in a thousand knots and remaking it so that he would be inclined to love her:
O pure white, delicate and lovely hand,/ Where love and nature placed
those graceful sweets,/ so noble and so lovely that it seems/ That all their
other works are made in vain,/ You gently drew my heart forth from my
breast,/ Out through the wound the lovely stars had made/ When Love
made them so pious and so sweet;/ You entered in behind them, bit by
bit,/ And with a thousand knots you bound my heart./ You formed it new;
and when you afterward/ Had made it noble, it won’t do/ To longer seek
to bind it with new knots,/ Or ever think it pleased by something else.75
The unknown artist responsible for the so-called “Otto prints” represented
the idea in an engraving (Figure 122), showing the beloved holding her lover’s
heart, which she has taken from his body as he stands, tied to a tree, before
her.76 (The ability of the beloved to reach the lover’s heart with her hand was
the result of a vein that was believed to run directly from the heart to the ring
finger of her left hand and thus serve as “a messenger of the heart’s intention,”
as Lorenzo explained in his Comento sopra alcuni de’ suoi sonetti.)77 The con-
nection between touch and falling in love was made in countless love poems,
many in the vernacular,78 with which Verrocchio would have been familiar.
Further proof of Verrocchio’s awareness of the role of touch in falling in
love can be found in the standard he painted for a joust in Florence in 1475, as
recorded by the artist’s brother in an inventory drawn up to claim money owed
by the Medici after their expulsion in 1494. It depicted a spiritello d’amore, the
agent that impressed the lady’s image on the lover’s heart.79
4.6 A PORTRAIT OF THE IMAGINATION: THE BELOVED IMPRESSED

UPON THE LOVER’S HEART
One might conclude, then, that in his drawing, which shows a woman met-
amorphosing into marble or vice versa, Verrocchio has depicted the beloved,
but the connection with poetry can be taken further, and Verrocchio’s drawing
procedures encourage us to do this. The artist’s technique involved smudging
black chalk with his fingers, which recalls the poet’s imaginative process. As
Petrarch writes: “Where a high pine casts a shadow, or a hill,/ Sometimes
I stop; and even in sheer rock/ I draw with my mind her beautiful face.”80
Petrarch’s words find parallel with those of Pliny the Elder in his accounts
of the discovery of painting and sculpture, who writes how these arts were
invented by Butades, a potter from Corinth, who made a drawing around
Figure 122. Anonymous (Florentine). The Cruelty of Love, engraving, c. 1470, The British
Museum, London.
Copyright. The Trustees of the British Museum.
a cast shadow of a young man with whom Butades’ daughter had fallen in
love (Butades also made a clay relief after the cast shadow).81 They also echo
Alberti, who, in his explanation of sculpture’s very origins, writes that the art
of sculpture began when “a tree trunk or clod of clay or some other inanimate
object” suggested a form to be completed by the sculptor (this process recalls
Petrarch’s in conjuring up the beloved from forms suggested in nature).82 The
cast shadows are the source from which Petrarch composed his sonnet, using
them to conjure up the face of his beloved, just as she had impressed her por-
trait on his heart. Alberti’s origin story of sculpture and the role of shadows in
Petrarch’s sonnet give meaning to the shading of Verrocchio’s drawing, made
by the gentle rubbing of the black chalk with the artist’s finger to create sfu-
mato, suggesting how the artist’s stumping, through which he conjures up his
figure of a woman, is equivalent to the poet’s process of imagination.
The manual manipulation exercised by Verrocchio with his chalk parallels
the actions of the beloved with her lover’s heart, but it should also be under-
stood as referring to the refining of an idea in the imagination, the transfor-
mation of the idea into something noble (the Idea). In Lorenzo’s commentary
on his sonnet XIII, he explains how it was through touch that his heart (and
the idea contained within it) was made noble:
And for this it was made noble, that is, to understand, to contemplate and
to enjoy that beauty only by means of the eyes. But after the whitest of
hands entered into my breast and drew the heart from it, it seemed that it
would be elevated to a very worthy office, because this demonstrates the
jurisdiction that my lady exercised over my heart, and it expressly clarifies
that she already considered it hers.83
Furthermore, Lorenzo points out, it is only through touch that this process
of refinement can occur: “It was then necessary . . . to make my heart noble
again and to shape it for this new object, and for this function nothing seemed
better suited than the hand of my lady.”84 Elsewhere Lorenzo, like other poets,
uses the metaphor of sculpture to describe the process of falling in love and its
connection with the imagination. For instance, in his commentary on sonnet
XXXV he writes: “[M]y thoughts, confined to the heart, were contemplating
my lady, sculpted in my heart by Love.”85
For Renaissance poets, there was a conflation between the Lady, Love, and
Poetry, all of which were born in the immaginativa (imagination).86 As Giorgio
Agamben has noted, the concept of love for the Dolce stil nuovo poets – to
whom poets in the succeeding centuries, including Lorenzo, were indebted –
was an imaginative process. When the spirit from the beloved’s eyes (spirito
visivo) passed through into the lover’s eyes to initiate the process of falling in
love, it entered the brain and impressed on it the image of the lady.87 From this
impression, a true spirit of love (spirito d’amore) arose that ennobled all other
spiritelli there (as Guido Cavalcanti wrote in a sonnet, echoing Dante’s descrip-
tion of seeing Beatrice for the first time in the Vita nuova: “Through the eyes
strikes a delicate spirit/ that awakens a spirit in the mind, from which stirs the
spirit of loving/ that ennobles every other little spirit.”)88 Charles Dempsey
and Agamben have recognized that the process of falling in love described
here is the same as the process of the imagination: for the latter, ideas are born
inside the second ventricle when a battle between spirits in the lover’s brain
concludes. At this moment a true idea has been chosen, at which point all
other spirits are either cast out or transformed into noble spirits.89 Indeed, in
the Vita nuova Dante makes explicit the connection between the imagination
and love, identifying a spirit of love (“uno spiritel novo d’amore”) that dwells
within him as the same as a random thought, a “gentil pensiero.”90
Verrocchio was probably acquainted with Lorenzo’s poetry, having designed
the banner under which the young leader of Florence appeared in a joust
in 1469, the design of which was based on his patron’s poetry. The standard
depicted an allegorical image of Lorenzo’s lady-love, Lucrezia Donati, seated
beneath a laurel tree with the sun and a rainbow above, accompanied by the
motto les tems revient (best translated as “the Golden Age returns”).91 Some
Figure 123. Niccolò Fiorentino, Florentia Under a Laurel Tree, reverse of bronze medal, c. 1485–
92, Gift of The Circle of the National Gallery of Art, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Courtesy National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., open access.
sense of the appearance of Verrocchio’s banner may be on the reverse of a

medal by Niccolò Fiorentino of c. 1485–92 (Figure 123). The recto shows a
portrait of Lorenzo, while the verso shows a lady, identified in an inscription as
Florentia, seated beneath a tree, holding out lilies.
As Dempsey has explored at length, Lucrezia appears in Lorenzo’s poetry
not as a personality in her own right, but as a portrait of Love,92 and the lady
in Verrocchio’s Ideal Head of a Young Woman performs the same function. In
the drawing the woman figures the image of the beloved impressed upon
the lover’s heart (Love), made through a process that mimicked the creation
of a work of art. By suggesting the form of a woman between life and stone,
Verrocchio was representing the idea of Love itself formed upon the lover’s
heart and shaped by his imagination. In sonnet XV Lorenzo writes how the
beloved presses his heart with her hands, forming an impression of her and
how he wishes that this process could be made permanent:
O how I envy you, my blessed heart,

Because that the charming hand now presses, now
Caresses you, expunging every hardness low,
And you are thereby made so noble that
The name to which Love consecrated you,

That finger white portrays in you, and now
Imprints her face angelic, represents
Its joyful now, now troubled tenderly.
Now one by one her amorous, winsome thoughts
The lovely hand sets down, now it records
Her blessed and sagacious words so sweet.
O my fine heart, what more then can you hope?
Only that those divine lights have the power
To change you to unyielding diamond.93
Furthermore, as Lorenzo explains in his commentary on this sonnet, the pro-

cess of refinement (of elevating random thought to Idea) is equivalent to an
artist transforming matter into form:
As soon as my heart became noble matter, as long as the matter could be

without noble form, the longer the matter could be without form. And
because Love joins matter and form together, that is a natural desire that
the one has for the other, so Love, who moved that hand to ennoble my
heart, also moved it again to give my heart a very noble impression.94
Verrocchio realizes the desire expressed by Lorenzo by making the beloved

permanent through the medium of drawing.Yet the beloved immortalized in
Verrocchio’s drawing is a woman eternally transforming and not fixed. The
woman appears to be metamorphosing from marble into flesh before our eyes,
but she is forever prevented from completing this transformation. The outline
around her makes it ambiguous whether the metamorphosis is marble into
flesh or vice versa. By refusing to blend the outlines of his form, Verrocchio
emphasized the flat surface of the sheet, and therefore the head is forever
connected to the background as a sculpture in low relief, rather than a living
figure viewed as if in the round. This is consistent with the role of desire in
Renaissance love poetry. Unlike Pygmalion, who was rewarded with the met-
amorphosis of his beloved statue into living flesh, the desire of Renaissance
poets remains forever out of reach and always postponed.
For Lorenzo, by turning to stone, the beloved’s image (her beauty and his
thoughts) could be preserved in his heart so that it “might endure in the fash-
ion of the hardness of a diamond, and that new and troubled thoughts would
not succeed them and drive away those that were sweet, as many times occurs
with lovers, who ordinarily are preserved in the same condition but for a brief
time.”95 Just as Lorenzo wrote in his Comento on sonnet XV that he hoped
that his lady’s eyes might transform his heart from painted and beautiful “into
a hard diamond” and thus be made eternal,96 Verrocchio created a drawing
that figured that transformation and found a way to make that metamorphosis
permanent.
5
MATERIAL MEDITATIONS IN VERROCCHIO’S

BARGELLO CRUCIFIX
In one of his well-known vernacular tales from the Trecentonovelle, Franco

Sacchetti tells the story of Mino, a Sienese artist who specializes in carved and
painted crucifixes. One day Mino hears a rumor that his wife is cavorting at
home with another man, so Mino rushes to his house to confront them.When
he knocks at the door, the wife comes up with the ingenious plan of disguis-
ing her lover as a sculpture of Christ in her husband’s workshop. She instructs
her lover to undress, put on a loincloth, and lie down on one of her husband’s
crosses. After searching for his wife’s lover to no avail, Mino locks up his work-
shop, inadvertently trapping the man inside. The next day, when Mino enters
his bottega, he sees the lover’s toes and rushes for an axe with which to castrate
him. But before he has a chance to do it, “Christ” leaps up and escapes out the
door. Furious, Mino accosts his wife and begins beating her, but she is stronger
than him, and soon Mino is the one fighting off the punches. To save himself
from further harm, Mino recants his accusations and explains Christ’s mirac-
ulous exit from his workshop in practical terms: Christ must have escaped
because he was not properly nailed to the cross.1 Implicit in Mino’s explana-
tion is the sculptor’s success in creating a Christ that is so naturalistic it can
come to life. In Sacchetti’s story a man becomes a sculpture that comes to life,
a transformation that depends upon the notion of cristo vivo (a Christ who
appears to be alive).Through Sacchetti’s wit cristo vivo becomes an opportunity
for escape from punishment first for the lover, then the wife, and finally for
Mino. The story suggests how theological ideas were utilized by the popolani
168
MATERIAL MEDITATIONS IN VERROCCHIO’S BARGELLO CRUCIFIX 169
Figure 124. Andrea del Verrocchio. Resurrection, polychrome terracotta, c. 1470, Museo

Nazionale del Bargello, Florence. Detail of head of Christ.
during the Renaissance – in this case, how the idea of the incarnation was used
to explain the transformation of wood into flesh in an artist’s workshop. The
story suggests also that there was a belief among some (even if it is mocked in
the tale) that Christ could be incarnated from matter treated by a sculptor and
without the intervention of a priest enacting the transubstantiation.
Verrocchio, like Mino, produced sculptured and painted crucifixes. His only
surviving example (Figure 11) was discovered in a storeroom in Florence in
the 1990s. Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi convincingly attributed the sculpture to
Verrocchio – who, Vasari tells us, made “crucifixes of wood”2 – on the basis
of similarities between the physiognomy of Christ (Figure 132) and other
works by Verrocchio dating from the 1470s, especially his terracotta Resurrection
(Figure 124), Christ and Saint Thomas (Figure 125), the Forteguerri cenotaph
(Figure 126), and a clay modello of the Pietà, formerly in Berlin (Figure 127). In
all of these, the head of Christ features similar high cheekbones, deep-set eyes
with heavy lids, a bifurcated beard with a round chin between, and regular
strands of hair parted in the center and falling down either side of the face.3
Given its similarities with these works, most of which date from the 1470s, the
Bargello Crucifix probably dates from that decade also.
Verrocchio’s Crucifix is remarkable for the degree to which it mixes tech-
niques of different media and the specific methods used, some of which are
unique in Renaissance art, as far as I can tell. In this work,Verrocchio employed
Florence. Detail of head of Christ.
his skills as a wood carver, but also transferred his knowledge of working as a
wax and stucco modeler, a painter, a bronze caster, and an armorer.Verrocchio
began by blocking out the torso in limewood.The body was hollowed out to a
depth of 12 mm, thus making it like a sculpture cast in bronze where a uniform
thickness was optimal. The two halves of the limewood trunk making up the
body were tied together with three narrow ropes that encircle the torso.4 The
head and the back between the shoulders, made from cork, were grafted to the
body with flat nails (visible in the x-radiograph; Figures 128 and 139), a tech-
nique used by armorers for attaching pauldrons to the body of armor.5 The
details of the figure were achieved by modeling up with stucco instead of carv-
ing into the wood.6 The loincloth, made from linen dipped in gesso, resem-
bles a three-dimensional model from which Verrocchio would have made his
drapery studies on linen. And the entire figure was painted in tempera over a
layer of charcoal like a panel painting.7 This example of mixed-media produc-
tion is not unique in Quattrocento sculpture. A number of ostensibly wooden
crucifixes from the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries incorporated different
materials, probably to heighten their verisimilitude.8 Many wooden sculptures
Figure 126. Andrea del Verrocchio and workshop. Forteguerri cenotaph, marble, 1481–88, San
Zeno, Pistoia. Detail of head of Christ.
Figure 127. Andrea del Verrocchio. Entombment, terracotta, 1480s, The Pushkin State Museum
of Fine Arts, Moscow, Inv. Nr. 3C-12, transferred after WWII. Until 1945: Staatliche Museen
zu Berlin, Skulpturensammlung, Inv. Nr. 117.
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin-Preussischer Kulturbesitz.
Figure 128. Andrea del Verrocchio, Crucifix, early-to-mid-1470s, x-radiograph

Su concessione del Ministero per i Beni e le attività Culturali e del Turismo - Opificio delle Pietre Dure
di Firenze, Archivio dei Restauri e Fotografico.
(not only crucifixes) went further by featuring movable limbs, including arms,
heads, and even tongues and eyes (Figures 129 and 130); provisions for blood to
flow from Christ’s side; and additions such as wigs made from human hair or
other materials; and flesh made from leather. All of these would have made the
sculptures appear remarkably naturalistic to their original audiences.9
However, while other artists mixed media in order to create naturalistic
sculptures, the extent of, and meaning conveyed by,Verrocchio’s use of mixed
media in his Crucifix make it noteworthy. His precise hollowing out of the
body’s interior to 12 mm, the use of rope to attach the two halves of the body
together, the use of cork for the head and shoulders, and the method used for
attaching this section to the body using nails are unique, as far as I have been
able to determine.10 (By comparison, Brunelleschi’s Crucifix in Santa Maria
Novella [Figure 54] and Donatello’s Crucifix in Santa Croce [Figure 56] were
made with unhollowed-out trunks of pear wood onto which a thin layer of
stucco and polychromy were applied; Brunelleschi also added a linen loin-
cloth, as we have seen.)11 Verrocchio modeled the flesh of his figure in stucco,
but treated the material as if it were wax by adding fine layers one on top of
Figure 129. Stefano Accolti and Agostino di Giovanni, The Virgin Annunciate, polychromed
wood, 1321, Museo di San Matteo, Pisa.
Photo: Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz–Max-Planck-Institut.
Figure 130. Unknown German sculptor (Giovanni Teutonico or Paolo Alemanno?), Crucifix,

polychromed wood, last third of the fifteenth century, Museo della Città, Rimini. Detail of
head, which featured a movable tongue.
Storico-artistico AUSL della Romagna.
Photo: Gilberto Urbinati.
Figure 131. Andrea del Verrocchio. Crucifix, early-to-mid-1470s, Museo Nazionale del

Bargello, Florence. Detail of gessoed linen loincloth.
another and burnishing the surface with an agate-tipped tool. Over this he
added thin and transparent egg-based tempera, creating subtle variations in
skin tone across the body. The skin across Christ’s chest was rendered in ivory
and rose, the loincloth was striped with violet and mauve (Figure 131), Christ’s
hair was painted brown, rose added to the cheeks, and splotches of red applied
across the forehead to suggest blood, the tip of the nose and across the eyelids
highlighted in red, and the teeth, just visible through the open mouth, were
painted white (Figure 132).The effect of these surface techniques is a virtuosic
spectrum of expressions across the body, especially Christ’s face, that change
depending on the spectator’s position, resulting in a remarkably convincing
and charismatic cristo vivo.12
In its layered manufacture, Verrocchio’s Crucifix is best understood within
the context of vernacular literary culture, with which we have seen the art-
ist was familiar. In addition, we know that the artist spent his earliest years
embedded in the heart of Florentine literary culture. He received his training
Figure 132. Andrea del Verrocchio. Crucifix, polychromed cork and stucco, early-to-mid-
1470s, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence. Detail of face of Christ.
as a goldsmith in the late 1440s and early 1450s in the bottega of Antonio Dei
and probably Francesco di Luca Verrocchio, both of whom had workshops on
or very near via Calimala.13 It was here that Burchiello had his famous bar-
bershop, where he composed his satirical verses for an audience that included
humanists like Leon Battista Alberti, Leonardo Dati, and Cristoforo Landino.14
Although Burchiello was dead by the time Verrocchio was training, his poetry
remained popular throughout the fifteenth century. Verrocchio’s links with
vernacular Florentine literary culture are further supported by lines of poetry
inscribed in the artist’s hand on sheets of drawings by him and by artists asso-
ciated with him.15 For example, on the verso of a sheet (Figure 22) containing
sketches relating to the artist’s Madonna di Piazza (Pistoia altarpiece) for San
Zeno, Pistoia, which dates from the 1470s and 1480s, there are some lines of
verse in a script that match Verrocchio’s autograph catasto declaration of 1470,
as we have seen. They read: “A more beautiful thing has not been conjured
in this world, a more beautiful thing has not been conjured in this world.”16
Verrocchio’s Crucifix can be most usefully considered alongside the poetry

of Burchiello, whose relevance to Verrocchio is supported by the fact that one
of the largest corpuses of Burchiello’s sonnets is a commonplace book made
in the artist’s bottega (ms. Magliabechiano XXI, 87). The patchwork approach
to construction in Verrocchio’s Crucifix – with the artist adopting techniques
from different media – can be considered analogous to the apparently random
association of words in Burchiello’s poetry. Burchiello often juxtaposed words
in unusual (often apparently nonsensical) groupings in his sonnets, transform-
ing them to convey new meaning. Domenico De Robertis has compared
these juxtapositions to notes recording the input and output of objects in a
merchant’s account book.17 Often sonnets read like inventories of stuffs for sale
in a shop, for instance: “Parsley, truffles, and gladioli of Constantinople/ and
eels from Legnaia and from San Salvi,/ German lasagna, bald men,/ and tur-
nips and parsnips and spindle whirls.”18 There is an insistent materiality to the
words in Burchiello’s poetry, but also, the meaning of his words is transformed,
with objects named but their meanings altered.19 De Robertis has likened this
technique to an object being purchased at a market and then being made into
something new in an artisan’s workshop.Verrocchio’s treatment of his materi-
als, which breaks from convention and places them in startling juxtapositions,
resembles Burchiello’s use of words in his sonnets.
5.1 MATERIAL MEDITATIONS IN VERROCCHIO’S CRUCIFIX
The original location of Verrocchio’s Crucifix is not known, but it has been
suggested that it may have been commissioned by the confraternity of Santa
Maria della Pietà, colloquially known as the Buca di San Girolamo. When
the Crucifix was rediscovered, it was in a storeroom of the confraternity of
San Francesco Poverino in Piazza SantissimaAnnunziata,where many of the Buca’s
possessions were moved in the late eighteenth century.20 From this, Paolozzi
Strozzi has convincingly proposed that Verrocchio’s Crucifix may have
belonged to the Buca. Founded in Florence by a group of merchants, the
Buca counted among its members a number of illustrious Florentines. Saint
Antoninus chose the first twelve members of the Buca from the Buonomini
of San Martino,21 and later the Buca’s membership included humanists such
as Feo Belcari; statesmen such as Cardinal Cesarini and Cardinal Barbo (the
future Pope Paul II); and artists and craftsmen like Paolo Uccello, Antonio
Rossellino, and Luca della Robbia.22 The Buca are known to have had in their
possession crucifixes like Verrocchio’s, one of which was housed on a small
altar in the confraternity’s dormitory.23 This very crucifix may have been that
by Verrocchio.24 Alternatively,Verrocchio’s Crucifix may have been one of two
carried in processions by the Buca and kept at their oratories at Fiesole and
in Florence.25
The Buca was renowned for its harsh rule, which exhorted its members to
follow a life of poverty, charity, and penitence, and like their namesake, Saint
Jerome, the Buca was devoted to the crucifixion. Every alternate Saturday, the
members of the confraternity spent the entire night in prayer, listening to ora-
tions and engaging in flagellation.26 During Holy Week members of the Buca,
like other penitent confraternities, meditated on Christ’s bodily suffering on
the cross, and Verrocchio’s naturalistic Crucifix would have been a particularly
effective focus for their contemplation.27 The figure’s pained expression, con-
veyed by the slightly tilted head, swollen lower eyelids, bloody forehead and
side, and opened mouth, inside which the artist carved tiny white teeth from
cork (Figure 132), would have been a powerful focal point for beholders in
their spiritual devotion.
Verrocchio’s Crucifix may have originally featured movable arms – this might
explain the deep cavities below each shoulder (a requirement only if the arms
were mobile) and the introduction of modern arms (necessary if the originals
were overused because of changes in position).28 Movable arms would make
the figure of Christ suitable for taking down from the cross for sacre rappre-
sentazioni (sacred performances) and/or for processions. A number of Tuscan
crucifixes feature movable arms, suggesting their use in sacred performances.29
Donatello’s Crucifix in Santa Croce (Figure 56), for instance, features hinged
shoulders, indicating that it could be removed from the cross and taken in
processions.30 A fifteenth-century Florentine liturgical drama mentions how a
sculptured Christ was taken from the cross and carried in procession along with
a consecrated host to a place of burial.31 A record from 1490 mentions a wooden
crucifix with movable arms by Andrea della Robbia to be used in Good Friday
ceremonies in Santa Maria del Fiori.32 And Luca Dominici describes how a
crucifix from Santa Croce in Florence was taken in procession to the altar of
the church in Passignano, where “it miraculously poured out living blood in
great quantities from many parts of the body.”33 The height of Verrocchio’s
sculpture – 87 cm – also supports this context, as the size resembles that of
other crucifixes used in this way.34 Many records point to the use of wooden
crucifixes in these rituals, including in Florence.35 Often the only nonliving
actor in these sacred dramas was the figure of Christ, who was sculptured; the
other participants tended to be monks or lay people, including children.36 In
one sacred performance that took place at Easter in 1448 in Perugia, a living
actor playing Christ was replaced with a sculpture at the moment when Christ
was attached to the cross.37 A 1425 inventory of a confraternity in Foligno
records a crucifix that opened and closed its eyes and had nails that could
be removed, this last feature designed for performances of the ritual “schia-
vellatione,” when Nicodemus would remove the nails from Christ’s bleeding
limbs.38 The effect of Verrocchio’s techniques, especially the virtuosic poly-
chromy, which produces subtle changes in Christ’s expression, would have
been particularly effective in this ritual context, suggesting that Christ was
in a state between life and death before the viewer’s eyes. (This change in
expression is especially apparent in Christ’s face [Figure 132] where the artist
modeled each side of the mouth differently so that one side is up and the other
down.)39
Whether or not Verrocchio’s Crucifix was made for the Buca or another con-
fraternity and/or used in sacred performances or processions, it was probably
also the focus of spiritual devotion in a church. Baccio da Montelupo is known
to have made a crucifix (which served as a processional cross but at other times
stood on an altar) for the Compagnia di Gesù, a confraternity that met in an
oratory of Santa Maria Novella in Florence.40 Donatello’s Crucifix for Santa
Croce (Figure 56), which appears to have been used in a Deposition play,
was on regular view in the church, set against the rood screen at eye level.41
Positioned like this, Baccio’s and Donatello’s crucifixes could be the focus
of devotion at any time. Contemplation of a crucifix was deeply moving for
the laity, for whom prayers, hymns, and sacred plays played a central role and
amplified their spiritual experience. In performances directed at congrega-
tions, such as the Planctus Mariae et aliorum (The Lament of Mary and Others),
actors playing the roles of Mary and John the Evangelist adopted dramatic
poses before sculptured crucifixes (according to written instructions, Mary and
John would turn to the people with “raised” or “outstretched arms”), gestures
that mimicked those found in their sculptured counterparts.42 In addition, the
laity would have participated in theological and mystical devotion through
sermons, among which the sermon on the cross was pre-eminent. During
these, the congregation might recite lauds whose expressive content had them
envision themselves as the Virgin Mary contemplating her dead son.43
Whether Verrocchio’s Crucifix was kept in a church, marched in processions,
and/or used in sacre rappresentazioni, it offered beholders a moving representa-
tion of the suffering body of Christ, with whose corpus they communed at
the Mass. From the late Middle Ages, the laity chiefly experienced this com-
munion not through taste but through sight.44 This was the case in Florence
in the fifteenth century when, as Arlotto de’ Mainardi, the writer and country
priest, records in one of his popular vernacular stories, people regularly con-
verged on churches to catch sight of the host. According to the tale, one day
while the priest was conducting Mass at the church of San Romolo (no longer
extant) near Piazza della Signoria, he observed workers running from their
shops, carrying the tools of their trade in their hands, to witness the moment
of elevation.45
Verrocchio’s unusual mode of manufacture also suggests links with a spe-
cific form of meditation, in which graduated levels of contemplation of Christ
were presented as analogous to different materials and to different forms of
representation. It is found, for instance, in the writings of Ugo Panziera da
Prato (Hugo Panciera), a Franciscan, who died c. 1330 and whose works were
known in the late fifteenth century. His Trattati were copied in a number
of fifteenth-century Florentine manuscripts,46 and they were published in
Florence in 1492, pointing to their popularity.47 Panziera’s works were also
mined by preachers, such as San Bernardino da Siena, who owned a personal
copy of the Trattati and used it as source material for some of his sermons.48 In
Panziera’s treatise on perfection, he describes his method of meditation:
Mental action is known to many as meditation and contemplation . . .

When the mind, after much time has passed, has exercised itself in Christ,
communicating Christ to the imagination, Christ will not leave bare
the active and corporeal virtue of the mind. In the first phase, in which
the mind begins to consider the circumstances of thinking about Christ,
Christ seems to be written into the mind and imagination [nella imagi-
nativa scritto]. In the second he appears to be outlined [disegnato]. In the
third he appears to be outlined and shaded [disegnato e ombrato]. In the
fourth he appears to be colored and alive [colorato e incarnato]. In the fifth
he seems to be sculptured in relief and alive [rilevato e incarnato].49
Panziera’s use of the term “rilevato” (sculptured in relief) plays on the idea
of the resurrected Christ (as Lars R. Jones has pointed out, “levato” means
raised up), and by pairing “incarnato” with “rilevato” Panziera suggests that
the devout can make the divine manifest out of interior and material images.50
Verrocchio’s Christ, made using techniques generally not applied to wooden
sculpture (carving the wood to precisely 12 mm, making the head and shoul-
ders separately from cork and attaching them like an armorer, tying the two
halves of the hollowed-out trunk for the body with rope), invites a comparison
with Panziera’s emphasis on different representational modes marking different
meditative levels.
Panziera’s meditative scheme belongs to a long tradition in spirituality
(known in the vernacular both orally and textually), which Verrocchio and
his audience would have known.51 In this, words were used to aid the reader
in constructing mental images, and metaphors of art making were often
employed. In his Esposizione del simbolo degli Apostoli (written after 1333, for a
vernacular audience), for instance, Domenico Cavalca compares the mind of
an angel, who had the capacity to understand the whole universe, to a wooden
panel painted in noble colors. The panel becomes one onto which Cavalca’s
reader is instructed to write and paint for their whole life, but this task cannot
be completed because the panel is so large (and thus unfathomable).52 Cavalca’s
Trattato della pazienza, written in the vernacular and copied in a number of
Florentine zibaldoni, includes instructions to his reader to figure the cross in
the mind, draw the image of Our Lady, and paint all the saints.53 And later, in
the same treatise, Cavalca compares Christ to the material makeup of a book,
its black letters read as the marks on Christ’s body from the flagellation, and
the red letters as Christ’s bloody wounds. Verrocchio and the viewers of his
Crucifix would have been familiar with such strategies, which were a feature of
sermons, as well as texts, many in the vernacular.54
Furthermore, evidence suggests that mystical encounters with the divine
were often material and rooted in objects,55 the appearances of which them-
selves were shaped by accounts of visionary experiences.56 The Blessed Andrea
Gallerani, a Dominican tertiary from Siena, was spiritually transported while
praying ceaselessly before a crucifix (he kept his head in a noose, which would
hang him if he yielded to the temptation to fall asleep).57 And Saints Peter
Martyr, Brigid of Sweden, and Antoninus apparently experienced visions in
which Christ spoke to them, while they prayed before carved wooden cruci-
fixes.58 Agnes of Montepulciano had a vision during which she was elevated
and embraced a sculptured Christ crucified.59 After contemplating a sculp-
tured crucifix,60 Margherita of Cortona, a Franciscan tertiary, acted out the
Passion of Christ over twelve hours in the church of San Francesco, in which
she experienced Christ’s suffering on and through her own body.61 And Saint
Catherine of Siena received the stigmata while gazing at a crucifix in Pisa.62
It is significant that many mystics’ visions (such as those of Saints Agnes,
Catherine, and Margarita) were not only prompted by sculptured crucifixes,
but their experiences remained at a bodily (and thus material) level. Catherine
of Siena regarded Christ’s physical body as a staircase to heaven.63 Jacopone
da Todi describes Saint Francis’s reception of the stigmata in material terms:
“Francis’ deep desire was such that he was incorporated into him [Christ], his
heart was softened like wax for a seal, impressing on it that [Christ] into whom
he was transformed.”64 Thomas of Celano’s account of the same event is sim-
ilarly material in emphasis but goes further by suggesting that the experience
was a sculptured one because the stigmata were three-dimensional swellings.65
The body of Clare of Montefalco, who had vivid visions during her life,66
was found to have physical signs of her mystical experiences after her death.
Upon her heart the sisters from her convent found “the symbols of Christ’s
Passion: the crucifix, the whip, the pillar, the crown of thorns, the three nails,
the lance, and the rod with the sponge. In her gall bladder they found three
globes of equal size, weight, and color, arranged in a triangle as the symbol of
the Trinity.”67 And the Franciscan Blessed Conrad of Offida had a vision in
which he touched the Christ Child, embracing and kissing him, and held him
to his chest and through this, he “was wholly melted and dissolved in divine
and indescribable love.”68
Conrad’s experience, though extraordinary, was part of an imaginative inter-
action with objects that was typical of the devotional practices of the laity.69
(In fact, Conrad’s encounter was itself recorded in a vernacular compilation,
Fioretti or The Little Flowers of Saint Francis, which was owned by at least one
artist – Giuliano da Maiano – and a favorite in Florentine zibaldoni.)70 During

these rituals, devotees touched three-dimensional objects, such as Christ Child
mannequins, rosary beads, paternoster cords, paxes, paintings, and crucifixes,
using them to partake in spiritual nourishment in churches, confraternal meet-
ing places, and the home.71 Readers of the bestseller The Meditations on the Life
of Christ – a work that was commonly included in Florentine zibaldoni and
recorded in the possession of at least one artist72 – were invited to kiss, pick up,
and touch the Christ Child.73 And devotees were encouraged to meditate on
the physical materiality of Christ’s pain. In his enormously popular Opera a ben
vivere written by Saint Antoninus – archbishop of Florence and founder of the
Buca confraternity for which Verrocchio’s crucifix may have been made – the
reader is instructed to
meditate . . . on the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ . . . kneel down before
a Crucifix and with the eyes of the mind, more than with those of the
body, consider his face. Beginning first with the crown of thorns, pressed
into his head, down to his skull; next the eyes, full of tears and of blood;
the mouth, frothing and full of bile and of blood; the beard, similarly full
of spit and of blood and bile . . . And in reverence of all these things, you
should recite the Lord’s prayer with a Hail Mary.
Although Antoninus tells his reader to use the eyes of their mind, rather than
of the body, the creation of works of art that seem to respond to Antoninus’
meditation indicates that objects played a role in actual practice.74
That devotees approached objects in the ways encouraged by Antoninus
(among others) is confirmed in sources. The Ricordi of merchant Giovanni
Morelli provides a lengthy account of his devotional practices after the death
of his beloved son, Alberto. Morelli records how he reached out and touched
the sacred figures depicted in the paintings he prayed before, kissing them with
his lips.75 In the founding legend of the Bianchi – a group of lay pilgrims who
processed through cities and the countryside behind a crucifix – a peasant
was physically marked with the outline of the Virgin Mary’s hand, which she
laid there during a vision he had of her (and of Christ). The story was well
known and discussed in a number of accounts accessible to lay audiences.76
The chronicler Luca Dominici records occasions when ordinary people were
healed through physical contact with a crucifix. He tells, for instance, of
a man with a withered and useless arm [who] crossed the Arno and went
up there to San Miniato and there devoutly presented himself to the
Crucifix; and when he had touched the Crucifix with his arm and kissed
it, at once he was freed and healed in the presence of many people, and
he fainted. And when he revived, he said that he felt the entire arm tingle,
which was the blood returning to the veins, and he extended it and used
it just like the other.77
On another occasion, a woman possessed by the devil was brought before a

company of the Bianchi from Pistoia who were at San Miniato al Monte. The
woman was forced to kiss a crucifix, whereupon she was cured.78
The material tack of these devotional practices derived from the mystical
theology of the late Middle Ages, in particular, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux’s
enormously influential sermons, which were well known in the vernacular.79
In his sermons on The Song of Songs, Bernard established that mystical union
with God was a corporeal experience, one based on the belief that the body
“provided human beings a way to know, love, and become one with him.”80
(“He [God] took on flesh for those who are wise in the flesh, that they might
learn to be wise in the spirit as well,” Bernard writes)81 Lay Florentine preach-
ers stressed this corporeal aspect of worship in their encouragement of flagella-
tion in sermons to confraternity members, drawing from popular confraternal
practice.82 Chancellor of Florence, Bartolomeo Scala (1430–97), for instance,
in a sermon called on himself and his listeners to “give our body conquered
by sensuality a beating so that castigated, it is converted to the way of salvation,
reconciled with its Creator. Chase away the appetites, exterminate sensuality,
and place yourself under the sway of true reason.”83 In another homily, deliv-
ered by the budding humanist Giovanni Nesi (1456–1506), the lay audience
was encouraged to feel Christ’s corporeal suffering on their own bodies, which
they did through flagellation during the ceremony:
[consider] that he suffered in every part [of his] body from his head to his
feet. In as much as his most holy head was [wounded by] sharp thorns,
the brightest eyes by a blindfold, the mellifluous mouth by the bitterest
bile, the resplendent face by bloody sweat, the weak shoulders by the
heaviest weight of the cross, the most sacred breast with a sharp lance,
and the innocent hands and the immaculate feet with pointed nails, and
finally his precious body with the sharpest of beatings.84
We get a sense of the flagellant’s experience through a poem by the fifteenth-

century Florentine patrician Giovanni Ciai, who writes:
I repent with all my heart that I am filled

with carnal sin. And so,
with a whip I often scourge my flanks,
whence my blood, spilling forth, pools
around me as I kneel on the ground,
and mixes with my many tears.
I, who am such a vile worm, have unleashed
pride against God and my neighbor,
for which I deserve death.85
Objects that were the focus of devotion were not mere receptacles; they
were understood to be analogous (and in some cases equal) to living bodies.
Figure 133. Cosimo Mogalli, Madonna of Impruneta Carried in Procession to Florence, 1714,

engraving from Giovanni Battista Casotti’s Memorie istoriche della miracolosa immagine di Maria
Vergine dell’Impruneta (Florence: G. Manni, 1714).
Getty Research Institute, Los Angeles (85-B21551).
The miraculous painting, Our Lady of Impruneta, which was brought from
Impruneta to Florence in times of trouble, was treated is if it were the Virgin
Mary (Figure 133).“Nostra Donna” was dressed in vestments, and in 1466 a law
was introduced in Florence imposing double penalties on those committing
murders while she was being processed through the city streets, implying that
the statue had sensory awareness and thus could be offended.86 Some objects
transmitted blood, sweat, and tears; moved body parts; spoke; and displayed
agency.87 The power of these objects did not lie beyond them (in the sacred
being represented, as official doctrine repeatedly explained was the correct use
of images), but rather in and through their physical materiality.
Moreover, spiritual devotion – like that which beholders in front of
Verrocchio’s Crucifix would have practiced – was affective and rooted in an
experience whereby the devotee sought mystical union with God at the
boundary point between the material and the immaterial. As Jill Bennett
has persuasively argued, drawing from Daniel Arasse, devotional images were
designed to heighten the viewer’s emotional engagement with the sacred sub-
ject in their memory, an experience that was itself understood physically and
materially as an impression on the senses, a “mnemonic of pain” to adopt
Bennett’s phrase.88 For mystics – who successfully united with God during
Figure 134. Andrea del Verrocchio. Madonna and Child, terracotta, c. 1470, Museo Nazionale
del Bargello, Florence.
their devotions – this experience was marked on their body not only as a sign
but also as source material in their memory.89
Works of art performed a powerful role in encouraging mystical experi-
ences and in lay devotion more generally. But a three-dimensional object like
Verrocchio’s Crucifix posed a particular challenge that was irrelevant in two-
dimensions: sculptures in the round could resemble too closely the holy fig-
ures they were meant merely to represent. Paintings of sacred personages got
around this by suggesting how they were “between concrete sensual experi-
ence and the trans-material imaginary” (to quote Klaus Krüger).90 This was
achieved through pictorial devices that suggest the holy figures had the poten-
tial to break out of their frames and yet they remain forever frozen in an
in-between state. In paintings of the Madonna and Child, for instance, this is
achieved by pictorial devices such as figures who seem to break beyond the
confines of their frames, as Verrocchio’s did in some of his paintings and relief
sculptures – for instance, his terracotta Madonna and Child (Figure 134) and
the stucco Madonna and Child (Figure 135) and painted Madonna and Child
(Figure 136), both attributed to his circle. In the stucco example in Oberlin,
Figure 135. Andrea del Verrocchio, workshop of, Madonna and Child, stucco, c. 1470.
Allen Memorial Art Museum, Oberlin.
Figure 136. Andrea del Verrocchio, workshop of, Madonna and Child, tempera on panel,
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie.
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Gemäldegalerie.
Photo: Christoph Schmidt.
the Madonna’s mantle spills out of the frame into the beholder’s physical space,
thus connecting the viewer with the holy figures, but the sacred personages
remain forever connected to their backgrounds to emphasize their status as
images. In other words, a painting or relief can suggest that it is a representation
of a sacred figure, while also aiding in the process of the devotee forming an
image in their mind’s eye (and therefore overcoming the charge of idolatry).
A sculpture in the round, however, presented a problem: how to suggest this
in-between-ness.91
Whereas Panziera and his contemporaries used material and representa-
tional metaphors for moving closer to God (with the ideal state residing in
the immaterial),92 Verrocchio’s material metaphors suggest the incarnation of
Christ, which is about word becoming thing. Verrocchio does this by trans-
forming materials into metaphors, metaphors that do not work except when
the material is transformed. For instance, wood becomes like bronze, stucco
like wax, cork like armored steel. His crucifix thus perpetually represents the
metamorphosis of Christ as permanent in-between-ness (wood that is becoming
bronze, stucco that is becoming wax, cork that is becoming steel) to convey this
idea of becoming.
Yet this in-between-ness is not apparent to the naked eye. By using meta-
phors about transformation to make his object,Verrocchio was thinking about
animation, how to make something that resembled a living thing in its life-
likeness, but whose animating force was concealed from view. That Verrocchio
would have been aware of theories of animation is supported by contempo-
rary vernacular accounts of miraculous objects that came to life. In one, for
instance, a sculptured Christ crucified became animated when it was touched,
a metamorphosis that was otherwise indiscernible to the eye.93 Furthermore,
the interest in representing lifelikeness apparent in Verrocchio’s Crucifix was
shared by a number of Renaissance artists, writers, and theorists, whose ideas
were accessible to all readers in the vernacular. Dante, for instance, writes in his
Purgatorio: “What master was he of brush or of pencil who drew the forms and
lineaments which there would make every subtle genius wonder? Dead the
dead, and the living seemed alive.”94 In his Della Pittura, Leon Battista Alberti,
drawing from Dante, advises painters “wishing to express life in things . . . to
make every part [of the body] in motion.”95 He goes on to recommend that
painters begin creating a human figure by imagining a skeleton onto which
they should add muscles, skin, and clothing.96 While anatomical accuracy
underpins Alberti’s advice, there is also present an awareness of that which
makes things appear lifelike: something that was invisible to the naked eye
but discernable in the workings of the body, including its anatomy. This was
the soul, defined according to the Aristotelian tradition – and widely known
during the Renaissance – as the life principle, that which distinguished the
living from the nonliving.97 This is evident in Leonardo’s writings in which he
developed the idea that animation was controlled by a body’s inner (invisible)
workings: the muscles of the body move in accordance with the soul.98
We see evidence of Verrocchio’s interest in anatomy defining liveliness in
his restoration of an antique statue of Marsyas (now lost), which, according to
Vasari, included meticulously rendered veins and other anatomical details made
from porphyry (a material which we have seen was equated with blood)99:
Cosimo de’ Medici . . . had had put in place a very beautiful Marsyas of
white marble, bound to a tree trunk to be flayed. Because his grandson
Lorenzo, into whose hands had come a torso with the head of another
Marsyas, very ancient, much more beautiful than the first, and made of
red stone [porphyry], wanting it to be set beside the other, could not,
because it was so imperfect. So he gave it to Andrea [Verrocchio] to
restore and complete it, and he made the legs, thighs, and arms that were
missing from this figure, from pieces of red marble, which he did so well
that Lorenzo was well satisfied and placed it opposite the other, on the
other side of the door. This ancient torso, made to show a flayed Marsyas,
was done with such care and judgment that some of the subtle white
veins, that were in the red stone, were carved by the craftsman in the
right place to suggest little nerves, as one sees in real bodies when they
are flayed. It [this technical feature] must have given to that work, when
it had its original surface, an appearance of lifelikeness.100
Verrocchio’s interest in animation can be established also from a group of

death masks and wax votives he made that no longer survive but the existence
of which are supported by numerous reports. According to Vasari, Verrocchio
invented death masks, a genre that became so ubiquitous that they could be
seen “in every house in Florence, above the fireplaces, doors, windows, and
cornices, infinite numbers of these portraits, so well made and natural that
they appear alive.”101 In fact the practice was an ancient one, and one known to
Cennino Cennini, writing in the fourteenth century.102 Although Verrocchio
did not invent the practice, he did make death masks, which are recorded as
“venti maschere ritratte al naturale” in an inventory submitted by Verrocchio’s
brother, Tommaso, for payments still outstanding by the Medici in 1495/96.103
According to Vasari,Verrocchio also made wax votives in collaboration with a
certain Orsino, a wax maker (undoubtedly Orsino Benintendi),104 including three
life-size figures of Lorenzo de’ Medici, made after the Pazzi conspiracy in 1478:
On the occasion of the death of Giuliano de’ Medici and the dan-
ger to his brother Lorenzo, wounded in Santa Maria del Fiore, it was
ordered by friends and relatives of Lorenzo that images of him be set up
in many places in thanks to God for his preservation. Therefore Orsino
[Bentintendi], among others, with the help and instruction of Andrea
[del Verrocchio], executed three life-size ones in wax, making an internal
armature of wood as recounted elsewhere, interwoven with split reeds,
then covered with cloth soaked in wax, with beautiful folds and such
arrangement that nothing better or closer to nature could be seen. Then
he made the heads, hands and feet of thicker wax, but hollow inside,
and taken from life [ritratte dal vivo] and painted in oils with all necessary
ornaments of hair and other things, natural and so well done that they
appear not as men of wax, but truly alive . . . one of these is in the church
of the nuns of Chiarito, in via di San Gallo, in front of the miracle-
working Crucifix. And this figure is in the very clothes that Lorenzo had
on when, wounded in the throat and bandaged up, he showed himself
at the window of his house to the people who had run there to see if
he was still alive . . . the second figure of the same wears a lucco, a typi-
cally Florentine citizen’s garment, and this is in the Servite church of the
Annuziata, above the subsidiary door, next to the table where candles are
sold; the third was sent to Santa Maria degli Angeli in Assisi.105
As Karla Langedijk has argued, in commissioning these works, the Medici may
have intended to evoke the wax effigy of the murdered Julius Caesar. A Latin
text, recently printed in Venice (in 1472 and 1477), recounted how Caesar’s
effigy moved mechanically to display its wounds and that his party used it
to appeal for support from the people.106 Hugo van der Velden has convinc-
ingly shown that Lorenzo’s boti were stand-ins for his person, and the miracle-
working images before which the effigies were placed provided Lorenzo with
perpetual protection.107 Whereas Georges Didi-Huberman reads the practice
of death masks and votives – like those made by Verrocchio – as a pledge of
death in order to have the sitter resemble God, in whose image all Christians
were made (and for whom God had been forced to die as Christ on the cross),
the processes of making these objects suggest instead that they were designed
as equivalents to the bodies they represented and that they promise through
their materiality eternal life possible after death.
Vasari tells us that Verrocchio made the effigies of Lorenzo il Magnifico
around a skeleton of wood interwoven with split reeds, covered with waxed
cloths that were folded and arranged, and with heads, hands, and feet made
from hollow wax. After such figures were constructed, they were painted, often
with vermilion or with a wide range of pigments, to suggest lifelikeness.108 It
may be no coincidence that vermilion was used often for wax effigies: Cennino
reserves the application of vermilion for flesh tones on living bodies (never for
the dead) and to render blood, and he calls the pigment – mixed with lead
white to make flesh tones – “incarnatione,” thus making a clear link between
vermilion and its role as animating force.109
Verrocchio would have been familiar with theories of animation also from
literature in the vernacular. For instance, in Ovid’s Metamorphoses Deucalion
(charged, along with Pyrrha, with repopulating the earth after the great flood),
said of his father, Prometheus: “Oh, would that by my father’s arts I might
restore the nations, and breathe, as he [Prometheus] did, the breath of life in
the molded clay.”110 Ovid’s Metamorphoses was widely known in the fifteenth
century and was included in a number of Florentine commonplace books.111

Animation was also a topic in medieval and Renaissance natural philosophy,
which explains how the body’s functions are transmitted by little internal
spirits (spiritelli), a belief with which Verrocchio would have been familiar, as
we have seen.112 That artists, including Verrocchio, were aware of these spirits
has been well established by Charles Dempsey, who demonstrated how the
popular figure of the spiritello – the child-like sprite, a feature of so much
Renaissance art – was a material and physical embodiment of this idea. The
figure of the spiritello embodied “the breath of life animating the human organ-
ism.”113 According to Dempsey, in its earlier manifestation the spiritello is more
ornamental (epitomized by the examples adorning Jacopo della Quercia’s early
fifteenth-century tomb of Ilaria del Carretto in San Martino, Lucca), but this
is replaced by a more active version, invented by Donatello, that embodies the
physical spirits that inhabited the other figures represented (exemplified in
Donatello’s Cavalcanti altarpiece [Figure 137], where the teetering spiritelli at the
Figure 137. Donatello, Cavalcanti altarpiece, pietra serena and polychromed terracotta,

c. 1430s, Santa Croce, Florence.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License <https://qspace.library.queensu.ca/
handle/1974/14832>.
top personify the pneumatic spirits of fear that grip the Virgin at the moment
of the Annunciation depicted below).114 Spiritelli often decorate tombs, includ-
ing that of Carlo Marsuppini (Figure 138) by Desiderio da Settignano, which
a young Verrocchio may have had a hand in carving.115 (Charles Seymour has
tentatively proposed that Verrocchio may have made the left shield-bearing
putto.)116 Although Dempsey prefers to read Desiderio’s spiritelli as decorative
and ornamental (because they are relatively static), as opposed to the active
personifications of Donatello, their role is nonetheless to convey the idea
of the spirit of life of the deceased passing over into eternal life. In this way,
spiritelli can be read as representing not the passing of the animating spirit,117
but the transformation of that spirit into the eternal after death.
The idea of the Renaissance artist spiriting life into their objects is asso-
ciated especially with the sixteenth century when it becomes a topic in art
historical literature.118 Benvenuto Cellini, for instance, refers to clay molds as
having an anima and to cast bronze possessing a spirit, language that derives
from Aristotle.119 But it was already known in the preceding centuries. In the
fourteenth century, the Sienese sculptor Lando di Pietro buried two notes
Figure 138. Desiderio da Settignano and workshop (Andrea del Verrocchio), Detail of

spiritello from the, tomb of Carlo Marsuppini, polychromed marble and fresco, c. 1453–60,
Santa Croce, Florence.
within his carved wooden crucifix, one inside Christ’s nostril, the other inside
a knee joint. One identifies the artist by name and requests that with his
sculpture, Lando be presented to God, with his work an expression of his
piety.120 The placement of the first note inside Christ’s nostril is significant, as
it recalls God’s creation of Adam in Genesis when “God breathed into his face
the breath of life and man became a living soul.”121 The power of the artist as
potential animator was not lost on Lando (and was probably a belief shared
by other artists as well), whose other note states that it is God, rather than the
wooden statue, that should be adored. Lando buried this second inscription in
the statue’s knee joint, with which the devotee (i.e., the artist) would use to
show his humility through genuflection.122
Even if Verrocchio was aware of the belief that the artist could animate his
objects, much of Verrocchio’s own techniques for his Crucifix are invisible to
the naked eye. However, this does not imply that they were not meaningful.
The power of what was not seen is a topic in devotional literature, which
encouraged its readers to move beyond the visible to imagine the contents of
bodily interiors. In his Opera a ben vivere, for instance, Antoninus implores his
reader to use the eyes of their mind to attend to Christ’s face; to consider how
the crown of thorns was pressed onto his head, “down into his cranium”; how
the nose was full of “snot, tears, and blood”; how the mouth was “full of gall,
slime, and blood.”123 Artists responded to meditational exercises like Antoninus’
by providing some visual details for the beholder to ponder, such as the sym-
bols of his Passion presented by Christ, which the viewer could use to bring
about the required empathetic response.124 But even if Antoninus’ reader were
meditating on an image as they contemplated his words, not all of the details
he describes would be visible to them (for instance, the interior of Christ’s
cranium, nose, and mouth). For Verrocchio himself, members of his workshop,
and perhaps those for whom he made his sculpture (with whom he could have
conversed about the Crucifix’s manufacture), the metaphors of making that he
employed would have been meaningful, even if they were not discernable to
the eye, just as content conjured up in the mind’s eye was for readers of devo-
tional tracts. That meaning was to imbue his sculpture powerfully with the
potential for animation.
Verrocchio’s methods of manufacture can be read also as a kind of personal
spiritual devotion, like that attributed by Vasari to Fra Angelico, who apparently
never painted a crucifix without tears streaming down his face.125 Technical
studies of Fra Angelico’s paintings support Vasari’s account of the importance
of devotion in making, showing how the painter created his figures of Christ
not by applying pigments directly onto the figure with a paintbrush, but rather
by throwing a sponge, an action that stemmed from his refusal to touch the
body of Christ.126 Verrocchio, by contrast, constructed his sculpture of Christ
crucified by touching the body of his Christ, beginning with the trunk of a lime
SUGHERO CHE FODERA

IL RETRO DELLE SPALLE
SUGHERO PRESENTE
SULLA CALOTTA CRANICA
SUGHERO PRESENTE
SUL PETTO
CORDA
TELA MODELLATA,
AMMANITA E DIPINTA
Figure 139. Andrea del Verrocchio, Crucifix, early-to-mid-1470s, diagram.

Drawing by Lisa Venerosi Pesciolini.
tree, which he tied together with rope (visible in x-radiographs; Figures 128
and 139) – mimicking the mocking of Christ when he was bound with rope.127
He added to that layers of stucco built up directly with his hands and wound a
linen loincloth stiffened with glue around the figure.The cork head and shoul-
ders were attached indirectly, and the whole surface was painted with a brush.
Verrocchio’s making of his sculpture thus involved the interaction of an artist
with the dying body of Christ that mimicked that of the devotee in Panziera’s
meditative scheme, but in reverse. Verrocchio began with a living, three-
dimensional “body.” This corpus would have been understood as equivalent to
a human body, thanks to its material – wood, considered analogous to a living
body (because wood was recognized to have blood in the form of sap, humors,
and a complexion).128 After carving out the “body,” Verrocchio moved away
from this direct encounter to a more abstract (i.e., indirect) mode of contempla-
tion. The materiality of Verrocchio’s crucifix – with its emphasis on suspending
eternally the transformation of materials – would have been understood by
the artist as contributing to its efficacy as cristo vivo, its inner in-between-ness
mimicking that which described living things, according to Renaissance belief.
Moreover,Verrocchio’s refusal to work with his materials in a way that con-

formed to convention (treating wood as if it were bronze, stucco as if it were
wax, etc.) rendered those materials problematic and opaque through his prac-
tice. This treatment can be read as analogous to a confraternity member’s flag-
ellation of his or her own body to create pain (or the imagined pain suffered
by Christ through all five senses encouraged in devotional literature)129 and,
through that, come to an understanding of the divine. Indeed, the connec-
tion between making and suffering is made explicit in texts attributed to the
Catalonian physician Arnald of Villanova (d. 1311), such as the Tractatus paraboli-
cus, which instructs the alchemist to treat mercury like Christ at the crucifixion:
just as Christ was beaten until he bled, made to wear a crown of thorns, nailed
to the cross, and his body anointed with gall and vinegar, so mercury is to be
tortured in four stages.130 This was not the only text to make the connection
between alchemy and Christ’s Passion and Resurrection, and it and other texts
concerning the topic circulated among humanists in Florence.131 The Tractatus
parabolicus concerns alchemy, not the so-called “mechanical arts.” Nevertheless,
the boundaries between alchemy and art were fluid enough that many recipes
on art making reveal a close connection to alchemy, and Verrocchio’s pupil
Leonardo demonstrates a considerable knowledge of alchemical recipes in his
manuscripts (despite expressions of disdain for alchemy in his writings).132
5.2 HOW TO REPRESENT GOD IN LIVING MATTER
The emphasis on the transformation of materials in Verrocchio’s Crucifix can be

read in the light of beliefs about the nature of change in the Eucharist, understood
to be Christ’s suffering body at the crucifixion.133 As Caroline Walker Bynum
has recognized in the case of the Middle Ages, “transubstantiation as a techni-
cal notion was not depictable; however change was understood, what changed
was what was not seen.”134 Yet as Aden Kumler has persuasively demonstrated,
“the invisible and unseen substance of the Mass” was precisely the problem
with which one artist engaged in a fourteenth-century English compendium of
spiritual instruction in the vernacular, made for a lay patron, and which behold-
ers encountered every time they gazed upon the Eucharistic wafer during the
Mass.135 Renaissance artists played with this idea of representing the paradox of
the Eucharist as visible and invisible presence in sacramental tabernacles. Matteo
Civitali gestures to this idea in his Ciborium for the Host (Figure 140) by carv-
ing a marble lattice that is not pierced. In other words, it ironically and teasingly
suggests the possibility of seeing through while making that impossible.136
Regardless of whether Verrocchio’s Crucifix was used in a confraternal con-
text, displayed above an altar, and/or used in processions or sacre rappresentazioni,
its methods of manufacture would have gained significance through the ocular
(and possibly phenomenological, in the case of performances) engagement
Figure 140. Matteo Civitali, Ciborium for the Host, marble, early-to-mid-1470s,Victoria and
Albert Museum, London.
Copyright.Victoria and Albert Museum, London.
of its beholders. As they listened to sermons by Bernardo d’Alamanno de’

Medici and Messer Giorgio Antonio Vespucci on the crucifixion, for instance,
the brothers of the Compagnia dei Magi contemplated a crucifix, and at the
conclusion of Vespucci’s sermon, they kissed it.137 Confraternities mimicked
the experiences their members had in church (by hearing Mass or listen-
ing to sermons), but, as Daniel Bornstein has noted, this was “on their own
terms and often with the participation of lay preachers.”138 Humanist members of
confraternities – including Donato Acciaiuoli, Cristoforo Landino, Alamanno
Rinuccini, Pier Filippo Pandolfini, Giovanni Nesi, and Marsilio Ficino – were
invited to give sermons at confraternity meetings.139 Many confraternities
emerged as independent from clerical institutions, practicing a form of spirit-
uality that was not guided directly by the Church or its representatives,140
and this included members taking the Eucharist in the confraternity meeting
hall.141 Often confraternities had substantial libraries, their holdings includ-
ing psalters, hymnals, and liturgical texts, which their members borrowed and
read.142 And sermons by humanist lay preachers touched on several topics rel-
evant to Verrocchio’s Crucifix, including Eucharistic themes, the poignancy of
Christ’s death,143 and even matters of Eucharistic doctrine.144
The transformation that lies at the heart of the incarnation of Christ, and to
which, I am arguing, Verrocchio was alluding through material metaphors of
metamorphosis, served as proof of Christ’s incorruptibility. In the lives of saints,
holy bodies were compared to minerals because minerals were regarded as alive
and resistant to decay.145 And belief in the mutability of materials lay, for instance,
at the heart of much vernacular literature written in imitation of Ovid’s enor-
mously influential Metamorphoses.146 (As we have seen,Verrocchio possessed cop-
ies of Ovid’s Heroides and Boccaccio’s Decameron.147 The latter was influenced by
the Metamorphoses and rehearses the theme of transformation in many of its tales.)
But Verrocchio’s metaphors of making also serve to address the very nature
of God as represented as Christ at the crucifixion. His sculpture seems to
answer the question of how one can represent God in living matter – that
is, in materials that are believed to be alive and changing, as Jane Bennett has
explored.148 The base material of Verrocchio’s crucifix was wood, which, as we
have seen, was understood to correspond to a living body.149 In other words, at
its heart, Verrocchio’s Crucifix was made from something that his contempo-
raries would have regarded as living and constantly in flux. What are the ram-
ifications of this for understanding God in Christ at the crucifixion? Christ’s
body at the moment of his death was understood by a number of theologians
and natural philosophers to behave as if it was alive, providing an explana-
tion, for instance, for how blood could flow from Christ’s dead body.150 Thus,
Verrocchio has created a Christ whose in-between-ness expressed a theologi-
cal idea: that Christ was between life and death at the crucifixion.
But how could an artist, not a theologian, come up with such a concept?
We need only return to the story by Sacchetti told at the beginning of this
chapter for proof of complex theological ideas being taken up by the popolani.
Indeed, the topic of cristo vivo was a favorite in vernacular literature. Poggio
Bracciolino, for instance, tells the story of a group of peasants who come to
Arezzo to commission a wooden crucifix. When they approach an artist to
make one, the artist asks them if they would prefer theirs to be dead or alive.
After consulting one another, the peasants decide they want a living one.151
Just as Sacchetti’s carved “Christ” could leap from the cross (because it was
animated by the artist – by Mino, the sculptor who was being cuckolded –
through fear of his life),Verrocchio’s intermedia mode of creation in his Crucifix
resulted in a figure of Christ whose interior makeup expressed its potential for
animation as a perpetual metaphor for the state of Christ at the crucifixion,
when he was eternally alive, even in death.Verrocchio’s crucifix, which appears
so naturalistic, in fact, that one could imagine his Christ leaping from the cross
just like the one in Sacchetti’s tale, is a meditation on the nature of Christ at
the crucifixion (as between word and thing, and thus eternally alive), power-
fully animated by an artist-creator – like Sacchetti’s Mino, who implies that
the skills of a sculptor include the capacity to bring Christ crucified to life by
explaining that “Christ” has escaped from his workshop.
CONCLUSION
What are we to make of Verrocchio’s processes of making in which he trans-

ferred tools and techniques from one medium to another and made certain
claims about the subjects he represented? I have suggested that the unusual
situation of the artist’s bottega, in which he worked in a variety of different
media, was the precondition of Verrocchio’s practice. I have also suggested
how the materials with which the artist worked exercised a certain agency
over the final product. Yet the conclusions reached here do not assume that
Verrocchio was an unthinking practitioner, led simply by his materials. Instead,
I have explored the numerous levels on which Verrocchio’s engagement with
his materials is manifested in and meaningful for comprehending his objects,
concluding that to understand his practices, we must acknowledge the artist’s
relationships with matter.
Chapter 2 argued that Verrocchio used the materials on Piero and Giovanni
de’ Medici’s tomb to comment on the character of the interred and Lorenzo
de’ Medici (the monument’s chief patron). Part of this commentary occurs
through allusions to the collection at the nearby Palazzo Medici. This inter-
pretation is based on a reading of the tomb in terms of its material iconology
(the “language of materials”). I also propose that the monument’s allusions to
reliquaries, through the tomb’s resemblance to a jeweled casket and the inclu-
sion of bronze netting – a frequent feature demarcating sacred spaces – serve to
suggest that it contains sacred remains (a claim that is in keeping with Medici
ambitions to be considered sacred).
But the reading of the Medici tomb goes further than just one about mate-
rial iconology, proposing that Verrocchio used visual puns in the tomb that
relate to techniques – specifically, allusions to working porphyry with acan-
thus – and references to beliefs about the mutability of matter – the metamor-
phosis implied by the cornucopia on top of the tomb and the enlivenment
of bronze in the netting below the sarcophagus that moves as if in the wind.
These witty references serve political and spiritual purposes: they suggest how
Medici wealth could be transformed into something positive. This occurs by
the attention paid to the nature of things on the tomb – the suggestion that
the matter represented on the tomb is transforming – and to material links to
objects in the Medici palace. In this way, Verrocchio cleverly challenges the
196
CONCLUSION 197
prevailing view that usury was unnatural, showing instead how wealth could
become positive through correct use, in other words, through his labor. Thus,
the transformation of Medici wealth occurs thanks to Verrocchio’s artistry. It
is through his engagement with materials that Verrocchio realizes the tomb’s
message, and it is only in the foregrounding of the artist’s practices that the
Medici can fulfill their aim of transforming their wealth into spiritual benefits.
Chapter 3, on Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas, proposes that the artist
presents Christ as between two states at the Resurrection, just as he was under-
stood in certain branches of theological exegesis.This is expressed through the
presentation of Christ in bronze – a medium that depends on absent pres-
ence (the artist’s hands engage directly with a wax model that disappears and
is replaced by bronze) – and as a relief sculpture, something between two
and three dimensions. It argues that viewers must move through the material
level – not beyond it – to reach an understanding of the subject matter, a mate-
rial metaphor for Thomas’ revelation of Christ. The viewer’s engagement with
the sculpture thus mirrors Thomas’ encounter with the resurrected Christ, a
fitting experience given the emphasis on Thomas as an example for the devo-
tee. Finally, the sculpture is interpreted as a promotion of the tactile over other
senses as a means of comprehension.
The topic of tactility is explored also in Chapter 4, which considers the
implications of Verrocchio’s early use of sfumato in a drawing of a woman.
I argue that the technique is used to present the viewer with an object that
appeals to the sense of touch and suggests visually that they are caressing both
cold marble and living flesh. Through these allusions to tactility, the drawing
suggests how looking at the woman is the same as touching her and therefore
that perception is equivalent to knowing.
The final chapter focuses on a wooden crucifix that I argue presents its
materiality as a response to the needs of its devotees. This object provided
beholders with the means to engage more directly with the divine and in
response to written instructions on how to move beyond the material world.
Verrocchio uses materials as metaphors in the crucifix (each material is treated
“like” another: wood like bronze, cork like armored steel, stucco like wax) so
that his materials are permanently suspended in the moment of becoming. He
does this, it is argued, as a means of solving the challenge of how to represent
God (as Christ) as mutable matter.
What Verrocchio’s objects present to us are demonstrations of a Renaissance
artist’s deep understanding of his materials as meaningful and mutable. But they
also make clear how matter could be engaged with to make certain claims,
claims that could not be expressed in any other medium (political oratory, for
instance, in the case of the tomb; or poetry, in the case of the drawing – by
rendering metamorphosis permanent).
Transformation is a recurring theme among all the objects I consider. In

Chapter 2 Verrocchio transforms gold (Medici wealth – brute matter) into
something spiritually beneficial. In Chapter 3 he presents a moment unfold-
ing in time (time is not fixed) and demonstrates how the nature of Thomas’
revelation is that Christ is between life and death. Chapter 4 argues that the
drawing actually depicts metamorphosis (woman turning to stone that comes
to life or vice versa). And Chapter 5 – on a wooden crucifix – proposes how
the artist’s engagement with his materials presents them as a meditation on the
nature of God as mutable.
By attending to the materiality of Verrocchio’s objects, we gain not only
a better appreciation of this underappreciated artist, we also come to under-
stand how processes of making served as a form of communication during the
Renaissance, providing us with the means to begin to comprehend attitudes
toward art and art making for an artist who left no written records about the
meaning of his art.
A NOTE ON ARCHIVAL SOURCES
I have cited the relevant archival documents in the notes (all of which I
consulted myself), followed by references to Dario Covi’s monograph on
Verrocchio, Andrea del Verrocchio. Life and Work (Florence, 2005) who very
usefully transcribed almost all the documents. For the publication record for
each archival source, I direct the reader to Covi’s book.
Abbreviations
AOF Archivio dell’Opera di S. Maria del Fiore, Florence

ASF Archivio di Stato di Firenze
ASP Archivio di Stato di Pistoia
199
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
Alberti, Francesco d’Altobianco. Rime. Edited by Opera a ben vivere di sant’Antonino dell’ordine dei
Alessio Decaria. Bologna, 2008. predicatori Arcivescovo di Firenze, scritta a Dianora
Alberti, Leon Battista. Opere Volgari. Edited by Tornabuoni ne’ Soderini. Edited by Lodovico
Cecil Grayson. 3 vols. Bari, 1960. Ferretti. Florence, 1923.
L’architettura [De Re Aedificatoria]. Edited by [Antonini, Sancti]. Summa Theologica. 4 parts.
Giovanni Orlandi and Paolo Portoghesi. 2 Verona, 1740; repr. Graz, 1959.
vols. Milan, 1966. Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Aristotle’s De Anima
On Painting and Sculpture:The Latin Texts of De in the Version of William of Moerbeke and the
Pictura and De Statua. Translated and edited by Commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas. Translated
Cecil Grayson. London, 1972. by Kenelm Foster and Silvester Humphries.
Rime e versioni poetiche. Edited by Giuglielmo New Haven, CT, 1951.
Gorni. Milan, 1975. [Sancti Thomae de Aquino]. Opera Omnia
On the Art of Building in Ten Books. Translated iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita. Edited by René
by Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Antoine Gauthier. Rome, 1984.
Tavernor. Cambridge, MA, 1988. Opera Omnia. Parma 1852–73. Edited by
Albertini, Francesco. Memoriale di molte statue et Vernon J. Bourke. 25 vols. New York, 1948.
picture sono nella inclyta cipta di Florentia per mano Scriptum super libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri
di sculptori et pictori excellenti moderni et antiqui Lombardi episcopi Parisiensis. Edited by Pierre
tracto dalla propria copia di messer Francesco Mandonnet. 3 vols. Paris, 1929–1933.
Albertini prete fiorentino anno domini 1510. Edited Summa contra Gentiles, Book 4: Salvation. Edited
by Herbert Percy Horne. London, 1909. by Charles J. O’Neil. Notre Dame, IN, 1975.
Alighieri, Dante. The Divine Comedy. Translated Summa Contra Gentiles. Liber Quartus cum com-
by Charles S. Singleton. Princeton, NJ, 1991. mentariis Francisci de Sylverstris Ferrariensis Sancti
The Divine Comedy. Translated by John Ciardi. Thomae Aquinatis. In Sancti Thomae Aquinatis.
London, 2003. Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M.
Ammirato, Scipione. Istorie Fiorentine di Scipione edita. vols. 13–15. Rome, 1918–1930.
Ammirato. Edited by Ferdinando Ranalli, 2 Summa Theologiae. Vol. 55 of The Resurrection
parts in 6 vols. Florence, 1848. of the Lord (3a. 53–59). Edited by C. Thomas
Anthony of Padua, Saint. Anthony of Padua, Moore. London, 1976.
Sermons for the Easter Cycle. Edited by George Aristotle. The Physics. Translated by Philip H.
Marcil. New York, 1994. Wicksteed and Francis M. Cornford. 2 vols.
Antonino, Sant. [Antonino Pierozzi]. Opera a London, 1929.
ben vivere di Santo Antonino messa ora a luce con On the Soul; Parva Naturalia; On Breath. Edited
altri suoi ammaestramenti e un giunta di antiche and translated by Walter Hett. London, 1964.
orazioni toscane da Francesco Palermo. Edited by Arlotto, Piovano. Motti e facezie del Piovano Arlotto.
Francesco Palermo. Florence, 1858. Edited by Gianfranco Folena. Milan, 1953.
201
202 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Augustine of Hippo, Saint. Opera Omnia. Century Treatise on Metals and Metallurgy.
7 vols. In Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Translated by Cyril Stanley Smith and
Patrologia Latina. Edited by Jacques-Paul Martha Teach Gnudi. New York, 1959;
Migne. 217 vols. Paris, 1841–1902. reprint, New York, 1990.
Augustine of Hippo, Saint. Homilies on Boccaccio, Giovanni. Tutte le opere.
the Gospel of John. Homilies on the First Translated by Robert Hollander,
Epistle of John. Soliloquies. Vol. 7 of A Timothy Hampton, and Margherita
Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Frankel. Hanover, NH, 1986.
Fathers of the Christian Church. Edited by Bocchi, Francesco. Le bellezze della citta di
Philip Schaff. 14 vols. Buffalo, NY, 1888. Fiorenza. Florence, 1591.
Sancti Aurelii Augustini in Iohannis Evan Bonaventure, Saint. De perfectione vitae ad
gelium Tracatus CXXIV, CCL 36. Edited sorores. In Decem opuscula ad theologiam mys-
by Radbodus Willems. Turnhout, 1954. ticam spectantia, 2nd ed. Quaracchi, 1900.
Enchiridion. Edited by E. Evans. Aurelii Holiness of Life, Being St. Bonaventure’s
Augustini Opera. Edited by Michael P. J. Treatise De perfectione vitae ad sorores.
van den Hout et al. Turnhout, 1969. Translated by Laurence Costello. Saint
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Ancient Louis, MI, 1923; reprint 1928.
Christian Writers 41–2. Translated by John Opera Omnia. 10 vols. Quaracchi,
Hammond Taylor. 2 vols. New York, 1982. 1882–1902.
Sermons (230-272B) on the liturgical seasons. Bracciolini, Poggio. Facezie. Edited by
Edited by John E. Rotelle. Translated Marcello Ciccuto. Milan, 1983.
by Edmund Hill. Vol. 7 of The Works of Brunelleschi, Filippo. Sonetti di Filippo
Saint Augustine. A Translation for the 21st Brunelleschi. Introduction by Giuliano
Century. 41 vols. Hyde Park, NY, 1993. Tanturli. Notes on the text by Domenico
Tractates on the Gospel of John 112–24. De Robertis. Florence, 1977.
Translated by John W. Rettig.Washington, Bruni, Leonardo. Leonardi Bruni arretini
DC, 1995. epistolarum libri VIII. Edited by Lorenzo
Bacon, Roger. The Opus Majus of Roger Mehus. 2 vols. Florence, 1741.
Bacon. Edited by John Henry Bridges, 2 Burchiello. I sonnetti di Burchiello. Edited by
vols. Oxford, 1897. Michelangelo Zaccarello. Turin, 2004.
The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon.Translated Catherine of Siena, Saint. The Letters of
by Richard Belle Burke, 2 vols. New Catherine of Siena. Translated by Suzanne
York, 1962. Noffke. 3 vols. Binghampton, NY, 1988.
Bellincioni, Bernardo. Le Rime di Bernardo Cavalcanti, Giovanni.Nuova opera. Edited by
Bellincioni. Edited by Pietro Fanfani. Antoine Monti. Paris, 1990.
Bologna, 1876–78. Cavalcanti, Guido. The Poetry of Guido
Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint. Sancti Bernardi Cavalcanti. Edited and translated by Lowry
Opera Omnia. Edited by Jean Lelercq, Nelson. Vol. 18, series A, Garland Library
Charles Hugh Talbot, Henri Rochais, 8 of Medieval Literature. New York, 1986.
vols. Rome, 1957–1980. Cellini, Benvenuto. Opere. Edited by Bruno
On the Song of Songs. Translated by Maier. Milan, 1968.
Kilian Walsh, introduction by Jean Opere di Baldassare Castiglione, Giovanni
Leclerq, 4 vols. From The Works of Bernard della Casa, Benvenuto Cellini. Edited by
of Clairvaux. Cistercian Fathers Series: Carlo Cordié. Milan, 1960.
Number Seven. Kalamazoo, 1971–1981. Opere di Benvenuto Cellini. Edited by
Billi, Antonio. Il libro di Antonio Billi esist- Giuseppe Guido Ferrero. Turin, 1971;
ente in due copie nella Biblioteca nazionale di 1980.
Firenze. Edited by Carl Frey. Berlin, 1892. Cennini, Cennino. Cennino Cennini’s Il
Biringuccio, Vannoccio. The Pirotechnia of Libro dell’arte. A New English Translation
Vannoccio Biringuccio:The Classic Sixteenth and Commentary with Italian Transcription.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 203
Edited and translated by Lara Broecke. De Montaigne, Michel. Journal de voyage en

London, 2015. Italie. Edited by Charles Dédéyan. Paris,
Chellini, Giovanni. Le ricordanze di Giovanni 1946.
Chellini da San Miniato. Edited by Maria De Voragine, Jacobus. The Golden Legend.
Teresa Sillano. Milan, 1984. Readings on the Saints. Translated by
Colonna, Francesco. Hypnerotomachia William Granger Ryan. Princeton, NJ,
Poliphili. Edited by Giovanni Pozzi and 1993; repr. 2012.
Lucia A. Ciapponi. 2 vols. Padua, 1980. Dei, Benedetto. Memorie Istoriche (1470). In
Da Asta, Astesani. Summa Astensis. 2 vols. Descrizioni e Rappresentazioni della citta’
Rome, 1728. di Firenze nel xv secolo, con la trascrizione
Da Bisticci, Vespasiano. Vite di uomini inedita dei manoscritti di Benedetto Dei e
illustri del secolo XV scritte da Vespasiano un indice ragionato dei manoscritti utili per
da Bisticci. Edited by Angelo Mai and la storia di Firenze. Edited by Giuseppina
Adolfo Bartoli. Florence, 1859. Carla Romby. Florence, 1976, Appendix
Da Capua, Raimondo. The Life of Catherine 2, 56–73.
of Siena. Translated by Conleth Kearns. Del Migliore, Ferdinando Leopoldo.
Wilmington, DE, 1980. Firenze città nobilissima illustrate. Florence,
Da Casali, Ubertino. Arbor vitae crucifixae Jesu. 1684.
Edited by Charles T. Davis.Turin, 1961. Del Riccio, Agostino. Istoria delle pietre.
Da Pisa, Giordano. Quaresimale fiorentino Edited by Raniero Gnoli and Attilia
1305–1306. Edited by Carlo Delcorno. Sironi. Turin, 1996.
Florence, 1974. Della Francesca, Piero. De prospectiva pin-
Sul terzo capitolo del Genesi. Edited by gendi. Edited by Giusta Nicco Fasola.
Cristina Marchioni. Florence, 1992. Florence, 1942.
Prediche inedite dal ms. Laurenziano Di Bicci, Neri. Le Ricordanze (10 Marzo
Acquisti e Doni 290. Edited by Cecilia 1453–24 Aprile 1475). Edited and anno-
Iannella. Pisa, 1997. tated by Bruno Santi. Pisa, 1976.
Da Siena, Bernardino [Saint]. Opera Omnia. Di Giorgio, Francesco. Trattati di architet-
Edited by Pacifico Perantoni, 9 vols. tura ingegneria e arte militaria. Edited by
Quaracchi, 1950–1965. Corrado Maltese. 2 vols. Milan, 1967.
Da Vinci, Leonardo. Leonardo da Vinci: Di Rennes, Marbodo. Lapidari. La magia
Das Buch von der Malerei nach dem delle pietre preziose. Edited by Bruno
Codex Vaticanus (Urbinas) 1270. Edited Basile. Rome, 2006.
by Heinrich Ludwig. 3 vols. Vienna, Dolce, Lodovico. Dialogo [. . .] nel quale si
1882. ragiona della qualità, diversità, e proprietà dei
Il Codice Atlantico di Leonardo da Vinci nella colori (Venice, 1565). Bologna, 1985.
Biblioteca Ambrosiana di Milano. Edited by Dominici, Luca. Cronache di Ser Luca
Giovanni Piumati. Milan, 1894–1904. Dominici. Pistoia, 1933.
I manoscritti e i disegni di Leonardo da Vinci. Fabroni, Angelo. Magni Cosmi Medicei Vita.
Edited by Adolfo Venturi, 7 vols. Rome, Pisa, 1789.
1928–1952. Fiamma, Galvano. Opusculum de rebus ges-
Treatise on painting: Codex urbinas latinus tis ab Azone, Luchino et Johanne, vicecom-
1270.Translated and annotated by A. Philip itibus, ab anno MCCCXXVIII usque ad
McMahon. 2 vols. Princeton, NJ, 1956. annum MCCCXLII. Edited by Carlo
The Madrid Codices. Translated and com- Castiglioni. Rerum Italicarum Scriptores,
mentary by Ladislao Reti. 4 vols. New vol. 12, pt. 4. Bologna, 1938.
York, 1974. Fichard, Johann. Italia. 3 vols.
I manoscritti dell’institut de France. [G], Frankfurtisches Archiv für altere
Il manoscritto G. Edited by Augusto deutschen Litteratur und Geschichte.
Marinoni. Florence, 1989. Frankfurt am Main, 1815. vol. 3, 1–130.
204 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ficino, Marsilio. The Letters of Marsilio Il Diatessaron Toscano in Il Diatessaron il vol-

Ficino. Translated by members of the gare italiano. Testi inediti dei secoli XIII–
Language Department of the School of XIV. Edited by Venanzio Todesco, P.
Economic Sciences, London. London, Alberto Vaccari, and Marco Vattasso.
1975. Vatican City, 1938.
The Book of Life. Trans. Charles Boer. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of Eminent
Dallas, TX, 1980. Philosophers. Translated by Robert D.
Filarete [Antonio Averlino detto il]. Trattato Hicks. 2 vols. London, 1925.
di Architettura. Edited by Anna Maria Landucci, Luca. Diario fiorentino dal 1450 al
Finoli and Liliana Grassi. 2 vols. Milan, 1516, continuato da un anonimo fino al 1542.
1972. Edited by Iodoco Del Badia. Florence,
Filarete. Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture. 1883.
Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Librandi, Rita. La Metaura d’Aristotile:
Averlino, Known as Filarete. Translated by Volgarizzamento fiorentino anonimo del
John R. Spencer. 2 vols. New Haven, XIV secolo. Naples, 1995.
CT, 1965. Lindberg, David C. Roger Bacon’s Philosophy
Gauricus, Pomponius. De sculptura (1504). of Nature: a Critical Edition with English
Edited and translated by André Chastel Translation, Introduction, and Notes of De
and Robert Klein. Geneva, 1969. multiplicatione specierum and De speculis
Geta e Birria. Edited by Costantino Arlia. comburentibus. Oxford, 1983.
Bologna, 1879. Lombard, Peter. Sententiae in IV libris
Ghiberti, Lorenzo. Lorenzo Ghibertis distinctae. Edited by Collegium S.
Denkwürdigkeiten. Edited Julius von Bonaventurae, 2 vols. Rome, 1971–81.
Schlosser. 2 vols. Berlin, 1912. Lucretius. De rerum natura. Edited by
I Commentari. Edited by Ottavio William Henry Denham Rouse. Loeb
Morisani. Naples, 1947. Classical Library. Cambridge, MA, 1924;
I commentarii. Edited by Lorenzo Bartoli. repr. 1953.
Florence, 1998. Magnus, [Saint] Albertus [B. Alberti
Gilbert of Hoyland. Sermones in Canticum Magni]. Opera Omnia. Edited by Augusti
Salomonis 30.2, Vol. 184 of Patrologiae Borgnet, 38 vols. Paris, 1890.
Cursus Completus, Series Latina. Edited Magnus, [Saint] Albertus. Book of Minerals.
by Jacques-Paul Migne, 221 vols. Paris, Translated by Dorothy Wyckoff. Oxford,
1844–1855. 1967.
Giovio, Paolo. Dialogo dell’imprese militari e Manetti, Antonio. Vita. Translated and
amorose. Edited by Maria Luisa Doglio. edited by Howard Saalman. University
Rome, 1978. Park and London, 1970.
Gradenigo, Jacopo. Gli Quattro Evangelii Vita di Filippo Brunelleschi preceduta da La
concordati in uno. Edited by Francesca Novella del Grasso. Edited by Domenico
Gambino. Bologna, 1999. di Robertis. Milan, 1976.
Grosseteste, Robertus. Commentarius in Masi, Bartolomeo. Ricordanze di Bartolomeo
Posteriorum Analyticorum Libros. Edited Masi Calderaio Fiorentino dal 1478 al 1526.
by Pietro Rossi. Unione Accademica Florence, 1906.
Nazionale Corpus Philosophorum Medii Medici, Lorenzo de’. Ricordi del Magnifico
Aevi, Testi e Studi, II. Florence, 1981. Lorenzo di Piero di Cosimo de’ Medici
Holmyard, Eric J., and Desmond C. Cavati da due fogli scritti di sua propria
Mendeville, eds. Avicennae de Congelatione mano. Estratti da un codice della publica
et Conglutinatione Lapidum, Being Sections Liberia Magliabechiana e stampati nel nuovo
of the Kitab al-Shifa. Paris, 1927. Lunario della Toscana dell’anno, 1775.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 205
Ambra (Descriptio Hiemis). Edited by Petrarch, Francesco. Petrarch’s Lyric Poems.

Rossella Bessi. Florence, 1986. The Rime Sparse and Other Lyrics. Edited
Stanze. Edited by Raffaella Castagnola. and translated by Robert M. Durling.
Florence, 1986. Cambridge, MA, 1976.
Il Libro delle Rime. Edited by Franca Pliny. Natural History. Translated by Harris
Brambilla Ageno. Florence, 1990. Rackham. 10 vols. Cambridge, MA,
Comento de’ miei sonetti. Edited by Tiziano 1938–1962.
Zanato. Florence, 1991. Polidori, Filippo Luigi, ed. Istorie fioren-
The Autobiography of Lorenzo de’ Medici tine scritte da Giovanni Cavalcanti. 2 vols.
The Magnificent: A Commentary on My Florence, 1838–1839.
Sonnets.Translated by James Wyatt Cook. Pseudo-Savonarola. A far littere de oro.
Binghamton, NY, 1995. Alchimia e tecnica della miniatura in un ric-
Meditations on the Life of Christ. An Illustrated ettario rinascimentale. Edited by Antonio
Manuscript of the Fourteenth Century. P. Torresi. Ferrara, 1992.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. Ital. 115. Pungileoni, Luigi. Elogio storico di Giovanni
Translated by Isa Ragusa and Rosalie B. Santi. Pittore e poeta padre del gran Raffaello
Green. Princeton, NJ, 1961. di Urbino. Urbino, 1822.
Mesaries, Nikolaos. Description of the Richa, Giuseppe. Notizie istoriche delle
Church of the Holy Apostles at Constan chiese fiorentine. 10 vols. Florence,
tinople. Edited and translated by Glanville 1754–1762.
Downey. In Transactions of the American Rucellai, Bernardo. “De erbe Roma.”
Philosophical Society 47 (1957): 855–918. In Codice topografico della città di Roma.
Methodii, S. P .N. Ex Libro De resurrectione. Edited by Roberto Valentini and
In Opera Omnia. Vol. 18 of Patrologiae Giuseppe Zucchetti. Fonti per la Storia
Cursus Completus, Series Graeca. Edited d’Italia, no. 91, vol. 4, p. 445. Rome,
by Jacques-Paul Migne, 161 vols. Paris, 1940–1953.
1857–1866. Sacchetti, Franco. Il trecentonovelle. Edited
Musurillo, Herbert. The Acts of the by Antonio Lanza. Florence, 1984.
Christian Martyrs. 2 vols. Oxford, 1972; Savonarola, Girolamo. Prediche di Fra Giro-
rev. 2000. lamo Savonarola de’ predicatori. Florence,
Naldi, Naldo. Epigrammaton Liber. Budapest, 1845.
1943. Scoti, Joannis. Expositiones super ierar-
Negroni, Carlo, ed. La BibbiaVolgare secondo la chiam caelestem S. Dionysii. In Opera
rara edizione del I Ottobre MCCCCLXXI. Omnia. Vol. 122 of Patrologiae Cursus
Bologna, 1886. Completus, Patrologia Latina. Edited by
Origen. [Origenis]. Libros Octo Contra Jacques-Paul Migne, 217 vols. Paris,
Celsum. In Origenis. Opera Omnia. Vol. 11 1841–1902.
of Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Smith, Cyril Stanley, and John G. Hawthorne,
Graeca. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, ed. Mappae Clavicula. A Little Key to the
161 vols. Paris, 1857–1866. World of Medieval Techniques. Philadelphia,
Contra celsum. Translated by Henry PA, 1974.
Chadwick. Cambridge, UK, 1953; repr. Sordello. The Poetry of Sordello. Edited and
1980. translated by James J. Wilhelm. New
Palissy, Bernard. Les oeuvres de maistre York, 1987.
Bernard Palissy. Edited by Bernard Fillon. Strozzi, Alessandra Macinghi. Lettere di
2 vols. Niort, France, 1888. una gentildonna fiorentina del secolo xv ai
Passerini, Luigi. Curiosità storico-artistiche figliuoli esuli. Edited by Cesare Guasti.
fiorentine, 2 vols. Florence, 1866. Florence, 1877.
206 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Theophilus Presbyter. De diversis artibus, and Architects. Florence, 1568. Edited by

Book III.Translated and edited by Charles Gerald Baldwin Brown. Translated by
Reginald Dodwell. London, 1961. Louise S. Maclehouse. New York, 1960.
Tosatti, Bianca Silvia. Il Manoscritto Veneziano. Le Vite de’ piu eccellenti pittori, scultori e
Un manuale di pittura e altre arti – minia- architetori nelle redazioni del 1550 del 1568.
ture, incisione, vetri, vetrate e ceramiche – di Edited by Rosanna Bettarini. Annotated
medicina, farmacopea e alchimia del quattro- by Paola Barocchi. 7 vols. Florence,
cento. Milan, 1991. 1966–1987.
Valori, Niccolò. Vita di Lorenzo de’ Medici. Vercellensis, Alberti Advogdrii. “De
Edited by Enrico Niccolini.Vicenza, 1991. Religione et Magnificentia Illustris
Vasari, Giorgio. Le vite de’ più eccellenti pit- Cosmi Medices Florentini,” Book 2,
tori, scultori ed architettori. 1550; revised p. 142. Vol. 12 of Deliciae Eruditorum.
1568. Edited by Gaetano Milanesi. 9 vols. Transcribed by Giovanni Lami. 18 vols.
Florence, 1878. Florence, 1742.
Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction Verino, Ugolino. De illustratione urbis floren-
to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, tiae. Florence, 1636.
Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives Epigrammatum libri septem. In Epigrammi.
of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors Edited Francesco Bausi. Messina, 1998.
SECONDARY SOURCES
Acidini Luchinat, Cristina, ed., The Chapel in Firenze.” OPD restauro 17 (2005):
of the Magi: Benozzo Gozzoli’s Frescoes 47–70.
in the Palazzo Medici- Riccardi, Florence. Agnoletti, Stefano, Flavia Callori, Fabrizio
London, 1994. Jacopini, et al. “Note sul restauro del
ed. Benozzo Gozzoli’s Chapel of the monumento funebre mediceo di
Magi Restored and Rediscovered. In Andrea del Verrocchio.” Kermes 6, no. 1
The Early Medici and their Artists. Edited (February 1988): 10–17.
by Francis Ames-Lewis, 125–52. London, Agosti, Giovanna, and Rosanna Moradei.
1995. “Note preliminari sulla tecnica di
Adini, Giunia, and Dario Del Puppo. esecuzione del San Giovanni Battista
Immaginare l’Autore. Il ritratto del letter- di Michelozzo.” In La scultura in terra-
ato nella cultura umanistica. Edited by cotta. Tecniche e Conservazione. Edited by
Giovanna Lazzi. Exh. cat. Biblioteca Maria Grazia Vaccari, 217–24. Florence,
Riccardiana, Florence, March 26–June 1996.
27, 1998. Florence, 1998. Ahern, John. “Singing the Book: Orality
Adorno, Piero. Il Verrocchio. Nuove proposte in the Reception of Dante’s Comedy.”
nella civilità artistica del tempo di Lorenzo il In Dante: Contemporary Perspectives.
Magnifico. Florence, 1991. Edited by Amilcare A. Iannucci, 216–39.
Agamben, Giorgio. Stanzas. Word and Toronto, 1997.
Phantasm in Western Culture. Translated Ainsworth, Maryan W. Petrus Christus:
by Ronald R. Martinez. Theory Renaissance Master of Bruges, with
and History of Literature, vol. 69. Contributions. Edited by Maximiliaan
Minneapolis, MN, 1993. P. J. Martens. Exh. cat., Metropolitan
Agnoletti, Stefania, Annalena Brini, Museum of Art, New York, April 14–
Edilberto Formigli et al., “Il restauro July 31, 1994. New York, 1994.
della statua bronzea del San Matteo di “Some Theories about Paper and Parch-
Lorenzo Ghiberti da Orsanmichele ment as Supports for Early Netherlandish
BIBLIOGRAPHY 207
Paintings.” In La peinture dans les Pays- The Intellectual Life of the Early Renaissance
Bas au 16ème siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Artist. New Haven, CT, 2000.
Infrarouge et autres méthodes d’investiga- Anderson, Christie, Anne Dunlop, and
tion, Colloque XII pour l’étude du dessin Pamela H. Smith, eds. The Matter of Art.
sous-jacent et de la technologie dans la Materials, Practices, Cultural Logics, c. 1250–
peinture, Bruges 11–14 settembre 1997. 1750. Manchester, 2015.
Edited by Hélène Verougstraete and Andreoni, Andreina, Fabio Burrini,
Roger van Schoute, 251–60. Leuven, Francesca Kumar, et al.“I putti dell’‘An-
1999. nunciazione’ di Donatello in Santa
Akbari, Suzanne Conklin. Seeing Through Croce. Vicende, ipotesi e intervento.”
The Veil. Optical Theory and Medieval In La scultura in terracotta. Techniche e
Allegory. Toronto, 2004. Conservazione. Edited by Maria Grazia
Aldobrandino da Siena. Trattato dei cinque Vaccari, 246–54. Florence, 1996.
sensi dell’uomo con altre scritture del buon Androsov, Szergej. Andrea Verrocchio, 1435–
secolo della lingua: allegate nel Vocabolario 1488. Leningrad, 1984.
della Crusca. Florence, 1872. Arasse, Daniel. “Entre Dévotion et Culture:
Allaire, Gloria. “Un ignoto manoscritto Fonctions de l’Image Religieuse au XVe
di Guerrino il Meschino di Andrea da Siècle.” In Faire Croire; Modalités de la diffu-
Barberino nella Biblioteca Apostolica sion et de la réception des messages religieux du
Vaticana.” La Bibliofilia 96, no. 3 (1994): XIIe au XVe siècle; Table ronde, Rome, 22–23
232–39. juin, 1979, Collection de l’École Francaise
Andrea da Barberino and the language of de Rome, 51, 132–46. Rome, 1981.
chivalry. Gainesville, FL, 1997. Avery, Charles, and Anthony Radcliffe.
Allen, Denise, ed., with Peta Motture. “The ‘Chellini Madonna’ by Donatello.”
Andrea Riccio. Exh. cat., The Frick The Burlington Magazine, 118, no. 879
Collection, New York, October 15, (1976): 377–87.
2008–18 January, 2009. New York, Avery, Charles. “La cera sempre aspetta.
2008. Wax sketch models for sculpture.” Apollo
“Crafting a Profession: Cellini’s Discus- 119 (1984): 166–76.
sion of Precious Stones and Jewelry in “Donatello’s Madonnas reconsidered.”
His Treatises.” In Marks of Identity. Edited Apollo 124, no. 295 (1986): 174–82.
by Dimitrios Zikos, 42–61. Pittsburgh, Badt, Kurt. “Drei plastische Arbeiten von
PA, 2012. Leone Battista Alberti.” Mitteilungen des
Ames-Lewis, Francis. “Early Medician Kunsthistorisches Institutes in Florenz 8, no.
devices.” Journal of the Warburg and 2 (1957–59): 78–87.
Courtauld Institutes 42 (1979): 122–43. Bagnoli, Alessandro. “Lando di Pietro,
Drawing in Early Renaissance Italy. New Crocifisso.” In Scultura Dipinta. Maestri di
Haven, CT, 1981. legname e pittori a Siena 1250–1450. Edited
The Library and Manuscripts of Piero de’ by Alessandro Angelini et al., 66–67. Exh.
Medici. New York, 1984. cat. Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena, July
“Matteo de’ Pasti and the use of powdered 16–December 31, 1987. Florence, 1987.
gold.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Bailey, Elizabeth. “Raising the mind to
Instituts in Florenz 29 (1984): 351–62. god: the sensual journey of Giovanni
“Art in the service of the family.” In Morelli (1371–1444) via devotional
Piero de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’ (1416–1469). images.” Speculum 84, no. 4 (October
Kunst im Dienste der Mediceer. Art in the 2009): 984–1008.
Service of the Medici. Edited by Andreas Baldini, Umberto, and Paolo Dal Poggetto,
Beyer and Bruce Boucher, 207–20. eds. Firenze restaura. Il laboratio nel suo
Berlin, 1993. quarantennio. Florence, 1972.
208 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldini, Umberto and Barbara Schleicher. Barry, Fabio. “Walking on water: cosmic
“Antonio del Pollajolo Crocifisso.” In floors in antiquity and the middle ages.”
Metodo e scienza. Operatività e ricerca nel Art Bulletin 139, no. 4 (December 2007):
restauro. Edited by Umberto Baldini, 627–57.
50–3. Exh. cat. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, Bartoli, Lorenzo. “Rewriting history:
June 23, 1982–January 6, 1983. Florence, Vasari’s Life of Lorenzo Ghiberti.” Word
1982. and Image 13, no. 3 (July–September
Balogh, Jolán. Katalog der ausländischen 1997): 245–52.
Bildwerke des Museums der bildenen Künste Bartoli, Roberta. Biagio d’Antonio. Milan,
in Budapest. 2 vols. Budapest, 1975. 1999.
Bambach, Carmen C. Drawing and Painting in Barzman, Karen-edis. The Florentine Acad
the Italian Renaissance Workshop:Theory and emy and the Early Modern State: The
Practice, 1300–1600. Cambridge, UK, 1999. Discipline of Disegno. Cambridge, UK,
“Introduction to Leonardo and His 2000.
Drawings.” In Leonardo da Vinci. Mas- Bassett, Jane. The Craftsman Revealed:
ter Draftsman. Edited by Carmen C. Adriaen de Vries, Sculptor in Bronze. Los
Bambach, 3–30. Exh. cat. The Metro- Angeles, 2008.
politan Museum of Art, New York, Battaglia, Salvatore. Grande Dizionario della
January 22–March 30, 2003. New Haven, Lingua Italiana. 21 vols. Turin, 1961.
CT, 2003. Battisti, Eugenio. Brunelleschi. The Complete
ed. Leonardo da Vinci. Master Draftsman. Works. Trans. Robert Erich Wolf. New
Exh. cat. The Metropolitan Museum of York, 1981; Milan, 2002.
Art, New York, January 22–March 30, Baxandall, Michael. Giotto and the Orators.
2003. New Haven, CT, 2003. Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy
Baracchini, Clara, ed. Scultura lignea. Lucca and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition
1200–1425. Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale 1350–1450. Oxford, 1971.
di Palazzo Mansi and Museo Nazionale The Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance
di Villa Guinigi, Lucca, December 16, Germany. New Haven, CT, 1980.
1995–30 June, 1996. 2 vols. Florence, Words for Pictures: Seven Papers on
1995. Renaissance Art and Criticism. New
Barkan, Leonard. The Gods Made Flesh. Haven, CT, 2003.
Metamorphosis and the Pursuit of Paganism. Bearzi, Bruno. “Considerazioni di tec-
New Haven, CT, 1986. nica sul S. Ludovico e la Giuditta di
Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Donatello,” Bolletino d’arte 36 (1951):
Aesthetics in the Making of Renaissance 119–23.
Culture. New Haven, CT, 1999. “La tecnica fusoria di Donatello.” In
Barocchi, Paola, ed. Scritti del Arte del Donatello e il suo tempo. Atti dell’ VIII
Cinquecento. 3 vols. Milan, 1973. convegno internazionale di studi sul

Barolsky, Paul. “In praise of Folly.” Source 20 rinascimento, Florence-Padua, Septem-
no. 2 (Winter 2001): 8–12. ber 25–October 1, 1966, 97–106. Flor-
“Verrocchio’s vision in bronze.” In ence, 1968.
Visions of Holiness: Art and Devotion in “Un itinerario tra i bronzi di Donatello.”
Renaissance Italy. Edited by Andrew In Atti del convegno sul restauro delle opera
Ladis and Shelley E. Zuraw, 191–93. dell’arte. Edited by Annamaria Giusti,
Athens, GA, 2001. 95–100. Florence, 1981.
Barr, Cyrilla. The Monophonic Lauda and Bec, Christian. Les livres des Florentines
the Lay Religious Confraternities of Tuscany (1413–1608). Florence, 1984.
and Umbria in the Late Middle Ages. Becherucci, Luisa. Donatello. I pergami di
Kalamazoo, MI, 1988. San Lorenzo. Florence, 1979.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 209
Beck, Herbert, Maraike Bückling, and Belting, Hans. The Image and Its Public in
Edgar Lein. Die Christus-Thomas-Gruppe the Middle Ages. Form and Function of
von Andrea del Verrocchio. Frankfurt am Early Paintings of the Passion. Translated
Main, 1996. by Mark Bartusis and Raymond Meyer.
Beck, James. “Masaccio’s early career as a New Rochelle, NY, 1990.
sculptor.” Art Bulletin 2 (1971): 177–95. Beltrami, Luca. Documenti e memorie rituar-
Jacopo dell Quercia, 2 vols. New York, danti la vita e le opera di Leonardo da Vinci.
1991. Milan, 1919.
Becker, Marvin B. “Aspects of Lay Piety Bemporad, Dora Liscia. “Per Andrea del
in Early Renaissance Florence.” In The Verrocchio orafo.” Medioevo e Rinascimento
Pursuit of Holiness. Edited by Charles 16, n.s. 13 (2002): 189–206.
Trinkaus and Heiko A. Oberman, 177–99. Benay, Erin E. “The pursuit of truth and
Leiden, 1974. the doubting Thomas in the art of early
Beecher, Donald. “The lover’s body: the modern Italy.” Ph.D. diss., Rutgers
somatogenesis of love in Renaissance University, 2009.
medical treatises.” Renaissance and Benay, Erin E. and Lisa M. Rafanelli. Faith,
Reformation/Renaissance et Réform 24 Gender and the Senses in Italian Renaissance
(1988): 1–11. and Baroque Art. Farnham, Surrey, 2015.
Bellosi, Luciano. “Ipotesi sull’origine delle Bennett, Jane. Vibrant Matter: A Political
terrecotte quattrocentesche.” In Jacopo Ecology of Things. Durham, NC, 2010.
della Quercia fra gottico e rinascimento. Atti Bennett, Jill. “Stigmata and sense mem-
del convegno di studi, Siena, 1975, 163– ory: St. Francis and the affective image,”
79. Florence, 1977. Art History 24, no. 1 (February 2001):
“Donatello e il recupero della scul- 1–16.
tura in terracotta.” In Donatello-Studien, Bentivoglio, Enzo. “Nel cantiere del pala-
Italienische Forsungen, 3.f., XVI. Edited zzo del cardinale Raffaele Riario (la
by Monika Cämmerer, 130–45. Munich, Cancelleria): organizzazione, materi-
1989. ali, maestranze, personaggi.” Quaderni
“Andrea Verrocchio.” In Pittura di dell’Istituto di Storia dell’Architettura, ser.
luce. Giovanni di Francesco e l’arte fior- XXVII, 1982, ns. 169–74 (1983), 27–34.
entina di metà Quattrocento. Edited by Berenson, Bernard. “Verrocchio e
Luciano Bellosi, 177–83. Exh. cat. Casa Leonardo, Leonardo e Credi.” Bollettino
Buonarroti, Florence, May 16–August d’arte 27, nos. 5 and 6 (1933): 193–214,
20, 1990. Milan, 1990. 241–64.
“The Landscape ‘alla fiamminga’.” In The Drawings of the Florentine Painters. 3
Italy and the Low Countries – Artistic vols. Chicago, IL, 1938.
Relations:The Fifteenth Century. Proceedings Bernacchioni, Annamaria. “Le Botteghe
of the Symposium Held at Museum di pittura: luoghi, strutture e attività.”
Catharijneconceny, Utrecht, March 14, 1994. In Maestri e botteghe: pittura a Firenze
Edited by Victor M. Schmidt, Gert Jan alla fine del Quattrocento. Edited by Mina
van der Sman, et al., 97–108. Florence, Gregori, Antonio Paolucci, and Cristina
1999. Acidini Luchinat, 23–34. Exh. cat.
Bellucci, Roberto and Cecilia Frosinini. Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, October 16,
“Working Together: Masaccio’s and 1992–January 10, 1993. Milan, 1992.
Masolino’s Technique and Technical Bernardi, Claudio. “La funzione della
Innovations in Panel Painting.” In The deposizione di Cristo il venerdi santo
Panel Paintings of Masolino and Masaccio: nella chiesa francescana di S. Angelo
The Role of Technique. Edited by Carl a Milano (secolo XVII).” Medioevo e
Strehlke, 29–67. Milan, 2002. Rinascimento n.s., 6, no. 3 (1992): 235–49.
210 BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Deposizioni e Annunciazioni.” In Blindheim, Martin. Painted Wooden Sculpture

Il teatro delle statue. Gruppi lignei di in Norway c. 1100–1250. Oslo, 1998.
Depozione e Annunciazione tra XII e XIII Bloch, Amy R. “Donatello’s Chellini
secolo. Edited by Francesca Flores d’Ar- Madonna, Light, and Vision.” In
cais, 69–85. Milan, 2005. Renaissance Theories of Vision. Edited by
Berti, Luciano, Alessandro Cecchi, and John Shannon Hendrix and Charles H.
Antonio Natali. Donatello. Florence, 1986. Carman, 63–88. Farnham, Surrey, 2010.
Bessi, Rossella.“Ancora sulla data dell’Ambra Bloch, Amy R. Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Gates of
Laurenziana.” Interpres 11 (1991): 345–47. Paradise. Humanism, History, and Artistic
Bewer, Francesca G.“Vannoccio Biringuccio’s Philosophy in the Italian Renaissance. New
De la pirotecnica (Venice, 1540) and bronze York, 2016.
sculpture.” M. Phil. thesis. University of Boffa, David. “Divine illumination and
London, 1985. the portrayal of the miraculous in
“The Sculpture of Adriaen de Vries: A Donatello’s St Louis of Toulouse.” Simiolus:
Technical Study,” in Small Bronzes in Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art
the Renaissance. Edited by Debra Pincus, 31, no. 4 (2004–2005): 279–91.
159–93.Vol. 62 of Studies in the History of Bol, Marjolijn and Ann-Sophie Lehmann.
Art. New Haven, CT, 2001. “Painting Skin and Water. Towards a
Beyer,Andreas.“Funktion und Repräsentation: Material Iconography of Translucent
die Porphyr-Rotae der Medici.” In Piero Motifs in Early Netherlandish Painting.”
de’ Medici, ‘il Gottoso’ (1416–1469). Kunst im In Rogier Van der Weyden in Context. Edited
Dienste der Mediceer. Art in the Service of the by Lorne Campbell, 214–25. Paris, 2012.
Medici. Edited by Andreas Beyer and Bruce Bolzoni, Lina. Rete delle immagini: predicazi-
Boucher, 151–67. Berlin, 1993. one in volgare dalle origini a Bernardino da
Beyer, Andreas, and Bruce Boucher. Siena. Turin, 2002.
“Introduction.” In Piero de’ Medici ‘il The Web of Images. Vernacular Preaching
Gottoso’ (1416–1469). Kunst im Dienste der from Its Origins to St Bernardino da Siena.
Mediceer. Art in the Service of the Medici. Translated by Carole Preston and Lisa
Edited by Andreas Beyer and Bruce Chien. Aldershot, 2004.
Boucher, xv–xx. Berlin, 1993. Bombe, Walter. “Die Sammlung Adolph v.
Beyer, Andreas. “Verus oculus oder die Beckerath,” Der Cicerone 8 (1916): 167–86.
Konversion des Andrea del Verrocchio.” Boni, Bruno.“La palla di rame di S. Maria del
In Die Christ-Thomas Gruppe von Andrea Fiore.” Notiziario Vinciano 2 (1978): 35–44.
del Verrocchio. Edited by Herbert Beck, Böninger, Lorenz.“Diplomatie im Dienst der
Maraike Bückling, and Edgar Lein, 103– Kontinuität. Piero de’ Medici zwischen
19. Frankfurt, 1996. Rom und Mailand (1447–1454).” In Piero
Biernoff, Suzannah. Sight and Embodiment de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’ (1416–1469). Kunst
in the Middle Ages. London, 2002. im Dienste der Mediceer. Art in the Service of
Black, Robert. “Education and the the Medici. Edited by Andreas Beyer and
Emergence of a Literate Society.” In Bruce Boucher, 39–54. Berlin, 1993.
Italy in the Age of the Renaissance. Edited Bormand, Marc, Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi,
by John M. Najemy, 18–36. Oxford, and Nicholas Penny. Desiderio da
2004. Settignano. Sculptor of Renaissance Florence.
“Literacy in Florence, 1427.” In Florence Exh. cat. Musée du Louvre, Paris,
and Beyond. Culture, Society and Politics in October 26, 2006–January 22, 2007,
Renaissance Italy. Essays in Honour of John Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence,
M. Najemy. Edited by David S. Peterson February22–June 3, 2007, National
and Daniel E. Bornstein, 195–210. Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, July1 –
Toronto, 2008. October 8, 2007. Milan, 2007.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 211
Bormand, Marc. Donatello: La Vierge e l’En- Albert Museum, London, March 14–July
fant; deux reliefs en terre cuite. Paris, 2008. 7, 2002. New Haven, CT, 2001.
Bornstein, Daniel. The Bianchi of 1399: ed. Earth and Fire. Italian Terracotta
Popular Devotion in Late Medieval Italy. Sculpture from Donatello to Canova. Exh.
New York, 1993. cat. The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston,
Borsook, Eve. Review of Le ricordanze, by November 18, 2001–February 3, 2002,
Neri di Bicci, edited by Bruno Santi. Art and The Victoria and Albert Museum,
Bulletin 61, no. 2 (1979): 313–18. London, March 14–July 7, 2002. New
Borrelli, Licia Vlad. “Considerazioni su tre Haven, CT, 2001.
problematiche teste di cavallo.” Bollettino Branciforte, Suzanne. “Poetry as Document:
d’arte 87, no. 71 (1992): 67–82. A Popolaresco Account of Life in
Boschetto, Luca. “Burchiello e il suo ambi- Quattrocento Florence.” M. A. thesis,
ente sociale: esplorazioni d’archivio sugli UCLA, 1986.
anni fiorentini.” In La fantasia fuor de’ Brink, Sonja.“Die Berliner ‘Verkündigung’
confini. Burchiello e dintorni a 550 anni dalla und der ‘David’ von Pollaiuolo.” Jahrbuch
morte (1449–1999). Atti del convegno, der Berliner Museen 32 (1990): 153–71.
Firenze, 1999. Edited by Michelangelo Brooks, Neil C. The Sepulchre of Christ in Art
Zaccarello, 35–57. Rome, 2002. and Liturgy. University of Illinois Studies in
“Ghiberti e i tre compare. Un nuovo Language and Literature, 7:2. Urbana, 1921.
documento sulla fusione dei telai della Brown, Alison M. “Pierfrancesco de’
seconda porta del Battistero.” Mitteilungen Medici, 1430–1476: a radical alternative
des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz to elder Medicean supremacy?” Journal
53, no. 1 (2009): 145–9. of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 42
Boskovits, Miklós. “Arte e Formazione (1979): 81–103.
Religiosa: Il Caso del Beato Angelico,” The Medici in Florence: The Exercise and
In Miklós Boskovits. L’Uomo di fronto Language of Power. Florence, 1992.
all’arte. Valori estetici e valori etico-religiosi. “Lucretius and the Epicureans in
Milan, 1986, 153–64; republished in the social and political context of
Miklós Boskovits. Immagini da meditare. Renaissance Florence.” I Tatti Studies in
Ricerche su dipinti di tema religoso nei secoli the Italian Renaissance 9 (2001): 11–62.
XII–XV. Milan, 1994, 369–95. Brown, Beverley Louise. “The patronage
“Immagine e preghiera nel tardo medi- and building history of the Tribuna of
oevo: osservazioni preliminary.” Arte SS. Annunziata in Florence: a reappraisal
Cristiana 76 (1988): 93–104; repr. in in light of new documents.” Mitteilungen
Miklós Boskovits. Immagini da meditare. des Kunsthistorisches Institutes in Florenz
Ricerche su dipinti di tema religoso nei secoli 25 (1981): 59–142.
XII–XV. Milan, 1994, 73–106. Brown, Bill ed. “Things.” Critical Inquiry
Boström, Antonia, ed. Encyclopedia of Special Issue 28, no. 1 (2001): 1–363.
Sculpture. 3 vols. New York and London, Brown, David Alan, and Charles Seymour,
2004. Jr. “Further Observations on a Project
Boucher, Bruce. The Sculpture of Jacopo for a Standard by Verrocchio and
Sansovino. 2 vols. New Haven, CT, 1991. Leonardo.” Master Drawings 12, no. 2
“Italian Renaissance Terracotta: Artistic (Summer 1974): 127–33.
Revival or Technological Innovation?” Brown, David Alan. “Verrocchio and
In Earth and Fire. Italian Terracotta Sculpture Leonardo: Studies for the Giostra.” In
from Donatello to Canova. Edited by Bruce Florentine Drawing at theTime of Lorenzo the
Boucher, 1–31. Exh. cat.The Museum of Magnificent. Edited by Elizabeth Cropper,
Fine Arts, Houston, November 18, 2001– 99–109. Villa Spelman Colloquia, vol. 4,
February 2, 2002, and The Victoria and Florence, 1992. Bologna, 1994.
212 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Leonardo da Vinci: Origins of a Genius. Political Reality in the Renaissance.” In

New Haven, CT, 1998. Lorenzo de’ Medici. Studi. Edited by Gian
“Leonardo apprendista.” Lettura vinciana Carlo Garfagnini, 3–40. Florence, 1992.
39 (April 17, 1999). Florence, 2000. “Possessing Antiquity: Agency and
“The Presence of the Young Leonardo Sociability in Building Lorenzo de’
in Verrocchio’s Workshop.” In Verrocchio’s Medici’s Gem Collection.” In Humanism
David Restored. A Renaissance Bronze and Creativity in the Renaissance. Essays
from the National Museum of the Bargello, in Honor of Ronald G. Witt. Edited by
Florence. Edited by Gary M. Radke, 55–60. Christopher S. Celenza and Kenneth
Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Gouwens, 85–111. Leiden, 2006.
Florence, October 7–November 9, Burger, Fritz. Geschichte des Florentinischen
2003, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, Grabmals von der ältesten Zeiten bis
November 22, 2003–February 8, Michelangelo. Strasbourg, 1904.
2004, and the National Gallery of Art, Burrini, Fabio, and Paolo Nencetti. “The
Washington, DC, February 13–March Restoration of the Bronze Figures of
21, 2004. Florence, 2003. Christ and St. Thomas.” In Verrocchio’s
Brucker, Gene. “Voices from the Catasto, Christ and St Thomas. A Masterpiece
1427–1480.” I Tatti Studies 5 (1993): of Sculpture from Renaissance Florence.
11–32. Edited Loretta Dolcini, 25–35. Exh.
Brugnoli, Maria Vittoria.“Documenti, noti- cat. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, and The
zie e ipotesi sulla scultura di Leonardo.” Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
In Leonardo, saggi e ricerche. Edited by York, December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993.
Achille Marazza, 359–89. Rome, 1954. New York, 1992.
Brunetti, Brunetto Giovanni. “The Busignani,Alberto.“Maso di Bartolommeo,
Workshop.” In The Painting Technique Pasquino da Montepulciano e gli inizi
of Pietro Vannucci Called Il Perugino. di A. Verrocchio.” Antichità Viva 1, no. 1
Proceedings of the LabS TECH (1962): 35–39.
Workshop. Edited by Brunetto Butterfield, Andrew. “The Christ and St.
Giovanni Brunetti, Claudio Seccaroni, Thomas of Andrea del Verrocchio.”
and Antonio Sgamellotti, 9–11. Kermes In Verrocchio’s Christ and St Thomas. A
quaderni, 17. Florence, 2004. Masterpiece of Sculpture from Renaissance
Brusegan, Rosanna, ed. Fabliaux. Racconti Florence. Edited by Loretta Dolcini, 53–
francesi medievali. Turin, 1980. 79. Exh. cat. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence,
Bucklow, Spike. The Alchemy of Paint. Art, and The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Science and Secrets from the Middle Ages. New York, December 5, 1992–April 17,
London, 2009. 1993. New York, 1992.
Buettner, Brigitte. “From Bones to Stones: “Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas:
Reflections on Jeweled Reliquaries.” In chronology, iconography, and political
Reliquiare im Mittelalter. Edited by Bruno context.” The Burlington Magazine 134,
Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint, 43–59. no. 1069 (April 1992): 225–33.
Berlin, 2005. “Documents for the Pulpits of San
Bule, Steven. “A Unique Partnership: Lorenzo, Florence.” Mitteilungen des
Matteo Civitali and Domenico Orsolino.” Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 38
In Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento Italian (1994): 147–53.
Sculpture. Edited by Steven Bule, Alan The Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio.
Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi New Haven, CT, 1997.
Gioffredi, 363. Florence, 1992. “Monument and Memory in Early
Bullard, Melissa Miriam. “Lorenzo de’ Renaissance Florence.” In Art, Memory,
Medici: Anxiety, Image Making, and and Family in Renaissance Florence. Edited
BIBLIOGRAPHY 213
by Giovanni Ciappelli and Patricia Lee Callman, Ellen. “Apollonio di Giovanni

Rubin, 135–60. Cambridge, UK, 2000. and painting for the early Renaissance
Butterfield, Andrew, and Caroline Elam, room,” Antichità Viva 27, nos. 3–4 (1988):
with a Contribution fromVictor Coonin. 5–18.
“Desiderio da Settignano’s Tabernacle Calvet, Antoine. “Le Tractatus paraboli-
of the Sacrament.” Mitteilungen des cus du pseudo- Arnaud de Villeneuve.”
Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 43, Chrysopoeia 5 (1992–96): 145–71.
nos. 2/3 (1999): 333–357 Camesasca, Ettore. Artista in bottega. Milan,
Butters, Suzanne. The Triumph of Vulcan. 1966.
Sculptors’ Tools, Porphyry, and the Prince in L’opera completa del Perugino. Milan,
Ducal Florence. 2 vols. Florence, 1996. 1969.
Cadogan, Jean. “Linen Drapery studies by Camille, Michael. “Before the Gaze. The
Verrocchio, Leonardo and Ghirlandaio.” Internal Senses and Late Medieval
Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 46 (1983): Practices of Seeing.” In Visuality Before
27–62. and Beyond the Renaissance. Seeing as
“Reconsidering some aspects of Others Saw. Edited by Robert S. Nelson,
Ghirlandaio’s drawings.” Art Bulletin 65 197–223. Cambridge, UK, 2000.
(June 1983): 274–90. Campbell, Stephen J. Review of The
Domenico Ghirlandaio. Artist and Artisan. Intellectual Life of the Early Renaissance
New Haven, CT, 2000. Artist, by Francis Ames-Lewis, Art
Caglioti, Francesco. “Bernardo Rossellino Bulletin 83, no. 1 (Mar. 2001): 150–52.
a Roma: I. Stralci del carteggio medi- Cabinet of Eros. Renaissance Mythological
ceo (con qualche briciola sul Filarete).” Painting and the Studiolo of Isabella d`Este.
Prospettiva 64 (October 1991): 49–59. New Haven, CT, 2006.
“Due restauratori per le antichità Canfield, Gabriella Befani.“The Florentine
dei primi medici: Mino da Fiesole, Humanists’ Concept of Architecture in
Andrea del Verrocchio e il ‘Marsia rosso’ the 1430s and Filippo Brunelleschi.” In
degli Uffizi. I.” Prospettiva 72 (1993): Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Federigo
17–42. Zeri. Edited by Mauro Natale, vol. 1,
“Due restauratori per le antichità dei 112–21. 2 vols.Venice, 1984.
primi medici: Mino da Fiesole, Andrea Cannon, Joanna, and André Vauchez.
del Verrocchio e il ‘Marsia rosso’ degli Margherita of Cortona and the Lorenzetti:
Uffizi. II.” Prospettiva 73–74 (January– Sienese Art and the Cult of a Holy Woman
April, 1994): 74–96. in Medieval Tuscany. University Park, PA,
“La tomba verrocchiesca dei ‘cosmi- 1999.
adi’ e la basilica di San Lorenzo: ante- Cannon-Brookes, Peter. “Verrocchio prob-
fatti e primi successi.” Annali della scuola lems.” Apollo 99 (January 1974): 8–19.
normale superiore di Pisa series 4, vol. 1 Canuti, Fiorenzo. Il Perugino. 2 vols. Siena,
(1996): 127–54. 1931.
“Da una costola di Desiderio: Due Cardellini, Ida. Desiderio da Settignano.
Marmi Giovanili del Verrocchio.” In Milan, 1962.
Desiderio da Settignano. Atti del con- Carducci, Giosuè, ed. L’Orfeo e le Rime
vegno internazionale di studi (Firenze, di Messer Angelo Ambrogini Poliziano.
Kunsthistorisches Institut-Settignano, Villa Florence, 1863.
I Tatti, The Harvard University Center for Carl, Doris. “Zur Goldschmiedefamilie
Italian Renaissance Studies, 9–12 mag- Dei mit neuen Dokumenten zu Antonio
gio 2007). Edited by Beatrice Paolozzi Pollaiuolo und Andrea Verrocchio.”
Strozzi, Joseph Connors, Alessandro Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes
Nova, et al., 123–50.Venice, 2011. in Florenz 26, no. 2 (1982): 129–66.
214 BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Das Inventar von Filippino Lippi Castelli, Patrizia.“‘Marmi policromi e bianchi

aus dem Jahre 1504.” Mitteilungen des screziati’: In margine alle valutazioni estet-
Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 31 iche del Traversari.” In Ambrogio Traversari
(1987): 373–91. nel centenario della nascita. Convegno inter-
Benedetto da Maiano. A Florentine Sculptor nazionale di studi, Camaldoli-Firenze, 15–18
at the Threshold of the High Renaissance. settembre 1986. Edited by Gian Carlo
Regensburg, 2006. Garfagnini, 211–24. Florence, 1988.
Carletti, Lorenzo, and Cristiano Giometti. Castelnuovo, Enrico. Imago Lignea: sculture
“Medieval wood sculpture and its setting lignee nel Trentino dal XIII al XVI secolo.
in architecture: studies in some churches Trent, 1989.
in and around Pisa.” Architectural History Cecchi, Alessandro, Sandra Freschi, and
46 (2003): 37–56. Nicola MacGregor. “The conserva-
Carli, Enzo. Scultura Lignea Senese. Milan, tion of Antonio and Piero Pollaiuolo’s
1951. Altarpiece for the Cardinal of Portugal’s
Carruthers, Mary. “Moving Images in the Chapel.” The Burlington Magazine 141,
Mind’s Eye.” In The Mind’s Eye: Art and no. 1151 (February 1999): 81–8.
Theological Argument in the Middle Ages. Cecchi, Alessandro. “New Light on
Edited by Anne-Marie Bouché and Leonardo’s Florentine Patrons.” In
Jeffrey Hamburger, 287–305. Princeton, Leonardo da Vinci. Master Draftsman.
NJ, 2006. Edited by Carmen C. Bambach, 120–39.
Casciaro, Raffaele. “Indagini su materi- Exh. cat. The Metropolitan Museum of
ali e sulle tecniche: I Primi Riscontri.” Art, New York, January 22–March 30,
In Rinascimento scolpito: Maestri del legno 2003. New Haven, CT, 2003.
tra Marche e Umbria. Edited Raffaele Botticelli. Milan, 2005.
Casciaro, 243–9. Exh. cat., convento Botticelli e l’età di Lorenzo il Magnifico.
di San Domenico, Camerino, May 5– Florence, 2007.
November 5, 2006. Milan, 2006. Celenza, Christopher. The Lost Renaissance:
Cascio, Agnès, and Juliette Lévy. “Technical Humanists, Historians, and Latin’s Legacy.
Study and Restoration of La Belle Baltimore, MD, 2004.
Florentine.” In Desiderio da Settignano. Cèndali, Lorenzo. Giuliano e Benedetto da
Sculptor of Renaissance Florence. Edited Majano. San casciano (Val di Pesa), 1926.
by Marc Borman, Beatrice Paolozzi Chapman, Hugo, and Marzia Faietti. Fra
Strozzi, and Nicholas Penny, 158–9. Exh. Angelico to Leonardo. Italian Renaissance
cat. Musée du Louvre, Paris, October Drawings. Exh. cat. The British Museum,
26, 2006–January 22, 2007, Museo London, April 22–July 25, 2010. London,
Nazionale del Bargello, Florence, 2010.
February 22–June 3, 2007, National Ciatti, Marco, and Teresa Cianfanelli. “‘San
Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, July 1– Girolamo’: attr. Andrea del Verrocchio
October 8, 2007. Milan, 2007. (Firenze 1435–Venice 1488), Firenze,
Cassanelli, Roberto, ed. “Artisti in Bottega. Palazzo Pitti, Galleria Palatina.” OPD.
Luoghi e prassi dell’arte alle soglie Restauro 3 (1991): 181–83.
della modernità.” In La bottega dell’arti- Clark, Kenneth. Leonardo da Vinci: An
sta tra medioevo e rinascimento. Edited by Account of His Development as an Artist.
Roberto Cassanelli, 7–29. Milan, 1998. Cambridge, UK, 1924; repr., Baltimore,
ed. La bottega dell’artista tra medioevo e MD, 1967.
rinascimento. Milan, 1998. Clarke, Georgia. “Ambrogio Traversari:
Castaldi, Enrico. Ricordi da vecchie carte artistic adviser in early fifteenth-century
sangimignanesi per le nozze Castaldi- Florence?” Renaissance Studies 11 (1997):
Fratiglioni. Poggibonsi, 1909. 161–78.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 215
Classen, Constance. The Deepest Sense. A “L’ultima età dell’oro.” In Bagliori dorati.
Cultural History of Touch. Urbana, IL, 2012. Il Gotico Internazionale a Firenze 1375–
Clearfield, Janis. “The Tomb of Cosimo 1440. Edited by Antonio Natale, Enrica
de’ Medici in San Lorenzo.” Rutgers Art Neri Lusanna, and Angelo Tartuferi,
Review 2 (1981): 13–30. 62–9. Exh. cat. Galleria degli Uffizi,
Cohen, Jeffrey Jerome. “Stories of stone.” Florence, June 19–November 4, 2012.
Postmedieval: A Journal of Medieval Florence, 2012.
Cultural Studies 1 (2010): 56–63. Concioni, Graziono, Claudio Ferri, and
Cole, Andrew. “The call of things: a Giuseppe Ghirladucci. Matteo Civitali nei
critique of object- oriented ontolo- documenti d’archivio. Lucca, 2001.
gies.” The Minnesota Review 80 (2013): Cook, Theodore Andrew. Leonardo da Vinci
106–18. Sculptor. London, 1923.
“Those obscure objects of desire.” Coonin, Arnold Victor. “New documents
Artforum (Summer 2015): 318–23. concerning Desiderio da Settignano
Cole, Michael Wayne. “Cellini’s blood.” Art and Annalena Malatesta.” Burlington
Bulletin 81 (1999): 216–35. Magazine 137, no. 113 (December 1995):
Cellini and the Principles of Sculpture. 792–9.
Cambridge, UK, 2002. Cooper, Donal. “Projecting Presence: The
“The Medici Mercury and the Breath Monumental Cross in the Italian Church
of Bronze.” In Large Bronzes in the Interior.” In Presence: The Inherence of the
Renaissance. Edited by Peta Motture, Prototype within Images and Other Objects.
129–53. V ol. 64 of Studies in the History Edited by Robert Maniura and Rupert
of Art. New Haven, CT, 2003. Shephard, 47–69. Aldershot, 2005.
“The Cult of Materials.” In Revival and Coor, Gertrude. Neroccio de’ Landi.
Invention. Ed. Sébastien Clerbois and Princeton, NJ, 1961.
Martina Droth, 1–15. Oxford, 2011. Corbellini, Sabrina.“The Plea for Lay Bibles
ed. Donatello, Michelangelo, Cellini: in Fourteenth and Fifteenth Century
Sculptors’ Drawings from Renaissance Tuscany: The Role of Confraternities.”
Italy. Exh. cat. Isabella Stewart Gardner In Faith’s Boundaries. Laity and Clergy
Museum, Boston, October 23, in Early Modern Confraternities. Edited
2014-January 23, 2015. London, 2014. by Nicholas Terpstra, Adriano Prosperi,
Colenbrander, Herman. “The and Stefania Pastore, 87–112. Turnhout,
Leonardesque Designs for the Madonna 2012
di Piazza.” In ‘Aux Quatre Vents.’ A “Vernacular Bible Manuscripts in Late
Festschrift for Bert W. Meijer. Edited by Medieval Italy: Cultural Appropriation
Anton W. A. Boschloo, Edward Grasman, and Textual Transformation.” In Form
and Gert Jan van der Sman, 33–38. and Function in the Late Medieval Bible.
Florence, 2002. Edited by Eyal Poleg and Laura Light,
Collareta, Marco. “The interaction of 264–81. Leiden, 2013.
painting and sculpture in the art of Corbellini, Sabrina, and Margriet
Perugino.” Artibus et historiae 24, no. 47 Hoogvliet. “Artisans and religious read-
(2003): 103–20. ing in Late Medieval Italy and Northern
“‘Aes Corinthium’: fortuna letteraris France (ca. 1400–ca. 1520).” Journal of
di un materiale antico.” In L’industria Medieval and Early Modern Studies 43, no.
artistica del bronzo Rinascimento a Venezia 3 (Fall 2013): 521–44.
e nell’Italia settentrionale. Proceedings of Corbin, Solange. La Deposition Liturgique
the symposium (Venice, 23–24 October du Christ au Vendredi Saint. Sa place dans
2007). Edited by Matteo Ceriana and l’histoire des rites et due theater religieux.
Victoria Avery, 297–301.Verona, 2008. Paris, 1960.
216 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cornelison, Sally J. “When an Image Is Cristanetti, Simona. “The Kress Madonna:

a Relic: The St. Zenobius Panel from revelations of an extraordinary sculp-
Florence Cathedral.” In Images, Relics, ture.” Techne. Centre de Recherches des
and Devotional Practices in Medieval Musées de France 36 (2012): 47–53.
and Renaissance Italy. Edited by Sally J. Crocchiante, Giovanni Carlo. L’istoria delle
Cornelison and Scott B. Montgomery, chiese della città di Tivoli. Rome, 1726.
95–113. Tempe, AZ, 2006. Cropper, Elizabeth, ed. Review of
Cornish, Alison. Vernacular Translation in Michelangelo and the Language of Art, by
Dante’s Italy. Illiterate Literature. Cambridge, David Summers. Art Bulletin 665 (1983):
UK, 2011. 157–62.
Corti, Gino, and Frederick Hartt. “New ed. Florentine Drawing at the Time of
documents concerning Donatello, Luca Lorenzo the Magnificent. Villa Spelman
and Andrea della Robbia, Desiderio, Colloquia, vol. 4, Florence, 1992.
Mino, Uccello, Pollaiuolo, Filippo Lippi, Bologna, 1994.
Baldovinetti and Others.” Art Bulletin 44 Cruttwell, Maud. Verrocchio. London, 1904.
(1962): 155–67. Dalarun, Jacques, and Lino Leonardi,
Covi, Dario A. “Four new documents eds. Biblioteca Agiografica Italiana (BAI).
concerning Andrea del Verrocchio.” Art Repetorio di testi e manoscritti, secoli XIII–
Bulletin 48, no. 1 (March 1966): 97–103. XV. 2 vols. Florence, 2003.
“The date of the commission of D’Alberto, Claudia. “Il crocifisso par-
Verrocchio’s Christ and St. Thomas.” lante di Santa Brigida di Svezia nella
The Burlington Magazine 10 (1968): 37. Basilica di San Paolo fuori le mura e i
“Verrocchio and the Palla of the crocifissi replicati, copiati e riprodotti
Duomo.” In Art the Ape of Nature. a Roma al tempo del Papato avignon-
Studies in Honor of H. W. Janson. Edited ese.” Studi Medievali e Moderni 1–2
by Moshe Barasch and Lucy Freeman (2011): 229–55.
Sandler, 151–69. New York, 1981. Dalli Regoli, Gigetta. Lorenzo di Credi.
“Verrocchio and Venice, 1469.” Art Milan, 1966.
Bulletin 65, no. 2 (1983): 253–73. “La Madonna di Piazza:‘. . . Ce n’è d’assai
“Reinterpreting a Verrocchio docu- più bella, nessuna più perfetta’.” In Scritti
ment,” Source. Notes in the History of Art di storia dell’arte in onore di Federico Zeri.
12, no. 4 (1993): 5–12. Edited by Mauro Natale, vol. 1, 213–32.
“Two new documents concerning Luca 2 vols. Milan, 1984.
della Robbia and Andrea del Verrocchio “Il trapano e la pietra: note sull’uso del
at Orsanmichele.” The Burlington Magazine trapano nella lavorazione del marmo
141 (1999): 752. fra Medioevo e Rinascimento.” Critica
Andrea del Verrocchio: Life and Work. d’arte 63 (June 2000): 31–44.
Florence, 2005. Verrocchio, Lorenzo di Credi, Francesco di
Cranston, Jodi. “The Touch of the Blind Simone Ferrucci. Trans. Susan Wise. Exh.
Man: The Phenomenology of Vividness cat. Musée du Louvre, Paris. Milan, 2003.
in Italian Renaissance Art.” In Sensible Dalucas, Elizabeth. “‘Ars erit archetypus
Flesh: On Touch in Early Modern Culture. naturae.’ Zur Ikonologieder Bronze in
Edited by Elizabeth D. Harvey, 224–42. der Renaissance.” In Von allen Seiten
Philadelphia, PA, 2002. schön. Bronzen der Renaissance und des
Crisciani, Chiara. “Hermeticism and Barock. Edited by Volker Krahn, 70–
Alchemy: the case of Ludovico 81. Exh. cat. Altes Museum, Berlin,
Lazzarelli.” Early Science and Medicine 5, October 31, 1995–January 28, 1996.
no. 2 (2000): 145–59. Berlin, 1996.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217
Damiani, Giovanna and Mario Scalini. “La bottega di Alessandro di Francesco

Islam specchio di Oriente. Rarità e prezi- Roselli merciaio e stampatore bottega
osi nelle collezioni statali fiorentine. Exh. di Alessandro di Francesco Roselli
cat. Palazzo Pitti, Florence, April 23– merciaio e stampatore (1525).” In
September 1, 2002. Livorno, 2002. Miscellanea Fiorentina di erudizione e sto-
D’Ancona, Alessandro. Origini del teatro ital- ria, vol. 2, no. 14, 24–30. 2 vols. Rome,
iano: libri tre con due appendici sulla rappre- 1978.
sentazione drammatica nel contado toscano e Del Bravo, Carlo. “Lorenzo e il monu-
sul teatro mantovano nel sec. XVI. 3 vols. ment ‘patri patruoque.’” Artista (1993):
Rome, 1891; repr. 1966. 128–37.
Darr, Alan Phipps. “Verrocchio’s Legacy: Delbrueck, Richard. Antike Porphyrywerke.
Observations Regarding His Influence Berlin, 1932.
on Pietro Torrigiani and Other Del Bufalo, Dario. Porphyry. Red Imperial
Florentine Sculptors.” In Verrocchio and Porphyry. Power and Religion. Turin,
Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture. Edited 2012.
by Steven Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, and Delcorno, Carlo. Giordano da Pisa e l’antica
Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, 125–39. predicazione volgare. Florence, 1975.
Florence, 1992. “Predicazione volgare e volgarizza-
Darr, Alan P., Peter Barnet, and Antonio menti.” Mélanges de l’Ecole Française de
Boström. Catalogue of Italian Sculpture Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps Modernes 89
in the Detroit Institute of Arts. 2 vols. (1977): 679–89.
London, 2002. Del Gallo, Elena. “Finiguerri, Stefano,
Daston, Lorraine, ed. Things That Talk: detto il Za.” In Vol. 48 of Dizionario bio-
Object Lessons from Art and Science. New grafico degli Italiani. Edited by Alberto M.
York, 2004. Ghisalberti, 55. 80 vols. Rome, 1960.
Davis, Charles T. “The early collection De Luca, Giuseppe. “Introduction.” In
of books of S. Croce in Florence.” Prosatori minori del Trecento: Scrittori di
Proceedings of the American Philosophical religione. Edited by Giuseppe De Luca.
Society 107, no. 5 (October 15, 1963): Milan, 1954.
399–414. De Marchi, Andrea. “Due passaggi di
Decaria, Alessio. “Una copista di classici Andrea del Verrocchio pittore per
italiani e i libri di Luca della Robbia.” Pistoia.” In Il Museo e la città. Vicende
Rinascimento, s. 2, vol. 47 (2007): artistiche pistoiesi del Quattrocento. Ed.
243–87. Elena Testaferrata, Giacomo Guazzini,
De Carolis, Stefano. “Scultore Tedesco and Andrea De Marchi, 67–95. Pistoia,
(Johannes Teutonichus o Paolo 2013.
Alemanno), Crocifisso (ultimo terzo del Del Puppo, Dario. “In margine ai cod-
XV secolo).” In I crocifissi lignei Riminesi. ici delle rime di Burchiello: individuo
Redenti dalla sua carne e dal suo sangue. e società nelle antologie e miscellanee
Edited by Stefano De Carolis, Learco letterarie del Quattrocento.” In La fan-
Guerra, and Rosanna Menghi, 16–19. tasia fuor de’ confini: Burchiello e dintorni
Rimini, 2012. a 550 anni dalla morte (1449–1999). Atti
Deér, Josef. The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of del convegno. Firenze, 1999. Edited by
the Norman Period in Sicily. Translated by Michelangelo Zaccarello, 101–13. Roma,
G. A. Gillhoff. Cambridge, MA, 1959. 2002.
Del Badia, Iodoco. “Le botteghe di Del Riccio, Agostino. Istoria delle pietre.
Donatello.” Miscellanea fiorentina 4 Edited by Raniero Gnoli and Attilia
(1902): 60–2. Sironi. Turin, 1996.
218 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Del Serra, Alfio. “Il restauro.” In Lo sguardo Di Domenico, Adriana. “Il ‘Cantare del
degli Angeli. Verrocchio, Leonardo e il Geta e Birria’‘visualizzato’ (e un ritratto
Battesimo di Cristo. Edited by Antonio del Burchiello) nelle illustrazioni di
Natali, 95–118. Cinisello Balsamo, un codice magliabechiano.” Rivista di
1998. Storia della Miniatura 1–2 (1996–1997):
Dempsey, Charles. Review of Michelangelo 123–30.
and the language of art, by David Summers. Diebold, William. “‘Except I Shall See . . . I
Burlington Magazine 125 (1983): 624–27. Will Not Believe’ (John 20:25):Typology,
“Lorenzo De’ Medici’s Ambra.” In Theology, and Historiography in an
Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig High Ottonian Ivory Diptych.” In Objects,
Smyth. Edited by Andrew Morrogh, Images, and the Word. Art in the Service of
Fiorella Superbi Giofreddi, Piero the Liturgy. Edited by Colum Hourihane,
Morselli, et al., vol. 2, 177–190. 2 vols. 257–73. Princeton, NJ, 2003.
Florence, 1985. Dolcini, Loretta, ed. Verrocchio’s Christ and
“La data dell ‘Ambra’ (Descriptio Hiemis) St. Thomas. A Masterpiece of Sculpture
di Lorenzo de’ Medici.” Interpres 10 from Renaissance Florence. Exh. cat.
(1990): 265–69. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, and The
The Portrayal of Love. Botticelli’s Primavera Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
and Humanist Culture at the Time of York, December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993.
Lorenzo the Magnificent. Princeton, NJ, New York, 1992.
1992. Dolphijn, Rick, and Iris van der Tuin, “A
Inventing the Renaissance Putto. Chapel ‘New Tradition’ in Thought,” in New
Hill, NC, 2001. Materialism: Interviews & Cartographies.
The Early Renaissance and Vernacular Edited by Rick Dolphijn and Iris van
Culture. Cambridge, MA, 2012. der Tuin, 86–92. Ann Arbor, MI, 2012.
Dent, Peter. “Chellini’s Ears and the Donati, Claudio. L’idea di nobilità in Italia,
Diagnosis of Technique.” In Una insalata secoli XIV–XVIII. Rome, 1988.
più erbe. A Festschrift for Patricia Lee Rubin. Doren, Alfred. “Das Aktenbuch für Ghib-
Edited by Jim Harris, Scott Nethersole, ertis Matthäus-Statue an Or San Michele
and Per Rumberg, 138–50. London, zu Florenz.” Italienische Forschungen 1
2011. (1906): 1–48.
Derbes, Anne, and Mark Sandona. The Le arti fiorentine. Translated by G. B.
Usurer’s Heart. Giotto, Enrico Scrovegni, Klein, 2 vols. Florence, 1930.
and the Arena Chapel in Padua. University Draper, James David. Bertoldo di Giovanni:
Park, PA, 2008. Sculptor of the Medici Household. Columbia,
De Robertis, Domenico. “Una proposta MO, 1992.
per Burchiello.” Rinascimento 8 (1968): Dressen, Angela. Pavimenti decorate del
3–119. Quattrocento in Italia.Venice, 2008.
De Roover, Raymond. The Rise and Droth, Martina, Frits Scholten, and
Decline of the Medici Bank, 1397–1494. Michael W. Cole. Bronze: The Power of
Cambridge, MA, 1963. Life and Death. Exh. cat. Henry Moore
San Bernardino of Siena and Sant’Antonino Institute, Leeds, September 15, 2005–
of Florence. The Two Great Economic January 7, 2006. Leeds, 2005.
Thinkers of the Middle Ages. Boston, MA, Dunkerton, Jill. “Leonardo in Verrocchio’s
1967. workshop: re- examining the techni-
Didi-Huberman, Georges. Fra Angelico. cal evidence.” National Gallery Technical
Dissemblance and Figuration. Translated Bulletin 32 (2011): 4–31.
by Jane Marie Todd. Chicago, IL and Dunkerton, Jill, Ashok Roy. “The materi-
London, 1995. als of a group of late fifteenth-century
BIBLIOGRAPHY 219
florentine panel paintings.” National Elam, Caroline.“Cosimo de’ Medici and San
Gallery Technical Bulletin 17 (1996): Lorenzo.” In Cosimo ‘il Vecchio’ de’ Medici,
20–31. 1389–1464. Essays in Commemoration of
Dunkerton, Jill, Carol Plazzotta. “Drawing the 600th anniversary of Cosimo de’ Medici’s
and Design in Italian Renaissance birth. Edited by Francis Ames-Lewis,
Painting.” In Underdrawings in Renaissance 157–80. Oxford, 1992.
Paintings. Edited by David Bomford, Elliott, Alison G. “Geta by Vitalis of Blois.”
53–79. London, 2002. Allegorica: A Journal of Medieval and
Dunkerton, Jill, Luke Syson. “In search of Renaissance Literature (Allegorica) 3, 2
Verrocchio the painter: the cleaning and (Winter 1978): 9–61.
examination of the Virgin and Child with Evans, Joan. Magical Jewels of the Middle
Two Angels.” National Gallery Technical Ages and the Renaissance, Particularly in
Bulletin 31 (2010): 4–41. England. Oxford, 1922.
“Andrea del Verrocchio’s first surviving Fahy, Everett. “Two Suggestions for
panel painting and other early works.” Verrocchio.” In Studi di storia dell’arte in
Burlington Magazine 153, no. 1299 (June onore di Mina Gregori. Edited by Miklós
2011): 368–78. Boskovits, 51–5. Milan, 1994.
Dunkerton, Jill, Susan Foister, Dillian Falletti, Franca, ed. I Medici, il Verrocchio e
Gordon, et al. Giotto to Dürer. Early Pistoia. Storia e restauro di due capolavori
Renaissance Painting in the National nella Cattedrale di S. Zeno: Il monumento
Gallery. New Haven, CT, 1991. al cardinale Niccolò Forteguerri, la Madonna
Dupré, Sven. “Optic, picture and evidence: di piazza. Livorno, 1996.
Leonardo’s drawings of mirrors and ed. “Il restauro della Madonna di Piazza:
machinery.” Early Science and Medicine 10, nuove immagini per un vecchio prob-
no. 2 (2005): 211–36. lema.” In I Medici, il Verrocchio e Pistoia.
Dupre Theiseder, Eugenio, ed. Fonti per la Storia e restauro di due capolavori nella
storia d’Italia: Epistolario di Caterina da Cattedrale di S. Zeno: Il monumento al car-
Siena. Rome, 1940. dinale Niccolò Forteguerri, la Madonna di
Durling, Robert M., “Petrarch’s ‘Giovene piazza. Edited by Franca Falletti, 74–83.
donna sotto un verde lauro’.” Modern Livorno, 1996.
Language Notes 86 (1971): 1–20. Fara, Amelio, ed., Leonardo a Piombino e
Durling, Robert M., and Ronald L. l’idea della città moderna tra Quattro e
Martinez. Time and the Crystal. Studies in Cinquecento. Florence, 1999.
Dante’s Rime Petrose. Berkeley, CA, 1990. Farago, Claire. Leonardo da Vinci’s Paragone.
Dussaussay De Mély, Ferdinand, and A Critical Interpretation. Leiden, 1992.
Charles Émile Ruelle. Les lapidaires de Fattori, Marta and Massimo Luigi Bianchi,
l’antiquité et du moyen âge. 3 vols. Paris, eds. Spiritus. IV Colloquio Internazionale
1896–192. del Lessico Intelletualle Europeo, Atti.
Dutton, Martha L. “The Medici Connec Rome, 1984.
tion: Gilbert of Hoyland’s Sermons on Fehl, Philipp. “Verrocchio’s Tomb of Piero
the song of songs in Renaissance Italy.” and Giovanni de’ Medici: Ornament
Citêaux: Commentarii cistercienses 52, nos. and the language of meaning.” In Italian
1–2 (2001): 93–119. Echoes in the Rocky Mountains. Edited by
Ekserdjian, David. Bronze. Exh. cat. The Sante Matteo, Cinzia Donatelli Noble,
Royal Academy, London, September and Madison V. Sowell, 47–60. Provo,
15–December 9, 2012. London, UT, 1990.
2012. Fidanza, Giovan Battista. “Intaglio e plas-
Ekirch, Roger. At Day’s Close: Nights in tica: considerazioni formali e tec-
Times Past. New York, 2005. niche su alcune statue della bottega di
220 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Nero Alberti.” In Sculture “da vestire.” Franceschi, Franco. Oltre il ‘Tumulto’: i

Nero Alberti da Sansepolcro e la produzi- lavoratori fiorentini. Florence, 1993.
one di manichini lignei in una bottega del “La bottega come spazio di sociabil-
Cinquecento. Edited by Cristina Galassi, ità.” Il Quattrocento. Edited by Franco
109–14. Exh. cat. Museo di Santa Croce, Franceschi and Gloria Fossi, 65–83.
Umbertide, June 11–November 6, 2005. Vol. 2 of La grande storia dell’artigianato.
Perugia, 2005. Florence, 1999.
Filieri, Maria Teresa. “Matteo Civitali Frank, Georgia. The Memory of the Eyes:
e Baldassare di Biagio ‘Pictores’.” In Pilgrims to Living Saints in Christian Late
Matteo Civitali e il suo tempo. Pittori, scul- Antiquity. Berkeley, CA, 2000.
tori e orafi a Lucca nel tardo Quattrocento. Fraser Jenkins, A. D. “Cosimo de’ Medici’s
Edited by Maria Teresa Filieri, 78–93. patronage of architecture and the theory
Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale di Villa of magnificence.” Journal of the Warburg
Guinigi, Lucca, April 2–July 11, 2004. and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970): 162–70.
Milan, 2004. Frati, Lodovico. “Cantari e sonetti ricor-
Findlen, Paula. Possessing Nature. Museums, dati nella Cronaca di Benedetto Dei.”
Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Giornale storico della letteratura italiana 4
Modern Italy. Berkeley, CA, 1994. (1884): 162–202.
Fiorilli, Carlo. “I dipintori a Firenze Freccero, John. “The fig tree and the
nell’Arte dei Medici e Speziale e Laurel: Petrarch’s poetics.” Diacritics 5,
Merciai.” Archivio storico italiano 2 (1920): no. 1 (Spring 1975): 34–40.
6–74. Freedberg, David. The Power of Images.
Flamini, Francesco. “Ricerche intorno Studies in the History and Theory of
all’elemento filosofico nei poeti del Response. Chicago, IL, 1989.
‘dolce stil novo’.” Il giornale Dantesco 18, Frey, Carl, ed. Il Codice Magliabechiano, con-
no. 5–6 (1910): 162–85. tente notizie sopra l’arte degli antichi e quella
Flaten, Arne R. “Portrait Medals and ed’ fiorentini da Cimabue a Michelangelo
Assembly-Line Art in Late Quattrocento Buonarroti scritte da Anonimo Fiorentino.
Florence.” In The Art Market in Italy Berlin, 1892.
(15th–17th Centuries). Il Mercato dell’arte in Die Loggia dei Lanzi zu Florenz: Eine
Italia (secc. xv–xvii). Edited by Marcello quellenkritische Untersuchung. Berlin, 1885.
Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew, and Sara Frugoni, Carla. “Domine, in conspectu
F. Matthews-Grieco, 127–39. Modena, tuo omne desiderium meum: Visioni
2003. e immagini in Chiara da Montefalco.”
Formigli, Edilberto. “La grande testa In S. Chiara da Montefalco e il suo tempo:
di cavallo in bronzo detta ‘Carafa’: atti del quarto Convegno di studi storici
Un’indagine tecnologia.” Bollettino d’arte ecclestiastici organizzato dall’Archidiocesi
87, no. 71 (1992): 83–90. di Spoleto, Spoleto 28–30 dicembre 1981.
“Ghiberti’s Saint Matthew and Roman Edited by Claudio Leonardi and Enrico
bronze statuary: technical investigations Menestò, 155–75. Florence, 1985.
during restoration.” In Orsanmichele and “Female Mystics, Visions, and
the History and Preservation of the Civic Iconography.” In Women and Religion in
Monument. Edited by Carl Brandon Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Edited by
Strehlke, 244–56. Vol. 76 of Studies in the Daniel Bornstein and Roberto Rusconi.
History of Art. New Haven, CT, 2012. Translated by Margery J. Schneider,
Foster, Kenelm. “Vernacular Scriptures in 130–64. Chicago, IL, 1996.
Italy.” Edited by G.W. H. Lampe, 452–65. Fulton, Christopher B. An Earthly Paradise.
Vol. 2 of The Cambridge History of the The Medici, Their Collection and the
Bible. Cambridge, UK, 1969. Foundations of Modern Art. Florence, 2006.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 221
Fumerton, Patricia. Cultural Aesthetics. Gatteschi, Riccardo. Baccio da Montelupo.

Renaissance Literature and the Practice of Scultore e architetto del Cinquecento. Florence,
Social Ornament. Chicago, IL, 1991. 1993.
Fusco, Laurie, and Gino Corti. Lorenzo Gavrilyuk, Paul L., and Sarah Coakley. The
de’ Medici: Collector and Antiquarian. Spiritual Senses. Perceiving God in Western
Cambridge, UK, 2006. Christianity. Cambridge, UK, 2012.
Gage, John. “Ghiberti’s third commentary Gaye, Giovanni. Carteggio inedito d’artisti
and its background.” Apollo 95 (1972): dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI. 3 vols. Florence,
364–69. 1839–1840.
Galassi, Maria Clelia. “The Re- Use of Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthro
Design- Models by Carta Lucida in pological Theory. Oxford, 1998.
the XVI Century Italian Workshops: Gentilini, Giancarlo. “Nella rinascita
Written Sources and an Example from dell’antichità.” In La civiltà del cotto: arte
Michele di Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio.” della terracotta nell’area fiorentina dal XV al
In La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16ème XX secolo. Edited by Antonio Paolucci,
siècle. Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouge et autres 67–99. Exh. cat. Impruneta, May–
méthodes d’investigation, Colloque XII pour October, 1980. Florence, 1980.
l’étude du dessin sous-jacent et de la technol- ed. I Della Robbia: La scultura invetriata del
ogie dans la peinture, Bruges 11–14 settem- Rinascimento. 2 vols. Florence, 1992.
bre 1997. Edited by H. Verougstraete and “In morte di Donatello: il ‘primato’ della
Roger Van Schoute, 205–13. Louvain- scultura e la sua difficile eredità.” In Il
La-Neuve, 1999. Quattrocento. Edited by Gigetta Dalli
Galli, Aldo. “The Fortune of the Pollaiuolo Regoli and Roberto Paolo Ciardi, 151–
Brothers.” In Antonio and Piero del 75. Vol. 3 of Storia delle arti in Toscana, 7
Pollaiuolo. “Silver and Gold, Painting vols. Florence, 2002.
and Bronze . . .” Edited by Andrea Di “Perugino e la scultura fiorentina del
Lorenzo and Aldo Galli, 25–77. Exh. cat. suo tempo.” In Pietro Vannucci, il Perugino.
Museo Poldi Pezzoli, Milan, November Atti del convegno internazionale di stu-
7, 2014–February 16, 2015. Milan, 2014. dio, Perugia 25–28 ottobre, 2000. Edited
Ganz, Margery A. “A Florentine friend- by Laura Teza and Mirko Santanicchia,
ship: Donato Acciaiuoli and Vespasiano 199–227. Perugia, 2004.
da Bisticci.” Renaissance Quarterly 43, no. ed. Proposta per Michelangelo Giovane. Un
2 (1990): 372–83. Crocifisso in legno di tiglio. Exh. cat. Museo
Gardner, Julian. The Tomb and the Tiara: Horne, Florence, May 8–September 4,
Curial Tomb Sculpture in Rome and Avignon 2004. Turin, 2004.
in the Later Middle Ages. Oxford, 1992. “A New, Useful and Beautiful Art.
Gargan, Luciano. “Oliviero Forzetta e la Considerations on the ‘Invention’ of
nascita del collezionismo nel Veneto.” Glazed Sculpture.” In The Springtime
In La pittura nel Veneto: il Trecento. Edited of the Renaissance. Sculpture and the Arts
by Mauro Lucco, vol. 2, 503–16. 2 vols. in Florence 1400–60. Edited by Beatrice
Milan, 1992. Paolozzi Strozzi and Marc Bormand,
Garnett, Jane, Gervase Rosser. Spectacular 188–95. Exh. cat. Florence, Palazzo
Miracles.Transforming Images in Italy from the Strozzi, 23 March–18 August 2013 and
Renaissance to the Present. London, 2013. Paris, Musée du Louvre, September
Gaston, Robert. “Liturgy and Patronage in 26, 2013–January 6, 2014. Florence,
San Lorenzo, Florence, 1350–1650.” In 2013.
Patronage, Art, and Society in Renaissance Ghisi, Federico. “Un processionale ined-
Art. Edited by F. W. Kent and Patricia ito per la Settimana Santa nell’opera
Simons, 111–33. Oxford, 1987. del Duomo di Firenze.” Rivista Musicale
222 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Italiana 55 (October–December 1953): Gramaccini, Noberto. “Das genaue

362–69. Abbild der Natur – Riccios Tiere und
Giannelli, Ida. “Il restauro del Cristo die Theorie des Naturabgusses seit
Ligneo attribuito a Michelozzo di Cennini.” In Natur und Antike in der
Bartolommeo nella chiesa di San Renaissance. Edited by Herbert Beck
Niccolò Oltrano.” In Legno e Restauro. and Peter C. Bol, 198–225. Exh. cat.
Ricerche e restauri su architetture e manu- Liebieghaus, Frankfurt, December 5,
fatti lignei. Edited by Gennaro Tampone, 1985–March 2, 1986. Frankfurt, 1985.
276–78. Florence, 1989. “Zur Ikonologie der Bronze im
Gilbert, Creighton. L’arte del Quattrocento Mittelalter.” Städel Jahrbuch 11 (1987):
nelle testimonianze coeve. Florence, 1988. 147–70.
Gill, Meredith J. Augustine in the Italian Grassi, Luigi. Il disegno italiano, Il Trecento e
Renaissance. Art and Philosophy From Quattrocento.Venice, 1961.
Petrarch to Michelangelo. Cambridge, UK, Green, Louis. “Galvanno Fiamma, Azzone
2005. Visconti and the revival of the classi-
Gilson, Simon A. Dante and Renaissance cal theory of magnificence.” Journal of
Florence. Cambridge, UK, 2005. the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 53
Ginori Conti, Piero. La Basilica di San (1990): 98–113.
Lorenzo. Florence, 1940. Gregori, Mina, Antonio Paolucci, and
Ginori Lisci, Leonardo. I palazzi di Firenze Cristina Acidini Luchinat, eds. Maestri
nella storia e nell’arte. 2 vols. Florence, 1972. e botteghe: pittura a Firenze alla fine del
Giusti, Annamaria. “8. Reliquary Casket.” Quattrocento. Exh. cat. Palazzo Strozzi,
In Art of the Royal Court.Treasures in Pietre Florence, October 16, 1992–January 10,
Dure from the Palaces of Europe. Edited by 1993. Milan, 1992.
Wolfram Koeppe, 116, cat. 8. Exh. cat. Griseri, Andreina. “Il disegno.” Storia
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New dell’arte italiana 9, no. 1 (1980): 187–226.
York, July 1–September 21, 2008. New Gronau, Georg. “Über das sogenannte
Haven, CT and London, 2008. Skizzenbuch des Verrocchio.” Jahrbuch
Case Studies in the Restoration of Medieval der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 17
and Renaissance Painted Sculpture. Forth- (1896): 65–72.
coming. Gross, Kenneth. The Dream of the Moving
Glasser, Hannelore. “Artist’s Contracts Statue. Ithaca, NY, 1992.
of the Early Renaissance.” Ph.D. diss., Grossman, Sheldon. “The Madonna and
Columbia University, 1965. Outstanding child with a pomegranate and some new
Dissertations in the Fine Arts. New paintings from the circle of Verrocchio.”
York, 1975. Report and Studies in the History of Art 2
Gnoli, Raniero. Marmora Romana. Rome, (1968): 47–69.
1971. “An anonymous Florentine drawing and
Goldthwaite, Richard. The Building of the ‘so-called Verrocchio sketchbook’.”
Renaissance Florence. Baltimore, MD and Master Drawings 10 (1972): 15–19.
London, 1980. Guasti, Cesare. La cupola di Santa Maria del
Wealth and the Demand for Art. Baltimore, Fiore illustrata con i documenti dell’archivio
MD, 1993. dell’opera secolare. Saggio di una compiuta
Gombrich, Ernst H. “The Early Medici illustrazione dell’opera secolare e del tempio
as Patrons of Art.” In Italian Renaissance di Santa Maria del Fiore. Florence, 1857.
Studies. Edited by E. F. Jacobs, 279–311. Miscellanea Pratese di cose inedite o rare
London, 1960. antiche e moderne. Prato, 1861; repr. 1982.
Grabmann, Martin. Mittelalterliches Guerri, Domenico. La corrente popolare nel
Geistesleben. Munich, 1936. rinascimento. Florence, 1931.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 223
Guidotti, Alessandro. “Battiloro e dipin- Hamburger, Jeffrey F. “Seeing and

tori a Firenze fra Tre e Quattrocento: Believing. The Suspicion of Sight
Bastiano di Giovanni e la sua clientela and the Authentication of Vision in
(dal Catasto del 1427).” In Scritti di storia Late Medieval Art and Devotion.”
dell’arte in onore di Roberto Salvini, 239– In Imagination und Wirklichkeit. Zum
49. Florence, 1984. Verhältnis von mentalen und realen Bildern
Guthmüller, Bodo. “Die volgarizzamenti.” in der Kunst der frühen Neuzeit. Edited
In Die Literatur bis zur Renaissance. Vol. 1 by Klaus Krüger and Alessandro Nova,
of Die italienische Literatur im Zeitalter 47–69. Mainz, 2000.
Dantes und am Übergang vom Mittelalter Harkness, Deborah E. The Jewel House:
zur Renaissance. Edited by August Buck, Elizabethan London and the Scientific
201–54. 2 vols. Heidelberg, 1989. Revolution. New Haven, CT, 2007.
Haastrup, Ulla.“Medieval props in the litur- Harvey, Elizabeth D. Sensible Flesh. On Touch
gical drama.” Hafnia. Copenhagen Papers in in Early Modern Culture. Philadelphia,
the History of Art 11 (1987): 133–70. PA, 2003.
Hahn, Cynthia. “Visio Dei. Changes in Hatfield, Rab. “Some unknown descrip-
Medieval Visuality.” In Visuality Before tions of the Medici Palace in 1459.” The
and Beyond the Renaissance. Seeing as Art Bulletin 52, no. 3 (September 1970):
Others Saw. Edited by Robert S. Nelson, 232–49.
169–96. Cambridge, UK, 2000. “The Compagnia de’ Magi.” Journal of
Haines, Margaret. The Sacrestia delle Messe the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33
of the Florentine Cathedral. Florence, 1983. (1970): 107–61.
“Brunelleschi and bureaucracy: the Heikamp, Detlef, and Andreas Grote,
tradition of public patronage at the eds. I Vasi. Vol 2 of Il Tesoro di Lorenzo
Florence cathedral.” I Tatti Studies 3 il Magnifico. Exh. cat. Palazzo Medici
(1989): 89–126. Riccardi, Florence, 1972. Florence, 1974.
“Giuliano da Maiano capofamiglia e Heil, Walter. “A Marble Putto by
imprenditore.” In Giuliano e la bottega dei Verrocchio.” Pantheon 27 (1969): 271–82.
da Maiano. Atti del convegno internazionale Heinzmann, Richard, ed. Die Unsterblichkeit
di studi, Fiesole, 1991. Edited by Daniela der Seele und die Auferstehung des Leibes:
Lamberini, Marcello Lotti, and Roberto Eine problemgeschichtliche Untersuchung
Lunardi, 131–42. Florence, 1994. der frühscholastischen Sentenzen- und
“Il mondo dello Scheggia: persone e Summenliteratur von Anselm von Laon
luoghi di una carriera.” In Lo Scheggia. bis Wilhelm von Auxerr. Beiträge zur
Edited by Luciano Bellosi and Margaret Geschichte der Philosophie und
Haines, 35–64. Florence, 1999. Theologie des Mittelalters: Texte und
“Artisan Family Strategies.” In Art, Untersuchungen 40.3. Münster, 1965.
Memory and the Family in Renaissance Helfenstein, Eva. “Lorenzo de’ Medici’s
Florence. Edited by Giovanni Ciapelli magnificent cups: precious vessels as
and Patricia Rubin, 163–75. Cambridge, status symbols in fifteenth- century
UK, 2000. Europe.” I Tatti Studies in the Italian
Hall, James. “Lorenzo Ghiberti and Renaissance 16, no. 1/2 (Fall, 2013):
Michelangelo in Search of the Feeling 415–44.
Hand.” In Sculpture and Touch. Edited by Heller, Barbara, and Leon P. Stodulski,
Peter Dent, 197–210. Surrey, 2014. “Recent Scientific Investigation of the
Hamburger, Jeffrey F. “The visual and the Detroit Saint Jerome.” In Petrus Christus
visionary: the image in Late Medieval in Renaissance Bruges: An Interdisciplinary
monastic devotions.” Viator 20 (1989): Approach. Edited Maryan W. Ainsworth,
161–204. 131–42. New York, 1995.
224 BIBLIOGRAPHY
“St Jerome in the Laboratory: Scientific “The Aural Space of the Sacred in
Evidence and the Enigmas of an Eyckian Renaissance Florence.” In Renaissance
Panel.” Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Florence: A Social History. Edited by
Arts, 72 (1998): 39–55. Roger J. Crum and John T. Paoletti,
Henderson, John. “Penitence and the Laity 376–93. New York, 2006.
in Fifteenth- Century Florence.” In “Preaching magnificence in renaissance
Christianity and the Renaissance. Image and Florence.” Renaissance Quarterly 61, no. 2
Religious Imagination in the Quattrocento. (Summer 2008): 325–69.
Edited by John Henderson and Timothy “Preaching to the Mob: Space, Ideas, and
Verdon, 229–49. New York, 1990. Persuasion in Renaissance Florence.” In
Herzner, Volker. “Die Kanzeln Donatellos Mobs: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry. Edited
in San Lorenzo.” Münchner Jahrbuch 23 by Nancy Van Deusen and Leonard
(1972): 101–64. Michael Koff, 203–22. Leiden, 2012.
Higgit, Catherine, and Raymond White. Hubbard, Charlotte, and Peta Motture.
“Analyses of paint media: new studies “The Making of Terracotta Sculpture:
of Italian paintings of the fifteenth and Techniques and Observations.” In Earth
sixteenth centuries.” National Gallery and Fire. Italian Terracotta Sculpture from
Technical Bulletin 26 (2005): 88–97. Donatello to Canova. Edited by Bruce
Hills, Paul. “Leonardo and Flemish paint- Boucher, 83–95. Exh. cat. The Museum
ing.” Burlington Magazine 122 (1980): of Fine Arts, Houston, November 18,
609–15. 2001–February 3, 2002, and The Victoria
“Ray, line, vision and trace in renaissance and Albert Museum, London, March
art.” Word and Image 6 (1990): 217–25. 14–July 7, 2002. New Haven, CT, 2001.
Holderbaum, James. “Notes on Triboli Hueck, Irene. “Le matricole dei pittori
I: a documented bronze by Tribolo.” fiorentini prima e dopo il 1320.” Bolletino
Burlington Magazine 99 (1957): 336–43, d’arte 57, no. 2 (1972): 114–21.
369–72. Hunter, Matthew C. Wicked Intelligence.
Holmes, Megan. Fra Filippo Lippi the Visual Art and the Science of Experiment
Carmelite Painter. New Haven, CT, 1999. in Restoration London. Chicago, IL, 2013.
“Neri di Bicci and the Commodification Hyman, Isabelle. “Notes and speculations
of Artistic Values in Florentine Painting on S. Lorenzo, Palazzo Medici, and an
(1450–1500).” In The Art Market in Italy urban project by Brunelleschi.” Journal
(15th–17th Centuries). Il Mercato dell’arte in of the Society of Architectural Historians 34,
Italia (secc. xv–xvii). Edited by Marcello no. 2 (1975): 98–120.
Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew, and Sara “Fifteenth-Century Florentine Studies:
F. Matthews-Grieco, 213–23. Modena, The Palazzo Medici and a Ledger for
2003. the Church of San Lorenzo.” Ph.D. diss.,
The Miraculous Image in Renaissance New York University, 1968. Outstanding
Florence. New Haven, CT, 2013. Dissertations in the Fine Arts. New
Hood, William. Fra Angelico at San Marco. York, 1977.
New Haven, CT, 1993. Ingold, Timothy. “Making Culture and
Hourihane, Colum, ed. Looking Beyond. Weaving the World.” In Matter, Materiality
Visions, Dreams, and Insights in Medieval and Modern Culture. Edited by Paul
Art and History. Index of Christian Art. Graves-Brown, 50–71. London, 2000.
Princeton, NJ, 2010. Israëls, Machtelt. “‘Sculptured Painting’
Howard, Peter Francis. Beyond the in Early Renaissance Florence.” In The
Written Word. Preaching and Theology Springtime of the Renaissance. Sculpture
in the Florence of Archbishop Antoninus and the Arts in Florence 1400–60. Edited
1427–1459. Florence, 1995. by Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi and Marc
BIBLIOGRAPHY 225
Bormand, 150–57. Exh. cat. Florence, Sculpture and Touch. Edited by Peter
Palazzo Strozzi, 23 March–18 August Dent, 91–106. Surrey, UK, 2014.
2013 and Paris, Musée du Louvre, Jolly, Anna. Madonnas by Donatello and His
26 September 2013–6 January 2014. Circle. Frankfurt am Main, 1998.
Florence, 2013. Jones, Lars R. “Visio Divina, Exegesis, and
Jacobs, Fredrika H. The Living Image in Beholder- Image Relationships in the
Renaissance Art. Cambridge, UK, 2005. Middle Ages and the Renaissance: Indi-
Votive Panels and Popular Piety in Early cations from Donor Figure Representa-
Modern Italy. Cambridge, UK, 2013. tions.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University,
Jacobus, Laura. “‘Flete Mecum’: the rep- 1999.
resentation of the Lamentation in Italian Jones, Lars R. “Visio Divina? Donor Figures
Romanesque art and drama.” Word and and Representations of Imagistic Devo-
Image 12, no. 1 (January–March 1996): tion: The Copy of the ‘Virgin of Bagno-
110–26. lo’ in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo,
Jacopone da Todi. Laudi, trattato e detti. Florence.” In Italian Panel Painting of the
Edited by Franca Ageno. Florence, 1953. Duecento and Trecento. Edited by Vic-
Jager, Eric. The Book of the Heart. Chicago, tor M. Schmidt, 30–55. Vol. 61 of Studies
IL, 2000. in the History of Art. New Haven, CT, 2002.
Jansen, Katherine L. “Miraculous Jung, Jacqueline E. “The Tactile and the
Crucifixes in Late Medieval Italy.” In Visionary: Notes on the Place of Sculpture
Signs, Wonders, Miracles. Representations in the Medieval Religious Imagination.”
of Divine Power in the Life of the Church. In Looking Beyond. Visions, Dreams, and
Edited by Kate Cooper and Jeremy Insights in Medieval Art and History. Edited
Gregory, 203–27. Woodbridge,VA, 2005. by Colum Hourihane, 203–40. Index of
Janson, Horst W. The Sculpture of Donatello. Christian Art. Princeton, NJ, 2010.
2 vols. Princeton, NJ, 1957; repr. 1963. Kanter, Lawrence, Pia Palladino. Fra
Janson, Horst W. “The ‘image made by Angelico. Exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum
chance’ in Renaissance thought.” In of Art, New York, October 26, 2005–
Horst W. Janson, 16 Studies, 53–74. New January 29, 2006. New Haven, CT, 2005.
York, 1973. Kecks, Ronald G. Madonna und Kind: das
Jardine, Lisa. Worldly Goods. A New History häusliche Andachtsbild im Florenz des 15.
of the Renaissance. New York, 1996. Jahrhunderts. Berlin, 1988.
Jestaz, Bertrand. La Chapelle Zen à San Marc “La formazione artistica del Ghirlandaio.”
de Venise: D’Antonio à Tullio Lombardo. In Domenico Ghirlandaio: 1449–1494. Atti
Stuttgart, 1986. del convegno internazionale, Firenze, 16–18
Joannides, Paul. “Masaccio, Masolino and ottobre, 1994. Edited by Wolfram Prinz
‘minor’ sculpture.” Paragone 38, no. 451 and Max Seidel, 43–60. Florence, 1996.
(1987): 3–24. Keele, Kenneth D. “Leonardo da Vinci’s
Johnson, Geraldine A. “Review of The physiology of the senses.” In Leonardo’s
Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, by Legacy. An International Symposium.
Andrew Butterfield.” Art Bulletin 84, no. Edited by Charles Donald O’Malley,
3 (September 2002): 526–28. 35–56. Berkeley, CA, 1969.
“Touch, Tactility and the Reception of Kemp, Martin. “Il concetto dell’anima in
Sculpture in Early Modern Italy.” In Leonardo’s Early Skull Studies.” Journal
A Companion to Art Theory. Edited by of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34
Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde, 61–74. (1971): 115–34.
Oxford, 2002. “Verrocchio’s San Donato and the Chiesina
“A Taxonomy of Touch: Tactile della Vergine di Piazza in Pistoia.”
Encounters in Renaissance Italy.” In Pantheon 56 (1998): 25–34.
226 BIBLIOGRAPHY
“The Handy Worke of the Incom Kent, Francis W. “Sainted mother, mag-
prehensible Creator.” In Writing on nificent son: Lucrezia Tornabuoni and
Hands. Memory and Knowledge in Early Lorenzo de’ Medici.” Italian History and
Modern Europe. Edited by Claire Richter Culture 3 (1997): 3–34.
Sherman and Peter M. Lukehart, 22– Kessler, Herbert L. Spiritual Seeing.
27. Exh. cat. Trout Gallery, Dickinson Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art.
College, Carlisle, PA, September 8– Philadelphia, PA, 2000.
November 25, 2000, and the Folger King, Catherine. “Effigies: Human and
Shakespeare Library, Washington, DC, Divine.” In Siena, Florence, and Padua: Art,
December 13, 2000–March 4, 2001. Society and Religion 1280–1400. Edited by
Seattle, WA, 2001. Diana Norman, vol. 2, 105–28. 2 vols.
Kennedy, Clarence, Elizabeth Wilder, and New Haven, CT, 1995.
Pèleo Bacci. The Unfinished Monument Klapisch-Zuber, Christiane. Women, Family
by Andrea del Verrocchio to the Cardinal and Ritual in Renaissance Italy. Translated
Niccolò Fortueguerri at Pistoia. Studies in by Lydia Cochrane. Chicago, IL, 1985.
the History and Criticism of Sculpture, 7. Klein, Robert. Form and Meaning: Writings
Northhampton, MA, 1932. on the Renaissance and Modern Art.
Kent, Dale. The Rise of the Medici. Oxford, Translated by Madeline Jay and Leon
1978. Wiseltier. Princeton, NJ, 1979.
“The importance of being eccentric: Knappett, Carl, and Lambros Malafouris,
Giovanni Cavalcanti’s View of Cosimo eds. Material Agency. Towards a Non-
de’ Medici’s Florence.” Journal of Medieval Anthropocentric Approach. New York,
and Renaissance Studies 9 (1979): 101–32. 2008.
Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine Koerner, Joseph. “Editorial: Factura.” Res:
Renaissance: The Patron’s Oeuvre. New Anthropology and Aesthetics 36 (Autumn
Haven, CT, 2000. 1999): 5–19.
Kent, Francis W. “‘Lorenzo . . . Amico degli Kohl, Jeanette. “Vollkommen ähn-
uomini da bene’: Lorenzo de’ Medici and lich. Der Index als Grundlage des
Oligarchy.” In Lorenzo il Magnifico e il suo Renaissanceporträts.” In Similtudo.
mondo, Convegno, 1992. Edited by Gian Konzepte der Ähnlichkeit in Mittelalter und
Carlo Garfagnini, 43–60. Florence, 1994. Früher Neuzeit. Edited by Martin Gaier,
“‘Un paradiso habitato da diavoli’: Ties Jeanette Kohl, and Alberto Saviello,
of Loyalty and Patronage in the Society 181–207. Munich and Paderborn, 2012.
of Medicean Florence.” In Le radici cristi- “Casting Renaissance Florence: The
ane di Firenze. Edited by Anna Benvenuti, Bust of Giovanni de; Medici and
Franco Cardini, Elena Giannarelli, et al., Indexical Portraiture.” In Carvings,
183–210. Florence, 1994. Casts & Collectors. The Art of Renaissance
“Lorenzo de’ Medici, Madonna Sculpture. Edited by Peta Motture, Emma
Scolastica Rondinelli, e la politica di Jones, and Dimitrios Zikos, 58–71.
mecenatismo architettonico nel con- London, 2013.
vento delle Murate a Firenze (1471–72).” Köhler, Reinhold, ed. Kleinere Schriften.
In Arte, committenza ed economia a Roma e Edited by Johannes Bolte. 3 vols. Berlin,
nelle corti del Rinascimento: 1420–1530. Atti 1898–1900.
del convegno internazionale, Roma 24–27 Kopania, Kamil. Animated Sculptures of the
ottobre 1990. Edited by Arnold Esch and Crucified Christ in the Religious Culture of
Christoph Luitpold Frommel, 353–83. the Latin Middle Ages. Warszawa, 2010.
Turin, 1995. Korman, Sally. “A St Francis by Botticelli
Lorenzo the Magnificent. Culture and in the National Gallery,” with an appen-
Politics. London, 1996. dix by Jill Dunkerton, “A Note on the
BIBLIOGRAPHY 227
Restoration of the St Francis.” Apollo Kwakkelstein, Michael. “Perugino in

(2003): 42–9. Verrocchio’s workshop: the transmission
Korte, Cheryl. “Polychromed Quattrocento of an antique striding stance.” Paragone
Sculpture in Florence.” Ph.D. diss., New Arte 55, no. 55–56 (May–July 2004):
York University, 2011. 45–61.
Kraemer, Fabian. “Ulisse Aldrovandi’s Ladis, Andrew, and Shelley E. Zuraw, ed.
Pandechion epistemonicon and the use Visions of Holiness: Art and Devotion in
of paper technology in Renaissance nat- Renaissance Italy. Athens, GA, 2001.
ural history.” Early Science and Medicine Ladner, Gerhart B. “Vegetation Symbolism
19 (2014): 398–423. and the Concept of the Renaissance.” In
Krautheimer, Richard, and Trude De artibus Opscula XL. Essays in Honor of
Krautheimer-Hess. Lorenzo Ghiberti, 2 Erwin Panofsky. Edited by Millard Meiss,
vols. Princeton, NJ, 1970. 303–22. New York, 1961.
Kris, Ernst. Meister und Meisterwerke der Lalli, Carlo, Pietro Moioli, Maria Rizzi,
Steinschneidekunst in der italienischen et al. “Il Crocifisso di Donatello nella
Renaissance. 2 vols.Vienna, 1929. Basilica di Santa Croce a Firenze.
Kristeller, Paul Oskar. “Lay Religious Osservazioni dopo il restauro.” OPD
Traditions and Florentine Platonism.” Restauro 18 (2006): 13–39.
In Paul Oskar Kristeller. Studies in LaNave, Gregory F. “Bonaventure.” In The
Renaissance Thought and Letters, 99–122. Spiritual Senses. Perceiving God in Western
Rome, 1956. Christianity. Edited by Paul L. Gavrilyuk
Krüger, Klaus. “Authenticity and Fiction: and Sarah Coakley, 159–73. Cambridge,
On the Pictorial Construction of Inner UK, 2011.
Presence in Early Modern Italy.” In Land, Norman E. The Viewer as Poet. The
Image and Imagination of the Religious Self Renaissance Response to Art. University
in Late Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Park, PA, 1994.
Edited by Reindert Falkenburg, Walter Landau, David, and Peter Parshall. The
S. Melion, and Todd M. Richardson, Renaissance Print: 1470–1550. New Haven,
37–69. Turnhout, 2007. CT, 1994.
Kumler, Aden. Translating Truth: Ambitious Lanfranc de Panthou, C. “Francesco di
Images and Religious Knowledge in Late Simone Ferrucci.” In Autour de Pérugin,
Medieval France and England. New Filippino Lippi e Michel-Ange, Vol. 1 of
Haven, CT, 2011. Dessins italiens du Musée Condé à Chantilly.
“The ‘Genealogy of Jean le Blanc’: Edited by Dominique Cordellier, 48–
Accounting for the Materiality of the 73. Exh. cat. Musée Condé, Chantilly,
Medieval Eucharist.” In The Matter of October 4, 1995–January 8, 1996. 3 vols.
Art. Materials, Practices, Cultural Logics, c. Paris, 1995.
1250–1750. Edited by Christy Anderson, Lang, S. “‘De Lineamentis’ in L. B. Alberti’s
Anne Dunlop, and Pamela H. Smith, Use of a Technical Term.” Journal of
119–140. Manchester, 2015. the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28
“Manufacturing the sacred in the mid- (1965): 331–35.
dle ages: the Eucharist and other medie- Langholm, Odd. Economics in the Medieval
val works of art.” English Language Notes Schools. Wealth, Exchange, Value, Money
53, no. 2 (Fall/Winter, 2015): 9–44. and Usury according to the Paris Theological
Kuzdale, Ann. “The reception of Gregory Tradition 1200–1350. Leiden, 1992.
in the Renaissance and reformation.” The Aristotelian Analysis of Usury. Bergen,
In A Companion to Gregory the Great. 1984.
Edited by Bronwen Neil and Matthew Lansing, Richard, ed. The Dante
Dal Santo, 359–86. Leiden, 2013. Encyclopedia. New York, 2000.
228 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lanza, Antonio. Lirici toscani del quattrocento. Lindberg, David C. Theories of Vision from
2 vols. Rome, 1973–1975. Al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago, IL, 1976.
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social: An “The Science of Optics.” In Science
Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. in the Middle Ages. Edited by David C.
Oxford, 2005. Lindberg, 338–68. Chicago, IL, 1978.
Lavin, Irving. “Bozzetti and Modelli, Leoni, Massimo. “Casting Techniques in
Notes on Sculptural Procedure from Verrochio’s Workshop when the Christ
the Early Renaissance through Bernini.” and St Thomas Was Made.” In Verrocchio’s
In Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Christ and St Thomas. A Masterpiece of
Abendlandes, Akten des 21. Internationaler Sculpture from Renaissance Florence. Edited
Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte in Bonn by Loretta Dolcini, 83–100. Exh. cat.
1964, vol. 3, 93–104. 3 vols. Berlin, 1967. Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, and The
“Donatellos Kanzeln in San Lorenzo Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
und das Wiederaufleben frühchristlicher York, December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993.
Gebrauche: ein Nachwort.” In Donatello- New York, 1992.
Studien. Edited by Monika Cämmerer, Lermolieff, Ivan Giovanni Morelli.
155–69. Munich, 1989. Kunstkritische Studien über italienische
Lehmann, Ann-Sophie. “The Matter of Malerei. Die Galerien zu München und
the Medium: Some Tools for Art – Dresden. London, 1893.
Theoretical Interpretations of Materials.” Lerner-Lehmkuhl, Hanna. Zur Struktur und
In The Matter of Art. Materials, Practices, Geschichte des florentinischen Kunstmarkets
Cultural Logics, c.1250–1750. Edited by C. im 15. Jahrhundert. Wattenscheid, 1936.
Anderson, Anne Dunlop, and Pamela H. Lightbown, Ronald. Sandro Botticelli. 2 vols.
Smith, 21–36. Manchester, 2015. Berkeley, CA, 1978.
Lein, Edgard. “Erlauterungen zur Technik Donatello and Michelozzo: An Artistic
des Bronzegusses und zur Bedeutung Partnership and Its Patrons in the Early
von Bronze im 15. Jahrhundert am Renaissance. 2 vols. London, 1980.
Beispiel des Christus-Thomas-Gruppe Lisner, Margrit. “Ein Kruzifixus des
von Andrea del Verrocchio.” In Christus- Antonio del Pollaiuolo in San Lorenzo
Thomas-Gruppe von Andrea del Verrocchio. in Florenz.” Pantheon 25, no. 5 (1967):
Edited by Herbert Beck, Maraike 319–28.
Bückling, and Edgar Lein, 233–57. Holzkruzifixe in Florenz und in der
Frankfurt am Main, 1996. Toskana von der Zeit um 1300 bis zum
Ars Aeraria: Die Kunst des Bronzegießens frühen Cinquecento. Munich, 1970.
und die Bedeutung von Bronze in der floren- Long, Pamela O. Openness, Secrecy,
tinishchen Renaissance. Mainz, 2004. Authorship. Technical Arts and the Culture
Lenzuni, Anna, ed. All’ombra del Lauro: of Knowledge from Antiquity to the
Documenti librari della cultura in età lauren- Renaissance. Baltimore, MD, 2001.
ziana. Milan, 1992. Luchs, Alison. “Lorenzo from life?
Levasti, Arrigo, ed. Mistici del Duecento e del Renaissance portrait busts of Lorenzo
Trecento. Milan, 1935. de’ Medici.” Sculpture Journal 4 (2000):
Liebenwein,Wolfgang.“Die ‘Privatisierung’ 6–23.
des Wunders: Piero de’ Medici in SS. Luciano, Eleonora, ed. Antico: the Golden
Annunziata und San Miniato.” In Piero Age of Renaissance Bronzes. Exh. cat.
de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’ (1416–1469). Kunst National Gallery of Art, Washington,
im Dienste der Mediceer. Art in the Service of DC, November 6, 2011–April 8, 2012
the Medici. Edited by Andreas Beyer and and The Frick Collection, New York,
Bruce Boucher, 251–90. Berlin, 1993. May 1–July 29, 2012. London, 2011.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 229
ed. “A More ‘Modern’ Ghiberti: The Manetti, Roberta, Giancarlo Savino. “I

Saint Matthew for Orsanmichele.” libri dei Disciplinati di Santa Maria della
In Orsanmichele and the History and Scala di Siena.” Bolletino Senese di Storia
Preservation of the Civic Monument. Edited Patria 97 (1990): 122–92.
by Carl Brandon Strehlke, 213–42. Vol. Manni, Roberto, Andreina Andreoni, and
76 of Studies in the History of Art. New Francesca Kumar. ‘L’Annunciazione
Haven, CT, 2012. Calvalcanti: Donatello, Firenze, Chiesa
Lusanna, Enrica Neri, ed. Arnolfo: alle orig- Santa Croce’. OPD Restauro 7 (1995):
ini del Rinascimento Fiorentino. Exh. cat. 185–92.
Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Florence Marani, Pietro C. Leonardo. Catalogo com-
December 21, 2005–April 21, 2006. pleto dei dipinti. Florence, 1989.
Florence, 2005. Markham Schulz, Anne. The Sculpture of
MacAndrew, Hugh. Old Master Drawings Bernardo Rossellino and His Workshop.
from the National Gallery of Scotland. Princeton, NJ, 1977.
Exh. cat. National Gallery, Washington, Marquand, Allan. “Some unpublished
DC, June 24–September 3, 1990, and monuments by Luca della Robbia.”
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, TX, American Journal of Archaeology 8, no. 2
November 3, 1990–January 13, 1991. (1893): 153–70.
Washington, DC, 1990. Luca della Robbia. Princeton, NJ, 1914.
MacGregor, Nicola, and Sandra Freschi. Marsh, David. “Aesop and the humanist
“Introduzione al restauro delle opera di apologue.” Renaissance Studies 17 no. 1
Antonio e Piero Pollaiuolo agli Uffizi.” (2003): 9–26.
In La stanza dei Pollaiuolo. I restauri, una Martelli, Mario. “Firenze.” In Letteratura
mostra, un nuovo ordinamento. Edited by italiana. Storia e geografica. Vol. 2 of L’Èta
Antonio Natale and Angelo Tartuferi, moderna. Edited by Alberto Asor Rosa,
73–85. Exh. cat. Galleria degli Uffizi, 25–201. Torino, 1988.
Florence, December 4, 2007–January 6, Angelo Poliziano. Storia e metastoria.
2008. Florence, 2007. Lecce, 1995.
Mackowsky, Hans. Verrocchio. Berlin, 1901. Letteratura fiorentina del Quattrocento. Il
Maetzke, Anna Maria, ed. Arte nell’Aretino, filtro degli anni Sessanta. Florence, 1996.
seconda mostra di restauri dal 1975 al 1979. Martinelli, Valentino. “Il non- finito di
Florence, 1979. Donatello.” In Donatello e il suo tempo,
Mahoney, Edward P. “Albert the Great and VIII Convegno Internazionale di studi sul
the Studio Patavino in the Late Fifteenth rinascimento, 1966. Edited by Umberto
and Early Sixteenth Centuries.” In Baldini et al., 179–94. Florence, 1968.
Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Edited by Martines, Lauro. “The politics of love
James A.Weisheipl, 537–63.Toronto, 1980. poetry in Renaissance Italy.” Interpres 11
Mancini, Simone, Lucia Fabbro. “In mar- (1991): 93–111.
gine al restauro di alcune sculture lignee Italian Renaissance Sextet. New York, 1994.
della bottega di Nero Alberti.” In Sculture Martini, Laura. “La rinascità della terra-
“da vestire.” Nero Alberti da Sansepolcro e cotta.” In Lorenzo di Ghiberti: materia
la produzione di manichini lignei in una bot- e ragionamenti. Edited by Mina Bacci,
tega del Cinquecento. Edited by Cristina 208–24. Exh. cat. Galleria dell’Ac-
Galassi, 125–40. Exh. cat. Museo di Santa cademia and Museo di San Marco,
Croce, Umbertide, June 11–November Florence, October 18, 1978–January 31,
6, 2005. Perugia, 2005. 1979. Florence, 1978.
230 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Marx, C. W. “The virtues of scepticism: McNeal Caplow, Harriet. “Sculptors’

a medieval interpretation of Thomas’ Partnerships in Michelozzo’s Florence.”
Doubt.” Neophilologus 71 (1981): 296–304. Studies in the Renaissance 21 (1974): 145–75.
Masi, Gino. “La ceroplastica in Firenze nei “La bottega di Michelozzo e i suoi
secoli XV–XVI e la famiglia Benintendi.” assistenti.” In Michelozzo. Scultore e
Rivista d’arte 9 (1916): 124–42. Architetto (1396–1472). Edited by Gabriele
Matteini, M., and A. Moles. “Recupero Morolli, 231–36. Florence, 1998.
di un pigmento modificato, la biacca Meiss, Millard. Painting in Florence and Siena
di piombo, mediante un trattamento after the Black Death. Princeton, NJ, 1951.
chimico.” In Metodo e Scienza. Operatività Melli, Lorenza. “Sull’uso della carta lucida nel
e ricerca nel restauro. Edited by Umberto Quattrocento e un esempio per il Pollaiolo.”
Baldini, 253–56. Exh. cat. Palazzo Paragone vol. 52, no. 36 (2001): 3–9.
Vecchio, Florence, June 23, 1982–January Menestò, Enrico. “The Apostolic Canoni
6, 1983. Florence, 1982, 253–56. zation Proceedings of Clare of Mon
Mazzi, Curzio. “L’inventario quattrocen- tefalco, 1318–1319.” In Women and Religion
tistico della Biblioteca di S. Croce in in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Edited by
Firenze.” Rivista delle biblioteche e degli Daniel Bornstein and Roberto Rusconi.
archivi 8 (1897): 16–31, 99–113, 129–47. Translated by Margaret J. Schneider, 104–
Mazzoni, Maria Donata. “Il Cristo di Badia 29. Chicago, 1996.
a Passignano. Problematiche di tecnica Mesnil, Jacques. “Portata al catasto del
artistica.” In L’arte del legno in Italia espe- padre e dell’avo del Ghirlandaio.” Rivista
rienze e indagini a confronto. Atti del con- d’arte vol. 4 (1906): 64–69.
vegno, Pergola, May 2002. Edited by Giovan Michaud-Quantin, Pierre. Somme de casu-
Battista Fidanza, 319–26. Perugia, 2005. istique et manuels de confession au moyen
McCall, Timothy. Brilliant Bodies, âge (XII–XVI siècles). Louvain, 1962.
Forthcoming. Milanesi, Gaetano.“Documenti riguardanti le
McCall, Timothy, and Sean Roberts. “Raw statue di marmo e di bronzo fatte per le
Materials and Object Lessons.” In The porte di San Giovanni di Firenze da Andrea
Routledge History of the Renaissance. Edited del Monte San Savino e da G. F. Rustici.”
by William Caferro, 105–24. London, 2017. In Gaetano Milanesi. Sulla storia dell’arte
McCrory, Martha. “The Symbolism of Toscana: Scritti varii. Siena, 1873, 247–61.
Stones: Engraved Gems at the Medici Miller, Daniel, ed. Materiality. Durham,
Grand- Ducal Court (1537–1609).” In NC, 2005.
Engraved Gems: Survivals and Revivals. Moore, Edward. Studies in Dante. First
Edited by Clifford Malcolm Brown, Series: Scripture and Classical Authors in
158–79.Vol. 54 of Studies in the History of Dante. Oxford, 1896.
Art. New Haven, CT, 1997. Morçay, Raoul. Saint Antonin, fondateur
McGinn, Bernard. The Flowering of du couvent de Saint- Marc, archeveque de
Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Florence, 1389–1459. Tours, 1914.
Mysticism – 1200–1350. New York, 1998. Morel, Philippe. “La théâtricalisation de
McKillop, Susan. “Dante and Lumen l’alchimie de la nature. Les grottes artifi-
Christi: A Proposal for the Meaning of cielles et la culture scientifique à Florence
the Tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici.” In à la fin du XVIe siècle.” Symboles de la
Cosimo ‘il Vecchio’ de’ Medici, 1389–1464. Renaissance 3 (1990): 154–83.
Edited by Francis Ames-Lewis, 245–301. Les grottes maniéristes en Italie au XVIe siècle.
Oxford, 1992. Théâtre et alchimie de la nature. Paris, 1998.
McManamon, John M. Funeral Oratory and Moreni, Domenico. Descrizione della Gran
the Cultural Ideals of Italian Humanism. Cappella delle Pietre Dure e della Sagrestia
Chapel Hill, NC, 1989. Vecchia eretta da Filippo di Ser Brunellesco
BIBLIOGRAPHY 231
situate ambedue nell’Imp. Basilica di San Müntz, Eugène. Les collections Médicis au
Lorenzo di Firenze. Florence, 1813. XVe siècle: la bibliothèque–les mobilier.
Continuazione delle memorie istoriche Paris, 1888.
dell’Ambrosiana R. Basilica di S. Lorenzo Leonardo da Vinci. Artist,Thinker, and Man
di Firenze. 2 vols. Florence, 1816–17. of Science. 2 vols. London, 1898.
Morigi, Giovanni, and Lorenzo Morigi. Murray, Alexander. Doubting Thomas
“Note tecniche sul restauro del monu- in Medieval Exegesis and Art. Rome,
ment a Bartolomeo Colleoni di Andrea 2006.
del Verrocchio.” In L’industria artistica Musacchio, Jacqueline. The Art and Ritual
del bronzo del rinascimento a Venezia e of Childbirth in Renaissance Italy. New
nell’Italia settentrionale. Atti del Convegno Haven, 1999.
Internazionale di Studi Venezia, Fondazione Myssok, Johannes. Bildhauerische Konzeption
Giorgio Cini, 23 e 24 ottobre 2007. Edited und plastisches Modell in der Renaissance.
by Matteo Ceriana and Victoria Avery, Münster, 1999.
459–79.Verona, 2008. Nagel, Alexander. “Leonardo’s Sfumato.”
Moroni, Gaetano. Dizionario di erudizione Res 24 (1993): 7–20.
storico ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri “Review of Fra Angelico: dissemblance and
giorni, 103 vols.Venice, 1840–1879. figuration, by Georges Didi-Huberman;
Morpurgo, Salomone. I Manoscritti della R. and Fra Angelico at San Marco, by William
Biblioteca Riccardiana di Firenze. Rome, Hood.” Art Bulletin 78, no. 3 (September
1893. 1996): 559–65.
Mosco, Marilena. “Lorenzo il Magnifico. I Nancy, Jean Luc. Noli me tangere. On the
vasi.” In Il museo degli Argenti. Collezioni e Raising of the Body. Translated by Sarah
collezionisti. Edited by Marilena Mosco and Clift, Pascale-Anne Brault, and Michael
Ornella Casazza, 31–45. Florence, 2004. Naas. New York, 2008.
Most, Glenn W. Doubting Thomas. Nannelli, Francesca. “Orsanmichele: Some
Cambridge, MA, 2005. Recent History.” In Orsanmichele and
Mozzati, Tommaso. “Produzioni in serie, the History and Preservation of the Civic
derivazioni e modelli: Perugino e la Monument. Edited by Carl Brandon
bottega di Andrea del Verrocchio.” In Strehlke, 314–38. Vol. 76 of Studies in the
Perugino: il divin pittore. Edited by Vittoria History of Art. New Haven, CT, 2012.
Garibaldi and Francesco Federico Nardi, Bruno. Dante e la cultura medievale.
Mancini, 95–103. Exh. cat. Galleria Bari, 1942
Nazionale dell’ Umbria, Perugia and Nel mondo di Dante. Rome, 1944.
Centro Espositivo della Rocca Paolina, Studi di filosofia medievale. Rome, 1960.
Perugia, February 28–July 18, 2004. Natali, Antonio, ed. Lo sguardo degli Angeli.
Milan, 2004. Verrocchio, Leonardo e il Battesimo di Cristo.
Giovanfrancesco Rustici. Le Compagnie del Cinisello Balsamo, 1998.
Paiuolo e della Cazzuola. Arte, letteratura, ed. “Lo sguardo degli angeli. Tragitto
festa nel’età della Maniera. Florence, 2008. indiziario per il Battesimo di Cristo di
Muessig, Carolyn. “Performance of the Verrocchio e Leonardo.” Mitteilungen des
Passion: The Enactment of Devotion in Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 42,
the Later Middle Ages.” In Visualizing no. 2/3 (1998): 252–73.
Medieval Performance. Perspectives, Histories, ed. “La Natura Artefatta.” In Leonardo
Contexts. Edited by Elina Gertsman, a Piombino e l’idea della città moderna tra
129–142. Ashgate, 2008. Quattro e Cinquecento. Edited by Amelio
Müntz, Eugène. Les arts à la cour des papes Fara, 139–48. Florence, 1999.
pendant le XVe et le XVIe siècle. 3 parts. ed. “Il Battesimo di Cristo di Verrocchio
Paris, 1878–1882. e Leonardo: ripensamenti e cronologia.”
232 BIBLIOGRAPHY
In Oltre il visibile: indagini riflettografiche. “Le Onoranze Fiorentine del 1459.

Edited by Duilio Bertani, 125–44. Milan, Poemi anonimo.” Letteratura italiana
2001. antica 12 (2011): 17–135.
ed. “Nel giro del Verrocchio.” In Perugino: Newman, Barbara. “Love’s Arrows: Christ
il divin pittore. Edited by Vittoria Garibaldi as Cupid in Late Medieval Art and
and Francesco Federico Mancini, 81–7. Devotion.” In The Mind’s Eye: Art and
Milan, 2004. Theological Argument in the Middle Ages.
Nathan, Johannes. “The Working Methods Edited by Anne-Marie Bouché and
of Leonardo da Vinci and Their Jeffrey Hamburger, 263–83. Princeton,
Relation to Previous Artistic Practice.” NJ, 2006.
Ph.D. thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art, Newman, William. Promethean Ambitions:
University of London, 1995. Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Nature.
Neilson, Christina. “Rediscovered pho- Chicago, IL, 2004.
tographs of two terracotta modelli by Niccoli, Ottavia. Vedere con gli occhi del cuore:
Verrocchio.” The Burlington Magazine alle origini del potere delle immagini. Bari,
154, no. 1316 (November 2012): 762–67. 2011.
“Andrea del Verrocchio Measured Novello, Roberto Paolo. “Giovanni di
Drawing of a Horse Facing Left.” In Balduccio da Pisa.” Ph.D. diss., Università
Donatello, Michelangelo, Cellini. Sculptor’s degli Studi Pisa, 1990.
Drawings from Renaissance Italy. Edited Nuttall, Paula. From Flanders to Florence:The
by Michael W. Cole, 142–4. Exh. cat. Impact of Netherlandish Painting, 1400–
Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, 1500. New Haven, CT, 2004.
Boston, October 23, 2014–January 23, Oberhuber, Konrad. “La problème des
2015. London, 2014. premiéres oeuvres de Verrocchio.” Revue
“Carving Life: The Meaning of Wood in de l’art 42 (1978): 63–76.
Renaissance Sculpture.” In The Matter of Onians, John. “Brunelleschi: humanist or
Art. Materials, Practices, Cultural Logics, c. nationalist?” Art History 5 (1982): 259–72.
1250–1750. Edited by Christy Anderson, Ostella, G. “Il Guerrin Meschino.” Pallante
Anne Dunlop, and Pamela H. Smith, 10, fasc. 9–10 (1932): 29–37.
223–39. Manchester, 2015 Paatz, Walter, and Elisabeth Paatz. Die
“Demonstrating ingenuity: the dis- Kirchen von Florenz: ein kunstgeschichtli-
play and concealment of knowledge in ches Handbuch. 6 vols. Frankfurt, 1952.
Renaissance artiss’ workshops.” I Tatti Pacetti, Dionisio. “La tradizione dei tratatti
Studies in the Italian Renaissance 19, no. 1 spirituali di Ugo Panziera.” Studi frances-
(Spring 2016): 63–91. cani 64 (1967): 30–77.
Newbigin, Nerida. Feste d’Oltrarno: Plays Padoa Rizzo, Anna. “Introduzione.” In
in Churches in Fifteenth-Century Florence. Maestri e botteghe: Pittura a Firenze alla
Florence, 1996. fine del Quattrocento. Edited by Mina
“Dieci sacre rappresentazioni inedite fra Gregori, Antonio Paolucci, and Cristina
Quattro e Cinquecento.” Letteratura ital- Acidini Luchinat, 19–22. Exh. cat.
iana antica 10 (2009): 21–397. Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, October 16,
“Imposing Presence: The Celebration of 1992–January 10, 1993. Milan, 1992.
Corpus Domini in Fifteenth- Century “Ancora sulla Madonna di Piazza.” In I
Florence.” In Performance, Drama and Medici, il Verrocchio e Pistoia. Storia e res-
Spectacle in the Medieval City: Essays tauro di due capolavori nella Cattedrale di
in Honour of Alan Hindley. Edited by S. Zeno: Il monumento al cardinale Niccolò
Catherine Emerson, Mario Longtin, and Forteguerri, la Madonna di piazza. Edited
Adrian P. Tudor, 87–109. Louvain, 2010. by Franca Falletti, 66–74. Livorno, 1996.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 233
Padoa Rizzo, Anna, Franca Falletti, and Gallery of Art, Washington, DC,
Luisella Pennucci. “Madonna di piazza.” February 13–March 21, 2004. Florence,
In Medici, il Verrocchio e Pistoia: Storia e 2003.
restauro di due capolavori nella cattedrale di Paolozzi Strozzi, Beatrice.“An Unpublished
S Zeno: Il monumento al cardinale Niccolò Crucifix by Andrea del Verrocchio.”
Forteguerri, la Madonna di piazza. Edited The Burlington Magazine 136, no. 1101
by Franca Falletti, 65–85. Livorno, 1996. (December 1994): 808–15.
Panvini, Bruno, ed. Le Rime della Scuola “Il crocificisso ligneo di Andrea
Siciliana. 2 vols. Florence, 1962. del Verrocchio: ritrovamento e res-
Panzanelli, Roberta, ed. Ephemeral Bodies. tauro.” OPD. Restauro 7 (1995): 11–32,
Wax Sculpture and the Human Figure. Los 97–101.
Angeles, 2008. “Il crocifisso ligneo del Verrocchio: let-
Paoletti, John T. “Fraternal Piety and ture.” Artista (1995): 30–53.
Family Power: The Artistic Patronage Paolozzi Strozzi, Beatrice, and Maria Grazia
of Cosimo and Lorenzo de’ Medici.” In Vaccari. “Verrocchio’s David: New Facts,
Cosimo ‘il Vecchio’ de’ Medici, 1389–1464. New Theories.” In Verrocchio’s David
Edited by Francis Ames-Lewis, 195–219. Restored: A Renaissance Bronze for the
Oxford, 1992. National Museum of the Bargello, Florence.
“Wooden sculpture in Italy as sacral Edited by Gary Radke et al., 13–34.
presence.” Artibus et Historiae 13 (1992): Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale del Bargello,
85–100. Florence, October 7–November 9,
“. .
. Ha fatto Piero con volunta del 2003, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta,
padre . . .: Piero de’ Medici and Corporate November 22, 2003–February 8,
Commissions of Art.” In Piero de’Medici 2004, and the National Gallery of Art,
‘il Gottoso’ (1416–1469). Kunst im Dieste Washington, DC, February 13–March
der Mediceer. Art in the Service of the Medici. 21, 2004. Florence, 2003.
Edited by Andreas Beyer and Bruce Paolozzi Strozzi, and Marc Bormand, eds.
Boucher, 221–50. Berlin, 1993. The Springtime of the Renaissance. Sculpture
“Strategies and Structures of Medici and the Arts in Florence 1400–60. Exh. cat.
Artistic Patronage in the 15th Century.” Florence, Palazzo Strozzi, March 23–
In The Early Medici and Their Artists. August 18, 2013 and Paris, Musée du
Edited by Francis Ames-Lewis, 19–36. Louvre, September 26, 2013–January 6,
London, 1995. 2014. Florence, 2013.
“Familiar Objects: Sculptural Types in Paolucci, Antonio, ed. La civiltà del cotto: arte
the Collections of the Early Medici.” In della terracotta nell’area fiorentina dal XV
Looking at Italian Renaissance Sculpture. al XX secolo. Exh cat. Impruneta, May–
Edited by Sarah Blake McHam, 79–110. December 1980. Florence, 1980.
Cambridge, UK, 1998. Park, Katherine, and Eckhard Kessler.
“Verrocchio’s David, Medici Patronage, “Psychology: The Concept of
and Contested Public Spaces.” In Psychology,” in The Cambridge History
Verrocchio’s David Restored: A Renaissance of Renaissance Philosophy. Edited by
Bronze for the National Museum of the Charles Bernhard Schmitt, Quentin
Bargello, Florence. Edited by Gary Radke Skinner, Eckhard Kessler, et al., 453–63.
et al., 61–81. Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale Cambridge, UK, 1988.
del Bargello, Florence, October 7– Parma, Elena, ed. Perino del Vaga: tra Raffaello
November 9, 2003, the High Museum e Michelangelo. Exh. cat. Galleria civica di
of Art, Atlanta, November 22, 2003– Palazzo Te, Mantua, March 18–June 10,
February 8, 2004, and the National 2001. Milan, 2001.
234 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Parronchi, Alessandro. “Leon Battista Francesco di Simone Ferrucci: itinerari di uno

Alberti as a Painter.” Burlington Magazine scultore fiorentino fra Toscana, Romagna e
101 (1962): 280–87. Montefeltro. Florence, 2007.
Passavant, Günter. Andrea del Verrocchio als Pisani, Rosanna Caterina Proto, and
Maler. Düsseldorf, 1959. Giancarlo Gentilini, eds. Il Cotto dell’Im-
Verrocchio. Sculptures, Paintings and pruneta. Maestri del Rinascimento e le for-
Drawings. Translated by Katherine naci di oggi. Exh. cat. Basilica and Chiostri
Watson. London, 1969. di Santa Maria Loggiati del Pellegrino,
Review of Sculpture of Verrocchio, by Impruneta, 2009. Florence, 2009.
Charles Seymour, Jnr. The Burlington Planiscig, Leo. Andrea del Verrocchio.Vienna,
Magazine 117 (1975): 55–6. 1941.
Penny, Nicholas. “Non-finito in Italian Plitz,Anders. The World of Medieval Learning.
fifteenth-
century bronze sculpture.” Oxford, 1981.
Antologia di belle arti n.s. 48/51 (1994): Poggi, Giovanni. “La giostra medicea del
11–15. 1475 e la ‘Pallade’ del Botticelli.” L’arte
“Cast from the Life.” Review of The (1902): 71–77.
Sculptures of Verrocchio, by Andrew Il Duomo di Firenze: documenti sulla dec-
Butterfield. Times Literary Supplement orazione della chiesa e del campanile, tratti
4957 (April 1998): 3–4. dall’archivio dell’opera. Edited by Margaret
“Pittori e botteghe nell’Italia del rinasci- Haines. 2 vols. Berlin, 1909, repr. 1988.
mento.” In La bottega dell’artista tra medi- Polcri, Alessandro. “Teoria e prassi della
oevo e rinascimento. Edited by Roberto magnificenza tra Marsilio Ficino,
Cassanelli, 31–54. Milan, 1998. Timoteo Maffei e Cosimo de’ Medici.”
Perosa, Alessandro, ed. Giovanni Rucellai ed Italian History and Culture 13 (2008):
il suo Zibaldone. 2 vols. London 1960. 111–34.
Pertz, Georg Heinrich, ed. Monumenta Pons, Nicoletta. “Dipinti a più mani” and
Germaniae Historica. Scriptores. Hannover, “L’unità delle arti in bottega.” In Maestri
1826. e Botteghe: pittura a Firenze alla fine del
Petrioli Tofani, Annamaria. “Pentimenti, Quattrocento. Edited by Mina Gregori,
metodi di trasferimento, manomissioni.” Antonio Paolucci, and Cristina Acidini
In Il Disegno. Forme, tecniche e signifi- Luchinat, 35–52 and 251–70. Exh. cat.
cati. Edited Annamaria Petrioli Tofani, Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, October 16,
Simonetta Prosperi Valenti Rodinò, and 1992–January 10, 1993. Milan, 1992.
Gianni Carlo Sciolla, 247–51. Milan, Pope-Hennessy, John. Italian Renaissance
1991. Sculpture. London, 1971; repr. 1996.
Pfisterer, Ulrich. Donatello und die “The forging of Italian Renaissance
Entdeckung der Stile 1430–1445. Munich, sculpture.” Apollo 99, no. 146 (1974):
2002. 242–67.
Pincus, Debra. The Tombs of the Doges of Luca della Robbia. Oxford, 1980.
Venice. Cambridge, UK, 2000. The Study and Criticism of Italian Sculpture.
Pini, Carlo, and Gaetano Milanesi. La scrit- Princeton, NJ, 1980.
tura di artisti italiani (sec. XIV–XVII). 3 “Deux-Madones en marbre de
vols. Florence, 1876. Verrocchio.” Revue de l’art 80 (1988):
Pisani, Linda. “The exchange of mod- 17–25.
els in Florentine workshops of the Prager, F. “A manuscript of Taccola,
Quattrocento: a sheet from the Quoting Brunelleschi on problems of
‘Verrocchio Sketchbook.’” Journal of inventors and builders.” Proceedings of the
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 67 American Philosophical Society 112 (1968):
(2006): 269–74. 131–49.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 235
Preyer, Brenda. “The Rucellai Palace.” In Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence,
A Florentine Patrician and his Palace. Vol. 2 October 7,–November 9, 2003, the High
of Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone. Museum of Art, Atlanta, November 22,
Edited Francis W. Kent, 153–225. 2 vols. 2003–February 8, 2004, and the National
London, 1960–1981. Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, February
Priesner, Claus, Bayerisches Messing, and 13–March 21, 2004. Florence, 2003.
Franz Matthias Ellmayrs. “Mössing- ed. The Gates of Paradise. Lorenzo
Werkh AO. 1780”: Studien zur Geschichte, Ghiberti’s Renaissance Masterpiece. Exh.
Technologie und zum sozialen Umfeld cat. High Museum of Art, Atlanta, April
der Messingerzeugung im vorindustriellen 28–July 15, 2007, The Art Institute of
Bayern. Stuttgart, 1997. Chicago, July 28–October 13, 2007, The
Proctor, Robert. The Printing of Greek in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
Fifteenth Century. Oxford, 1900. York, October 30, 2007–January 30,
Pyhrr, Stuart W., and José-A. Godoy. Heroic 2008, Seattle Art Museum, 26 January–
Armor of the Italian Renaissance. Filippo April 6, 2008. New Haven, CT, 2007.
Negroli and His Contemporaries. Exh. cat. “Lorenzo Ghiberti: Master
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New Collaborator.” In The Gates of Paradise.
York, October 8, 1998–January 17, 1999. Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Renaissance Masterpiece.
New York, 1998. Edited by Gary M. Radke, 50–71. Exh.
Quiviger, François. “Imagining and cat. High Museum of Art, Atlanta, April
Composing Stories in the Renaissance.” 28–July 15, 2007, The Art Institute of
In Pictorial Composition from Medieval Chicago, July 28–October 13, 2007, The
to Modern Art. Edited by Paul Taylor Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
and François Quiviger, 45–57. Warburg York, October 30, 2007–January 30,
Institute Colloquia 6. London, 2000. 2008, Seattle Art Museum, January 26–
“Relief Is in the Mind: Observations April 6, 2008. New Haven, CT, 2007.
on Renaissance Low Relief Sculpture.” “Leonardo, Student of Sculpture.” In
In Depth of Field. Relief Sculpture in Leonardo da Vinci and the Art of Sculpture.
Renaissance Italy. Edited by Donal Cooper Edited by Gary M. Radke, 15–61. Exh. cat.
and Mariko Leino, 169–89. Bern, 2007. High Museum of Art, Atlanta, October 6,
Radcliffe, Anthony. “New Light on 2009–February 21, 2010, and The J. Paul
Verrocchio’s Beheading of the Baptist.” Getty Museum, Los Angeles, March 23–
In Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento June 20, 2010. New Haven, CT, 2009.
Italian Sculpture. Edited by Steven Bule, Raff, Thomas. Die Sprache der Materialien:
Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Anleitung zu einer Ikonologie der Werkstoffe.
Gioffredi, 117–23. Florence, 1992. Munich, 1994.
Renaissance and Later Sculpture in the Ragghianti, Carlo Ludovico. “Inizio di
Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection. London, Leonardo.” Critica d’arte 2 (March 1954):
1992. 102–18; and Critica d’arte 4 (July 1954):
Radke, Gary M. “Benedetto da Maiano 302–29.
and the Use of Full Scale Preparatory “La giovinezza e lo svolgimento artistico
Models in the Quattrocento.” In di Domenico Ghirlandaio.” L’arte n.s. 6,
Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento Italian 38 (1935): 167–98, 341–73.
Sculpture. Edited by Steven Bule, Alan Randolph, Adrian W. B. Engaging Symbols:
Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Gender, Politics and Public Art in Fifteenth-
Giofreddi, 217–24. Florence, 1992. Century Florence. New Haven, CT, 2002.
Radke,Gary M.,ed.Verrocchio’s David Restored: Touching Objects. Intimate Experiences in
A Renaissance Bronze for the National Italian Fifteenth-Century Art. New Haven,
Museum of the Bargello, Florence. Exh. cat. CT, 2014.
236 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Rasario, Giovanna, ed. Il Cavaliere a San Rockwell, Peter. The Art of Stoneworking: A
Cassiano. Opificio delle Pietre Dure di Reference Guide. Cambridge, UK, 1993.
Firenze. Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale del Roscoe, William. The Life of Lorenzo de’
Bargello, Florence, March 30–June 30, Medici, Called The Magnificent. Revised
1995. Florence, 1995. by Thomas Roscoe. London, 1895.
Rasario, Giovanna, and Luigi Canocchi. Roselli, Piero.“Brunelleschi in San Lorenzo.
“Sculture lignee policrome: modelli Contributi alla cronologia dell’edificazi-
operativi di restauro (parte II).” In La one,” Antichità viva 18, no. 2 (1979): 36–43.
scultura lignea policroma. Ricerche e mod- L’edificazione della basilica di S. Lorenzo.
elli operative di restauro. Edited by Laura Una vicenda di importanza urbanistica.
Sperenza, 57–70. Florence, 2007. Florence, 1980.
Rees-Jones, Stephen. “A fifteenth-century Rosenauer, Artur. “Zum Stil der frühen
Florentine Terracotta relief: technology– Werke Domenico Ghirlandajos.” Wiener
conservation–interpretation.” Studies in Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 22 (1969):
Conservation 23 (1978): 95–113. 59–85.
Refini, Eugenio. “‘Aristotile in par- Studien zum frühen Donatello: Skulptur
lare materno’: vernacular readings of im projectiven Raum der Neuzeit. Vienna,
the ethics in the Quattrocento.” I Tatti 1975.
Studies in the Italian Renaissance 16, nos. “Orsanmichele: The Birthplace of
1/2 (2013): 311–41. Modern Sculpture.” In Orsanmichele and
Reichling, Dietrich. Appendices ad Hainii– the History and Preservation of the Civic
Copingeri Repertorium bibliographicum: Monument. Edited by Carl Brandon
additiones et emendationes. 7 vols. Munich, Strehlke, 167–78.Vol. 76 of Studies in the
1905–1911. History of Art. New Haven, CT, 2012.
Reti, Ladislao. “Parting of gold and silver Rosser, Gervase. “Beyond naturalism in art
with nitric acid in a page of the Codex and poetry: Duccio and Dante on the
Atlanticus of Leonardo da Vinci.” Isis 56, road to Emmaus.” Art History 35, no. 3
no. 3 (Autumn, 1965): 307–19. (2012): 474–97.
Ringbom, Sixten. “Devotional images Rossi, Daniele. “Restoring the Coronation
and imaginative devotions. Notes on of the Virgin in San Gimignano
the place of art in late medieval private (Including Some Observations on Piero
piety.” Gazette des Beaux Arts 73 (March del Pollaiuolo’s Painting Technique).” In
1969): 159–70. Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo. “Silver
Rizzo, Silvia. Il Lessico Filologico degli uman- and Gold, Painting and Bronze. . .” Edited
isti. Rome, 1973. by Andrea Di Lorenzo and Aldo Galli,
Roberts, Sean. “Tricks of the Trade. The 131–37. Exh. cat. Museo Poldi Pezzoli,
Technical Secrets of Early Engraving.” Milan, November 7, 2014–February 16,
In Visual Cultures of Secrecy in Early 2015. Milan, 2014.
Modern Europe. Edited by Timothy McCall, Rossi, Ferdinando. “La laterna della cupola
Sean Roberts, and Giancarlo Fiorenza, 182– di Santa Maria del Fiore e i suoi res-
207. Kirksville, MI, 2013. tauri,” Bollettino d’arte 41 (1956): 128–43.
“Inventing engraving in Vasari’s Rossi, Vittorio. “L’indole e gli studi di
Florence.” Intellectual History Review Giovanni di Cosimo de’ Medici.”
(2014): 1–22. Rendiconti dell’Accademia dei Lincei, classe
Robertson, Kellie. “Medieval things: mate- di scienze morali, storiche e Filologiche series
riality, historicism, and the premodern 5, no. 2 (1893): 38–60, 129–50.
object,” Literature Compass 5 (2008): 1–21. “Dante nel Trecento e nel Quattrocento.”
“Medieval materialism: a manifesto.” In Vittorio Rossi. Saggi e discorsi su Dante.
Exemplaria 22 (2010): 99–118. Florence, 1930, 293–32.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 237
Rothstein, Bret. “Vision and devotion Acidini Luchinat, 117–18. Exh. cat.
in Jan van Eyck’s Virgin and Child with Ospedale degli Innocenti, Florence, 8
Canon Joris van der Paele.” Word and Image April–26 July, 1992. Florence, 1992.
15, no. 3 (1999): 262–76. “La sagrestia vecchia.” In San Lorenzo
Rouse, Richard H., and Mary A. Rouse. 393–1993. L’architettura. Le vicende della
Cartolai, Illuminators and Printers in fabbrica. Edited by Gabriele Morolli and
Fifteenth-Century Italy. The Evidence of the Pietro Ruschi, 41–6. Florence, 1993.
Ripoli Press. Los Angeles, CA, 1988. Ruspoli, Ilaria Bischi, and Michele
Roy, Ashok. “Perugino’s Certosa di Pavia Maccherini. “Giuliano o Benedetto
Altarpiece: New Technical Perspectives.” da Maiano. Crocifisso (1474 circa).” In
In The Painting Technique of Pietro Vannucci Benedetto da Maiano a San Gimignano.
Called Il Perugino. Proceedings of the LabS La riscoperta di un crocifisso dimenti-
Tech. Edited by Brunetto Giovanni cato. Edited by Michele Maccherini,
Brunetti, Claudio Seccaroni, and 105–109, 106–107. Exh. cat. Galleria
Antonio Sgamellotti, 13–20. Florence, d’Arte Moderna R. de Grada, San
2004. Gimignano, March 21–June 21, 2009.
Rubin, Miri. Corpus Christi: The Eucharist San Gimignano, 2009.
in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge, Saalman, Howard. “San Lorenzo: the 1434
UK, 1991. Chapel Project.” Burlington Magazine
Rubin, Patricia Lee. “Magnificence and 120 (1978): 358–61.
the Medici.” In The Early Medici and Filippo Brunelleschi: The Cupola of Santa
Their Artists. Edited by Frances Ames- Maria del Fiore. London, 1980.
Lewis, 37–50. London, 1995. “Strozzi Tombs in the sacristy of Santa
Rubin, Patricia Lee, and Alison Wright. Trinita.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden
Renaissance Florence, The Art of the 1470s. Kunst 38 (1987): 149–60.
Exh. cat. National Gallery, London, “Review of Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo
October 20, 1999–January 16, 2000. Zibaldone II. A Florentine patrician
London, 1999. and his palace.” Journal of the Society of
Rubin, Patricia Lee. Images and Identity in Architectural Historians 47 (1988): 82–90.
Fifteenth-Century Florence. New Haven, Filippo Brunelleschi. The Buildings.
CT, 2007. London, 1993.
Rubinstein, Nicolai. The Government of Salzburg, Rosa. “The word on the street:
Florence under the Medici, 1434 to 1494. street performers and devotional texts in
Oxford, 1966; 2nd edn., 1997. Italian Renaissance cities.” The Italianist
“The De optime cive and the De 34, no. 3 (2014): 336–48.
principe by Bartolomeo Platina.” In Sansterre, Jean-Marie. “Attitudes occiden-
Tradizione classica e letteratura umanistica: tales à l’égard des miracles d’images dans
Per Alessandro Perosa. Edited by Roberto la haut Moyen Âge.” Annales. Histoire.
Cardini et al., vol. 1, 375–89. 2 vols. Social Sciences 53, no. 6 (1998): 1219–41.
Rome, 1985. Scaglia, Gustina. “Leonardo’s non-inverted
Rublack, Ulinka. “Matter in the Material writing and Verrocchio’s measured
Renaissance.” Past and Present 219 (May drawing of a horse.” The Art Bulletin 64
2013): 41–85. (1982): 32–44.
Rudy, Gordon. The Mystical Language of Scalini, Mario. “La terracotta nella bottega
Sensation in the Later Middle Ages. New del Verrocchio.” In La civiltà del cotto: arte
York, 2002. della terracotta nell’area fiorentina dal XV al
Ruschi, Pietro. “Lorenzo a San Lorenzo.” XX secolo. Edited by Antonio Paolucci.
In L’Architettura di Lorenzo il Magnifico. Exh cat. Impruneta, May–December
Edited by Gabriele Morolli and Cristina 1980. Florence, 1980.
238 BIBLIOGRAPHY
“The Formation of the Fifteenth- Sebregondi, Ludovica. Tre confraternite fior-

Century Collection, Its Dispersion and entine. Sant Maria della Pietà, detta ‘Buca’
the Return to Florence of the Medici di San Girolamo, San Filippo Benizi, San
Treasures.” In Treasures of Florence. The Francesco Poverino. Florence, 1991.
Medici Collection 1400–1700. Edited Seidel, Max. “Crocifisso.” In Scultura
by Cristina Acidini Luchinat, 29–53. Lignea. Lucca 1200–1425. Edited by Clara
Munich, 1997. Baracchini, vol. 1, 99–104, cat. 23. Exh.
“Original Settings of Nonreligious cat. Museo Nazionale di Palazzo Mansi
Bronzes in the Renaissance.” In Large and Museo Nazionale di Villa Guinigi,
Bronzes in the Renaissance. Edited by Peta Lucca, December 16, 1995–June 30,
Motture, 31–55. Vol. 64 of Studies in the 1996. 2 vols. Florence, 1995.
History of Art. New Haven, CT, 2003. Sensi, Mario. “Fraternite disciplinate e
Scarpellini, Pietro. Perugino. Milan, 1984. sacre rappresentazioni a Foligno nel
Schmitt, Charles Bernhard. “The secolo XV.” Bollettino della Deputazione
Rediscovery of Ancient Skepticism di Storia Patria per l’Umbria 71 (1974):
in Modern Times.” In Reappraisals in 193–94.
Renaissance Thought. Edited by Charles Serros, Richard David. “The Verrocchio
Bernhard Schmitt, 225–51. London, Workshop: Techniques, Production and
1989. Influences.” Ph.D. diss., University of
Scholten, Frits. “Technical aspects of California, Santa Barbara, 1999.
Verrocchio’s Candelabrum.” Bulletin van Settesoldi, Enzo. “Il gonfalone del comune
het Rijksmuseum 44, no. 2 (1996): 123–29. di Carrara dipinto da Andrea del
ed. Adriaen de Vries , 1556–1626. Exh. Verrocchio.” Paragone 31, no. 363 (May
cat. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, 1980): 87–91.
December 12, 1998–March 14, 1999, Seymour, Charles, Jr. Sculpture in Italy, 1400–
Nationalmuseum, Stockholm, April 1500. Harmondsworth and Baltimore,
15–August 29, 1999, and J. Paul Getty MD, 1966.
Museum, Los Angeles, October 12, The Sculpture of Verrocchio. London, 1971.
1999–January 9, 2000. Los Angeles, CA, Sframeli, Maria. “I gioielli nell’età di
1998. Lorenzo il Magnifico.” In I gioielli dei
“Bronze, The Mythology of a Metal.” Medici dal vero e in ritratto. Edited by
In Bronze. The Power of Life and Death. Maria Sframeli, 10–23. Exh. cat. Museo
Edited by Martina Droth, Frits Scholten, degli Argenti, Palazzo Pitti, Florence,
and Michael Cole, 20–35. Exh. cat. Henry September 12, 2003–February 2, 2004.
Moore Institute, Leeds, September 13, Florence, 2004.
2005–January 7, 2006. Leeds, 2005. Shearman, John.“A suggestion for the early
Schoonover, Carl, ed. Portraits of the Mind. style of Verrocchio.” Burlington Magazine
Visualizing the Brain from Antiquity to the 109 (March 1967): 121–27.
21st Century. New York, 2010. Only Connect: Art and the Spectator in the
Schubring, Paul. Luca della Robbia und seine Italian Renaissance. Princeton, NJ, 1992.
Familie. Bielefield, 1905. Shell, Hanna Rose. “Casting life, recast-
Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic ing experience: Bernard Palissy’s occu-
Analysis. London, 1954. pation between maker and nature.”
Schunk-Heller, Sabine. Die Darstellung des Configurations 12 (Winter 2004): 1–40.
ungläubigen Thomas in der italienischen Siano, Salvatore, Maria Ludovica Nicolai,
Kunst bis um 1500 unter Berücksichtigung and Simone Porcinai. “Verrocchio’s
der lukanischen Ostentatio Vulnerum. David: Characterization and
Beiträge zur Kunstwissenschaft, band 59. Conservation Treatments.” In Verrocchio’s
Munich, 1995. David Restored: A Renaissance Bronze
BIBLIOGRAPHY 239
for the National Museum of the Bargello, Edited by Ursula Klein and Emma
Florence. Edited by Gary Radke, 97–109. Spary, 29–49. Chicago, IL, 2010.
Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Smith, Pamela H., and Tonny Beentjes.
Florence, October 7–November 9, “Nature and art, making and know-
2003, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, ing: reconstructing sixteenth- century
November 22, 2003–February 8, life casting techniques.” Renaissance
2004, and the National Gallery of Art, Quarterly 63, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 128–79.
Washington, DC, February 13–March Smyth, Craig H. “Venice and the
21, 2004. Florence, 2003. Emergence of the High Renaissance in
Smiraglia-Scognamiglio, Nino. Ricerche e Florence: Observations and Questions.”
documenti sulla giovinezza di Leonardo da In Quattrocento. Vol. 1 of Florence and
Vinci (1452–1482). Naples, 1900. Venice: Comparisons and Relations. Acts of
Smith, Alan K. “Fraudomy: Reading two Conferences at Villa I Tatti in 1976–1977.
Sexuality and Politics in Burchiello.” Edited by Sergio Bertelli and Nicolai
In Queering the Renaissance. Edited by Rubinstein, 209–49. Florence, 1979.
Jonathan Goldberg, 84–106. Durham, Soranzo, Giovanni. “Lorenzo il Magnifico
NC, 1994. alla morte del padre e il suo primo balzo
Smith, Alan K. “Burchiello.” In Encyclopedia verso la Signoria.” Archivio Storico Italiano
of the Renaissance. Edited by Paul Grendler, 5, 111 (1953): 42–77.
vol. 1, 315. 6 vols. New York, 1999. Southard, Edna Carter. The Frescoes in Siena
Smith, Christine. Architecture in the Palazzo Pubblico, 1289–1539. Studies in
Culture of Early Humanism. Ethics, Imagery and Relations to Other Communal
Aesthetics, and Eloquence 1400–1470. Palaces in Tuscany. New York, 1979.
New York, 1992. Southern, Richard William. Robert
Smith, Pamela H. “Giving Voice to the Grosseteste: The Growth of an English
Hands: The Articulation of Material Mind in Medieval Europe. Oxford, 1986;
Literacy in the Sixteenth Century.” 2nd edn., 1992.
In Popular Literacy: Studies in Cultural Sperenza, Laura, ed. La Scultura Lignea
Practices and Poetics. Edited by John Policroma. Ricerche e modelli operative di
Trimbur, 74–93. Pittsburgh, PA, 2001. restauro. Florence, 2007.
The Body of the Artisan. Art and Experience Sperling, Christine M. “Verrocchio’s
in the Scientific Revolution. Chicago, IL, Medici Tombs.” In Verrocchio and Late
2004. Quattrocento Italian Sculpture. Edited
“Making and Knowing in a Sixteenth- by Steven Bule, Alan Phipps Darr,
Century Goldsmith’s Workshop.” In and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, 51–61.
The Mindful Hand: Inquiry and Invention Florence, 1992.
between the Late Renaissance and Early Staccioli, Giuliano. “Profilo congressuale
Industrialization. Edited by Lissa Roberts, di Filippo Brunelleschi e della tenzone
Simon Schaffer, and Peter Dear, 20–37. poetica con Giovanni Gherardi.” In Der
Amsterdam, 2007. Humanismus der Architektur in Florenz.
“Alchemy as the Imitator of Nature.” In Filippo Brunelleschi und Michelozzo di
Glass of the Alchemists: Lead Crystal-Gold Bartolomeo. Edited by Wolfgang von
Ruby, 1650–1750. Edited by Dedo von Löhneysen, 35–55. Hildesheim, 1999.
Kerssenbrock-Krosigk, 22–33. Corning, Stanbury, Sarah. The Visual Object of Desire
NY, 2008. in Late Medieval England. Philadelphia,
“Vermilion, Mercury, Blood, and Lizards: PA, 2008.
Matter and Meaning in Metalworking.” Stedman Sheard, Wendy. “Verrocchio’s
In Materials and Expertise in Early Modern Medici Tomb and the Language of
Europe: Between Market and Laboratory. Materials: With a Postscript on His
240 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Legacy in Venice.” In Verrocchio and Late “A New Interpretation of the Casting

Quattrocento Italian Sculpture. Edited of Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes.” In
by Steven Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, Small Bronzes of the Renaissance. Edited
and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, 63–90. by Debra Pincus, 54–69. Vol. 62 of
Florence, 1992. Studies in the History of Art. New Haven,
Stewart, Dana E. The Arrow of Love. Optics, CT, 2001.
Gender, and Subjectivity in Medieval Love “Severo Calzetto da Ravenna and the
Poetry. Lewisburg, 2003. indirectly cast bronze.” The Burlington
Steyaert, Griet. “‘The Seven Sacraments.’ Magazine 148 (December 2006): 810–19.
Some Technical Aspects Observed dur- Strocchia, Sharon T.“Burials in Renaissance
ing the Restoration.” In Rogier van der Florence, 1350–1500.” Ph.D. diss.,
Weyden in Context. Papers Presented at the University of California, Berkeley, 1981.
Seventeenth Symposium for the Study of Death and Ritual in Renaissance Florence.
Underdrawing and Technology in Painting Baltimore, MD, 1992.
Held in Leuven, October 22–24, 2009. Strom, Deborah. “Studies in Quattrocento
Edited by Lorne Campbell, 118–35. Tuscan Wooden Sculpture.” Ph.D. diss.,
Paris, 2012. Princeton, NJ, 1979.
Stiberc, Peter. “Donatellos Kruzifix Summers, David. Michelangelo and the
in Santa Croce. Untersuchung und Language of Art. Princeton, NJ, 1981.
Restaurierung im Opificio delle Pietre Syson, Luke. “Bertoldo di Giovanni,
Dure in Florenz.” Restauro 6 (September Republican Court Artist.” In Artistic
2006): 386–94. Exchange and Cultural Translation in
“La scultura lignea policroma del the Italian Renaissance City. Edited by
Rinascimento fiorentino. Osservazioni Stephen J. Campbell and Stephen J.
sulla tecnica scultorea.” In La Scultura Milner, 96–133. Cambridge, UK, 2004.
Lignea Policroma. Ricerche e modelli opera- Syson, Luke, and Dora Thornton. Objects of
tive di restauro. Edited by Laura Sperenza, Virtue. Art in Renaissance Italy. London,
195–212. Florence, 2007. 2001.
“Donatello, Brunelleschi and the Tameni, Ilaria. “Il teatro della Pietà.
Others. Construction Techniques in Devozione, arte e rappresentazione della
Early Renaissance Wooden Sculptures.” deposizione di Cristo in area padana (secc.
Polychrome Sculpture. Artistic Tradition and XIV–XVI).” Thesis, facoltà di Lettere
Construction Techniques. Edited by Kate e Filosofia dell’Università Cattolica di
Seymour, 15–23. ICOM-CC Interim Brescia, 1997–1998.
Meeting, Working Group Sculpture, Tameni, Ilaria.“The Piety’s Theatre: Mobile
Polychromy, and Architectural Decoration, Crucifixes in Holy Friday’s Deposition.”
Glasgow,April 13–14, 2012. www.icom-cc Text of lecture at XI Colloque Societé
.org/ul/cms/fck-uploaded/documents/ Internationale pour l’étude du Théâtre
Polychrome%20Sculpture%20Papers%20 Médiéval–Elx, du 9 au 14 d’août 2004.
2 010 - 2 013 / P O LY C H RO M E % 2 0 http://parnaseo.uv.es/Ars/webelx/
SCULPTURE%20Vol%202%20Glasgow Pon%C3%A8ncies%20pdf/Tameni.pdf.
.pdf Tanturli, Giuliano. “Rapporti del
Stites, Raymond S. “La Madonna del Brunelleschi con gli ambienti letterari
Melograno di Leonardo da Vinci, I.” fiorentini.” In Filippo Brunelleschi, la sua
Critica d’arte 15, no. 93 (1968): 59–73. opera e il suo tempo, vol. 1, 125–44. 2 vols.
Stone, Richard E. “Antico and the devel- Florence, 1980.
opment of bronze casting in Italy at the Tateo, Francesco. “Le virtù sociali e l’im-
end of the Quattrocento.” Metropolitan manità nella trattatistica Pontaniana.”
Museum of Art Journal 16 (1981): 87–116. Rinascimento n.s. 5 (1965): 119–64.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 241
Taubert, Gesine and Johannes Taubert. Uzielli, Luca, Marco Fioravanti, Ottaviano
“Mittelalterliche Kruzifixe mit Allegetti, et al. “Il nuovo ancoraggio per
schwenkbaren Armen. Ein Beitrag zur il crofisso ligneo di Andrea Orcagna
Verwendung von Bildwerken in der nella chiesa di San Carlo a Firenze.” In
Liturgie.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Vereins La scultura lignea policroma. Ricerche e mod-
für Kunstwissenschaft 23 (1969): 79–121. elli operative di restauro. Edited by Laura
Taubert, Johannes. Farbige Skulpturen: Sperenza, 171–84. Florence, 2007.
Bedeutung, Fassung, Restaurierung. Munich, Vaccari, Maria Grazia, ed. Pollaiolo e
1978. Verrocchio? Due ritratti fiorentini del
Tentler, Thomas N. Sin and Confession on Quattrocento. Exh. cat. Museo Nazionale
the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton, NJ, del Bargello, Florence, March
1977. 28-October 15, 2001. Florence, 2001.
Teodori, Brunella, and Ludovica Nicolai. “The Cavalcanti Annunciation.”
“Donatello, San Ludovico di Tolosa, Sculpture Journal 9 (2003): 19–37.
1422–25.” Kermes 25, no. 87 (June– Vaccari, Maria Grazia, Roberto Manni,
September 2012): 7–17. Andreina Andreoni, et al.“Annunciazione
Thiis, Jens. Leonardo da Vinci: The Florentine Cavalcanti.” OPD Restauro 7 (1995):
Years of Leonardo and Verrocchio. London, 185–92.
1913. Valenziani, Enrichetta, and Emidio Cerulli.
Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s Practice in Indice Generale degli Incunaboli delle
Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge, UK, Biblioteche d’Italia, 6 vols. Rome, 1943–81.
1995. Valtieri, Simonetta. “La fabbrica del pala-
Thornton, Dora. The Italian Renaissance zzo del Cardinal Raffaele Riario (La
Interior, 1400–1600. New York, 1991. Cancelleria).” Quaderni dell’Istituto di
Thunø, Erik. Image and Relic: Mediating the Storia dell’Architettura, ser. XXVII (1982),
Sacred in Early Medieval Rome. Rome, fasc. 169–74 (1983): 3–25.
2002. Van Ausdall, Kristen. “The Corpus
Trexler, Richard C. “The Florentine reli- Verum: Orsanmichele, Tabernacles, and
gious experience: the sacred image.” Verrocchio’s Incredulity of Thomas.”
Studies in the Renaissance 19 (1972): In Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento
7–41. Italian Sculpture. Edited by Steven Bule,
“Lorenzo de’ Medici and Savonarola, Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi
Martyrs for Florence.” Renaissance Gioffredi, 33–49. Firenze, 1992.
Quarterly 31 (1978): 293–308. “Tabernacles of the Sacrament:
Public Life in Renaissance Florence. Eucharistic Imagery and Classicism in the
Cornell, 1980. Early Renaissance.” Ph.D. diss., Rutgers
Trexler, Richard C. Church and Community University, New Brunswick, 1994.
1200–1600: Studies in the History of Florence Van Cleave, Claire. “Tradition and Innovation
and New Spain. Rome, 1987. in the Early History of Black Chalk
Trinkaus, Charles. In Our Image and Drawing.” In Florentine Drawing at theTime of
Likeness. Humanity and Divinity in Italian Lorenzo the Magnificent. Edited by Elizabeth
Humanist Thought. 2 vols. Chicago, IL, Cropper, 231–44. Villa Spelman Colloquia,
1970. vol. 4, Florence, 1992. Bologna, 1994.
Ullman, Berthold Louis and Philip A. Van der Velden, Hugo. “Medici Votive
Stadter. The Public Library of Renaissance Images and the Scope and Limits of
Florence: Niccolo Niccoli, Cosimo de’ Medici, Likeness.” In The Image of the Individual:
and the Library of San Marco. Padua, 1972. Portraits in the Renaissance. Edited by
Ulmann, Hermann. Sandro Botticelli. Nicholas Mann and Luke Syson, 126–37,
Munich, 1893. 221–27. London, 1998.
242 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Van Eck, Caroline. “Architecture, Vescovini, Graziella Federici. “Il prob-

Language and Rhetoric in Alberti’s lema delle fonti ottiche medievali
De Re Aedificatoria.” In Architecture del Commentario Terzo di Lorenzo
and Language. Constructing Identity in Ghiberti.” In Lorenzo Ghiberti nel suo
European Architecture c. 1000–c. 1650. tempo. Atti del convegno internazionale di
Edited by Georgia Clarke and Paul studi (Firenze, 18–21 ottobre, 1978), vol. 2,
Crossley, 72–81. Cambridge, UK, 2000. 349–87. 2 vols. Florence, 1980.
Van Os, Henk. The Art of Devotion in the Late Vezzosi, Massimo, ed. Quattro crocifissi lignei
Middle Ages in Europe, 1300–1500.Translated restaurati. Exh. cat. Chiesa Propositurale
by Michael Hoyle. Exh. cat. Rijksmuseum, di Santa Croce, Greve in Chianti, 1998.
Amsterdam, November 26, 1994–February Florence, 1998.
26, 1995. Princeton, NJ, 1994. Viatte, Françoise. Léonard de Vinci: Les études
Varese, Claudio, ed. Prosatori volgari del de draperie. Exh. cat. Musée du Louvre,
Quattrocento. La letteratura italiana: Storia Paris, December 5, 1989–February 26,
e testi, xiv. Milan, 1955. 1990. Paris, 1989.
Vatelot, Jennifer. “La Vierge adorant l’Enfant “The Early Drapery Studies,” in Leonardo
de Donatello, dite Madone Piot: étude et da Vinci. Master Draftsman. Edited
restauration.” Techne 36 (2012): 54–61. Carmen C. Bambach, 111–20. Exh. cat.
Venerosi Pesciolini, Lisa. “L’intervento di The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
restauro.” OPD Restauro 7 (1995): 26–32. York, January 22–March 30, 2003. New
Ventrone, Paola, ed. Le Tems revient: feste Haven, CT, 2003.
e spettacoli nella Firenze di Lorenzo il Villoresi, Marco. “Un itinerario cavallere-
Magnifico. Exh. cat. Palazzo Medici- sco attraverso il fondo manoscritti della
Riccardi, Florence, April 8–June 30, Biblioteca Riccardiana di Firenze.”
1992. Florence, 1992. In Paladini di carta. La cavalleria figurate.
Venturelli, Paola. Il Tesoro dei Medici al Edited by Giovanna Lazzi, 11–25. Exh.
Museo degli Argenti: Oggetti preziosi in cris- cat. Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence,
tallo e pietre dure nelle collezioni di Palazzo May 8–August 8, 2003. Florence, 2003.
Pitti. Florence, 2009. Von Bode, Wilhelm. Bertoldo und Lorenzo
Venturi, Adolfo. Storia dell’arte italiana. 11 dei Medici: Die Kunstpolitik des Lorenzo
vols. Milan, 1901–1975. il Magnifico im Spiegel der Werke seines
Venturini, Lisa. Francesco Botticini. Florence, Lieblingkünstlers Bertoldo di Giovanni.
1994. Frieburg im Breisgau, 1925.
Verde, Armando F. “Libri tra le pareti von Fabriczy, Cornelis. “Andrea del
domestiche.” Tradizione medievale e inno- Verrocchio ai servizi de’ Medici.”
vazione umanistica a Firenze nei secoli xv– Archivio storico dell’arte, 2nd series, 1, no.
xvi 18 (1987): 1–226. 3 (1895): 163–76.
Verdon, Timothy. “Pictorialism in the “Donatellos Hl. Ludwig und sein
Sculpture of Verrocchio.” In Verrocchio Tabernakel an Or San Michele.”
and Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture. Jahrbuch der Koniglich Preussischen
Edited by Steven Bule, Alan Phipps Kunstsammlungen 21 (1900): 241–61.
Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, “Ancora del tabernacolo col gruppo del
25–31. Florence, 1992. Verrocchio in Or San Michele.” L’arte 5
Verdon, Timothy, Daniel M. Zolli, and (1902): 336–40.
Amy R. Bloch, eds. Sculpture in the Age “Die Bildahuerfamilie Ferrucci aus
of Donatello. Renaissance Masterpieces from Fiesole.” Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen
Florence Cathedral. Exh. cat. Museum of Kunstsammlungen 29 (1908): 1–28.
Biblical Art, New York, February 20– von Schlosser, Julius. “Geschichte der
June 14, 2015. London, 2015. Portraitbildnerei in Wachs: ein Versuch.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY 243
Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen Weil Garris Brandt, Kathleen. “Leonardo e

in Wien 29 (1910/11): 171–258. la scultura,” Lettura vinciana 38 (April 18,
Wackernagel, Martin. The World of the 1998): 9–39.
Florentine Renaissance Artist. Projects and Weinryb, Ittai. “Beyond Representation:
Patrons, Workshop and Art Market. 1938. Things–Human and Non-Human.” In
Translated by Alison Luchs. Princeton, Cultural Histories of the Material World.
NJ, 1981. Edited by Peter N. Miller, 172–86. Ann
Waldman, Louis. “The Mary Magdalen in Arbor, MI, 2013.
Santa Trinita by Desiderio da Settignano “Living matter: materiality, maker, and
and Giovanni d’Andrea.” Pantheon 58 ornament in the middle ages.” Gesta 52,
(2000): 13–18. no. 2 (2013): 113–31.
Walker Bynum, Caroline. Fragmentation The Bronze Object in the Middle Ages.
and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the Cambridge, UK, 2016.
Human Body in Medieval Religion. New Weissman, Ronald F. E. “Sacred Eloquence.
York, 1992. Humanist Preaching and Lay Piety in
The Resurrection of the Body in Western Renaissance Florence.” In Christianity
Christianity, 200–1336. New York, 1995. and the Renaissance. Image and Religious
“Seeing and Seeing Beyond: The Mass Imagination in the Quattrocento. Edited by
of St. Gregory in the Fifteenth Century.” Timothy Verdon and John Henderson,
In The Mind’s Eye: Art and Theological 250–71. Syracuse, NY, 1990.
Argument in the Middle Ages. Edited Welch, Evelyn S. Art and Authority in
by Anne-Marie Bouché and Jeffrey Renaissance Milan. New Haven, CT, 1995.
Hamburger, 208–40. Princeton, NJ, 2006. “Public magnificence and private dis-
Christian Materiality: An Essay on Religion play. Giovanni Pontano’s De splendore
in Late Medieval Europe. New York, 2011. (1498) and the domestic arts.” Journal of
Wallace,William E.“Michelangelo at Work: Design History 15, no. 4 (2002): 211–21.
Bernardino Basso, Friend, Scoundrel Shopping in the Renaissance. Consumer
and Capomaestro.” I Tatti Studies 3 Cultures in Italy 1400–1600. New Haven,
(1989): 235–79. CT, 2005.
Wardropper, Ian, Tony Sigel, and C. D. Wellen, Sanne Rusalka. “Andrea del Sarto
Dickerson III. Bernini. Sculpting in Clay. pittore senza errori: Between Biography,
Exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Florentine Society, and Literature.” Ph.D
New York, October 3, 2012–January 6, diss., Johns Hopkins University, 2004.
2013. New Haven, CT, 2012. Williams, Robert. Art, Theory, and Culture
Warren, Jeremy. “A portrait bust of Lorenzo in Sixteenth-Century Italy: From Techne to
de’ Medici in Oxford.” Sculpture Journal Metatechne. Cambridge, UK, 1997.
2 (1998): 1–12. Wilson, Blake. “Dominion of the ear:
Waswo, Richard. Language and Meaning in singing the vernacular in Piazza San
the Renaissance. Princeton, NJ, 1987. Martino.” I Tatti Studies in the Italian
Watkins, Renee. “Il Burchiello (1404–48): Renaissance 16, no. 1/2 (2013): 273–87.
poverty, politics and poetry.” Italian Wind, Edgar. “The Revival of Origen.” In
Quarterly 54 (1970): 21–87. Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da
Weeks, Christopher. “The restoration of Costa Greene. Edited by Dorothy Miner,
Desiderio da Settignano’s Tomb of Carlo 412–24. Princeton, NJ, 1954.
Marsuppini in S. Croce.” The Burlington Wohl, Hellmut. The Aesthetics of Italian
Magazine, 141 (1999): 732–38. Renaissance Art: A Reconsideration of Style.
Wedgwood Kennedy, Ruth. Alesso Cambridge, UK, 1999.
Baldovinetti: A Critical and Historical Wolf, Gerard. “The Body and Antiquity
Study. New Haven, CT, 1938. in Alberti’s Art Theoretical Writings.”
244 BIBLIOGRAPHY
In Antiquity and Its Interpreters. Edited Zaggia, Massimo, Matteo Ceriana. I

by Alina Payne, Ann Kuttner, and Manoscritti illustrate delle “Eroidi” ovidiane
Rebekah Smick, 174–90. Cambridge, volgarizzate. Pisa, 1996.
UK, 2000. Zeri, Federico. “Il Maestro dell’
Wright, Alison. “Mantegna and Pollaiuolo: Annunciazione Gardner.” Bolletino d’arte
artistic personality and the marketing 38 (1953): 125–39, 233–49.
of invention.” In Drawing 1400–1600. Zervas, Diane Finiello. Orsanmichele a
Invention and Innovation. Edited by Stuart Firenze. 2 vols. Modena, 1996.
Currie, 72–90. Aldershot, 1998. The Parte Guelfa, Brunelleschi and
The Pollaiuolo Brothers:The Arts of Florence Donatello. Locust Valley, NY, 1987.
and Rome. New Haven, CT and London, “‘Quos volent et eo modo quo volent’:
2005. Piero de’ Medici and the Operai of
“‘Touch the truth?’ Desiderio da SS. Annunziata, 1445–55.” In Florence
Settignano, Renaissance Relief, and the and Italy: Renaissance Studies in Honour
body of Christ.” Sculpture Journal 21, no. of Nicolai Rubinstein. Edited by Peter
1 (2012): 7–25. Denley and Caroline Elam, 465–79.
“Tabernacle and Sacrament in Fifteenth- London, 1988.
Century Tuscany.” In Carvings, Casts & Ziegler, Konrat, Walther Sontheimer, and
Collectors. The Art of Renaissance Sculpture. Hans Gärtner, eds. Der Kleine Pauly,
Edited by Peta Motture, Emma Jones, Lexicon der Antike. 5 vols. Munich, 1975.
and Dimitrios Zikos, 42–57. London, Zorach, Rebecca. “Everything swims with
2013. excess: gold and its fashioning in early
Yanagishita, Mari, Jennifer Di Fina, Bruna modern France.” Res: Anthropology and
Mariani, et al. “L’altare d’argento di San Aesthetics 36: Factura (Autumn 1999):
Giovanni.” In Ori, argenti, gemme: res- 125–37.
tauri dell’opificio delle pietre dure. Edited “Desiring things,” Art History 24, no. 2
by Clarice Innocenti, 62–77. Exh. cat. (April 2001): 195–212.
Palazzo Medici Riccardi, Florence, Blood, Milk, Ink, Gold: Abundance and
September 30, 2007–January 8, 2008. Excess in the French Renaissance. Chicago,
Florence, 2007. IL, 2005.
Young, Karl. The Drama of the Medieval Zorzi Pugliese, Olga. “Two Sermons by
Church. 2 vols. Oxford, 1933. Giovanni Nesi and the language of
Zaccarello, Michelangelo. “An unknown spirituality in late fifteenth- century
episode of Burchiello’s reception in the Florence.” Bibliothèque d’humanisme et
early Cinquecento: Florence, Biblioteca Renaissance 42, no. 3 (1980): 641–56.
Riccardiana, ms. 2725, fols 80r–131v.” Zupko, Ronald. Italian Weights and Measures
Modern Language Review 100, no. 1 from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth
(January 2005): 78–96. Century. Philadelphia, PA, 1981.
NOTES
INTRODUCTION: VERROCCHIO EXPERIMENTALIST

1 Work on the lantern began in March 1446; 8 The exception is Covi, “Verrocchio and
Brunelleschi died a month later, before the Palla”; and Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
it was completed. The terminal spire was pp. 63–69.
begun in 1461 under the supervision of 9 “[Verrocchio] fece alta braccia quattro, e posan-
Bernardo Rossellino. Howard Saalman, Filippo dola in sur un bottone, la incantenò di maniera,
Brunelleschi. The Cupola of Santa Maria del Fiore che poi vi si potè mettere sopra sicuramente
(London, 1980), pp. 142 and 144. la croce; la quale opera finita, fu messa su con
2 Saalman, Filippo Brunelleschi, p. 139. See doc. grandissima festa e piacere de’popoli. Ben è
262.3 (July 9, 1436). vero che bisognò usar nel farla ingegno e dil-
3 Dario A. Covi, “Verrocchio and the Palla of igenza, perchè si potesse, come si fa, entrarvi
the Duomo,” in Art, the Ape of Nature. Studies dentro per di sotto; ed anco nell’armarla con
in Honor of H.W. Janson, eds. Moshe Barasch buone fortificazioni, acciò i venti non le
and Lucy Freeman Sandler (New York, 1981), potessero fare nocumento.” Giorgio Vasari, Le
151–69, p. 152. On the palla, see also Bruno vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architettori,
Boni, “La palla di rame di S. Maria del Fiore,” 1550, rev. 1568, ed. Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols.
Notiziario Vinciano 2 (1978): 35–44; and Dario (Florence, 1878), vol. 3, p. 365.
A. Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio. Life and Work 10 AOF, I.1.4 (Allogagioni, June 27, 1438–June
(Florence, 2005), 63–69, who also published the 22, 1475), fols. 80v–81v, transcribed in Covi,
relevant documents (pp. 309–29, docs.VI.34). Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 309, doc. IV.34.a.
4 AOF, I.1.4 (Allogagioni, June 27, 1438–June Although the original palla has not survived,
22, 1475), fols. 80v–81v, transcribed in Covi, the reconstructed ball made in 1602 appears
Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 309, doc. IV.34.a. to be very close to the original, even down to
5 Cesare Guasti, La cupola di Santa Maria del the gilding, as restoration in 1952–55 demon-
Fiore illustrata con i documenti dell’archivio strated. Ferdinando Rossi, “La laterna della
dell’opera secolare. Saggio di una compiuta illus- cupola di Santa Maria del Fiore e i suoi res-
trazione dell’opera secolare e del tempio di Santa tauri,” Bollettino d’arte 41 (1956): 128–43 (esp.
Maria del Fiore (Florence, 1857), p. 113, doc. pp. 140–41). Documents record that the recon-
332. The Florentine libbra weighed 0.339 kg structed ball was made from metal salvaged
(Ronald Zupko, Italian Weights and Measures from Verrocchio’s palla and on the same scale
from the Middle Ages to the Nineteenth Century as the original (Guasti, La cupola, docs. 373–79).
[Philadelphia, PA, 1981], p. 133). One major difference may be the way that the
6 Leonardo da Vinci and Buonaccorso Ghiberti reconstructed palla was attached to the bronze
provide sketches of the crane. Covi, Andrea ball below, which does not feature the bronze
del Verrocchio, p. 67; and Saalman, Filippo cannone mentioned in documents. Bernardo
Brunelleschi, p. 171. Sansoni Sgrilli made an engraving of the
7 Luca Landucci, Diario fiorentino dal 1450 al 1516, reconstructed palla that showed a cross-sec-
continuato da un anonimo fino al 1542, ed. Iodoco tion of the sphere in 1733, for an illustration
Del Badia (Florence, 1883), p. 11. For this, and of which see my Figure 3. On the construc-
other primary sources that record the event, tion and reconstruction of the palla, see Covi,
see Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 66 and n. 200. Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 65.
245
246 NOTES TO PAGES 3–4
11 Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 67, n. 202. See for the transport of six of the copper sheets via
Michel de Montaigne, Journal de voyage en Italie, Bologna were paid in August 1469, along with
ed. Charles Dédéyan (Paris, 1946), p. 189. customs duty (AOF, VIII.I.49 (Quaderno di
12 AOF, I.1.4 (Allogagioni, June 27, 1438–June 22, cassa, January 1468/69–June 1469), fol. 12 left
1475), fols. 80v–81v; AOF, II.2.3 (Registro di side, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
deliberazioni, 1462–72), fols. 64r–v; AOF, II.2.3 p. 312, doc. VI.34.f), and for two more sheets a
(Registro di deliberazioni, 1462–72), fol. 84v; few months later (AOF, VIII.I.50 (Quaderno
AOF, VIII.1.47 (Quaderno di cassa, January di cassa, July–December, 1469), fol. 21 left side;
1467/68–June 1468), fol. 9; AOF, VIII.I.48 and AOF, VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di Cassa, July–
(Quaderno di cassa, July–December, 1468), fol. December, 1469), fol. 46 left side, transcribed
46; AOF, VIII.I.49 (Quaderno di cassa, January in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 314–317, docs
1468/69–June 1469), fol. 12; AOF, VIII.I.49 VI.34.i and VI.34.k).
(Quaderno di cassa, January 1468/69–June 14 AOF, VIII.1.52 (Quaderni di Cassa, July–
1469), fol. 59; AOF, VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di December, 1470), fol. 6 left side, transcribed in
cassa, July–December, 1469), fol. 10; AOF, Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 325, doc. IV.34.w.
VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, July–December, 15 “Ricordati delle saldature con che si saldò
1469), fol. 21;AOF,VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, la palla di Santa Maria del Fiore.” Ms G 84v,
July–December, 1469), fol. 44 left side; AOF, transcribed by Leonardo da Vinci, Il manoscritti
VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, July–December, dell’institut de France [G], ed. Augusto Marinoni
1469), fol. 46; AOF, VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di (Florence, 1989), p. 139. This was noted by
cassa, July–December, 1469), fol. 47; AOF, Boni, “La palla,” pp. 38–39.
VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, July–December, 16 Sven Dupré, “Optic, Picture and Evidence:
1469), fol. 53; AOF, VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di Leonardo’s Drawings of Mirrors and
cassa, July–December, 1469), fol. 62; AOF, VIII. Machinery,” Early Science and Medicine 10, no.
I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, July–December, 1469, 2 (2005): 211–36, p. 227. This was not the only
fol. 65; AOF, VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, time Leonardo demonstrated a fascination with
July–December, 1469), fol. 72; AOF, VIII.I.51 the burning properties of concave mirrors; he
(Quaderno di cassa, January 1469/70–June considered using concave mirrors to solder the
1470), fol. 5; AOF,VIII.I.51 (Quaderno di cassa, bronze pieces of his monumental equestrian
January 1469/70–June 1470), fol. 18; AOF, monument of condottiere Giovanni Giacomo
VIII.I.51 (Quaderno di cassa, January 1469/70– Trivulzio and for a project in Rome. It is likely
June 1470), fol. 24; AOF,VIII.I.51 (Quaderno di that Leonardo was familiar with Archimedes’
cassa, January 1469/70–June 1470), fol. 38; AOF, legendary use of a burning mirror to destroy
VIII.I.51 (Quaderno di cassa, January 1469/70– Roman ships at Syracuse – suggested by
June 1470), fol. 43; AOF,VIII.I.51 (Quaderno di a record for his desperate search for a work
cassa, January 1469/70–June 1470), fol. 50; AOF, by Archimedes on a sheet that also features
VIII.I.52 (Quaderno di cassa, July–December, a drawing relating to the study of reflection
1470), fol. 6; AOF,VIII.I.52 (Quaderno di cassa, on concave mirrors. The interest in concave
July–December, 1470), fol. 23; AOF, VIII.I.52 mirrors for soldering was shared by a number
(Quaderno di cassa, July–December, 1470), of fifteenth-century mathematicians (Dupré,
fol. 32; AOF, VIII.I.52 (Quaderno di Cassa, “Optic, Picture and Evidence,” pp. 216–34).
July–December, 1470), fol. 62; AOF, VIII.3.8 17 AOF, VIII.1.52 (Quaderno di cassa, July–
(Entrata e uscita, begun July 1, 1468), fol. 19r; December, 1470), fol. 6 left side, transcribed
AOF, VIII.3.9 (Entrata e uscita, begun January in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 325, doc.
1, 1468/69), fol. 22r; AOF, VIII.3.10 (Entrata e IV.34.w. On this, see Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
uscita, begun July 1, 1470), fol. 25r. All tran- pp. 67–68.
scribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 309– 18 Covi, “Verrocchio and the Palla,” p. 152. The
329, docs VI.34.a–VI.34.cc. relevant document was transcribed in Covi,
13 A courier bound for Venice was instructed Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 310, doc. VI.34.b.
to find Verrocchio in Treviso in 1469. (AOF, 19 The cast palla is not mentioned in documents
VIII.I.49 (Quaderno di cassa, January 1468/69– until autumn of 1469, when it was broken
June 1469), fol. 12 left side, transcribed in Covi, up. Apparently it was never finished. This has
Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 312, doc. VI.34.f.) Fees been discussed by Covi, “Verrocchio and the
NOTES TO PAGES 4–7 247
Palla,” p. 152. The document (AOF, VIII.1.50 claims). It is tempting to consider that the use
(Quaderno di cassa, July–December, 1469), of spolveri may indicate areas where the mas-
fol. 10 right side) was transcribed in Covi, ter painter (Verrocchio) assigned assistants to
“Verrocchio and the Palla,” p. 160, doc. 10. follow his designs, and that the figures of the
20 Covi, “Verrocchio and the Palla,” p. 154. Virgin and Saint Donatus were executed by
21 Other sculptors tended to show figures with Verrocchio himself, as suggested by stylistic
their arms close to their sides and posed paral- analysis. (This has been suggested too by Kemp,
lel to the sides of the base. This has been noted “Verrocchio’s San Donato and the Chiesina
by Andrew Butterfield, The Sculptures of Andrea della Vergine,” p. 25). For a summary of attribu-
del Verrocchio (New Haven, CT, 1997), p. 64. tions, see Gigetta Dalli Regoli, Lorenzo di Credi
22 Pomponius Gauricus, De Sculptura (1504), eds. (Milan, 1966), pp. 111–14, cat. 30. More recently,
André Chastel and Robert Klein (Geneva, Anna Padoa Rizzo (“Ancora sulla Madonna di
1969), p. 207. Piazza” in I Medici, il Verrocchio e Pistoia. Storia
23 These points have been noted by Butterfield, e restauro di due capolavori nella Cattedrale di S.
Sculptures of Verrocchio, pp. 173–79. Zeno: Il monumento al cardinale Niccolò Forteguerri,
24 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 1, pp. 256–57; Vasari- la Madonna di piazza, ed. Franca Falletti
Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 545–47. (Livorno, 1996), 66–74, pp. 67–68) attributed
25 ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 1539 (Atti the painting to Lorenzo di Credi, who, she
in cause ordinarie, July 23, 1490–March 3, argues depended on drawings for the figures of
1490/91), fols. 301r–302v, transcribed in Covi, the Virgin and Child, indicated by the technical
Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 286, doc.V.27. study undertaken by Franca Falletti (“Il restauro
26 ASP, Comune, Consigli, Provvisioni e Riforme, della Madonna di Piazza: nuove immagini per
48 (1483–1492; formerly Archivio Comunale, un vecchio problema,” in I Medici, il Verrocchio
Provvisioni del Comune, 68), fols. IIIV–112r, e Pistoia. Storia e restauro di due capolavori nella
transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 350, Cattedrale di S. Zeno: Il monumento al cardinale
doc. VI.51.a. Niccolò Forteguerri, la Madonna di piazza, ed.
27 Like the Baptism of Christ, the Madonna di Franca Falletti (Livorno, 1996), 74–83), but was
Piazza was painted in tempera and oil on panel, responsible for the design and execution of the
and discrepancies in style and technique simi- two lateral saints; Martin Kemp (“Verrocchio’s
larly suggest it was executed by several differ- San Donato and the Chiesina della Vergine di
ent artists. X-radiographs made of the painting Piazza in Pistoia,” Pantheon 56 [1998]: 25–34,
have revealed extensive pentimenti, especially p. 25) tentatively attributed the figures of the
in the figures of Saint John the Baptist and the Virgin and Saint Donatus to Verrocchio on
Christ Child, and the use of underdrawings for the basis of the technical evidence, which sug-
all of the figures. Spolveri were used for Saint gests that they were executed freely without
John the Baptist and the Christ Child, and the use of spolveri (unlike the other figures in
some of the decorative elements, including the the painting); Andrew Butterfield (Sculptures
vases, but not for the Virgin or Saint Donatus of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 192) attributed the
(though underdrawings in pen and ink were painting to Credi; Herman Colenbrander
discovered for the latter figures when the paint- (“The Leonardesque Designs for the Madonna
ing was restored in 1996). (Falletti, “Il restauro di Piazza,” in ‘Aux Quatre Vents.’ A Festschrift
della Madonna di Piazza,” pp. 76-77). Carmen for Bert W. Meijer, eds. Anton W. A. Boschloo,
Bambach, however, has challenged Falletti’s Edward Grasman, and Gert Jan van der Sman
interpretation of the data, claiming that spolveri [Florence, 2002], 33–38, p. 36) has attributed the
are visible only for the vase, which was repeated altarpiece and the related drawings to “a still
in the painting. (Carmen C. Bambach, Drawing unknown artist who was greatly under the spell
and Painting in the Italian Renaissance Workshop: of Leonardo”; and Covi (Andrea del Verrocchio,
Theory and Practice, 1300–1600 (Cambridge, pp. 177–78) has argued that Verrocchio designed
1999), p. 465, n. 73). Indeed, the poor quality of the composition and the figures but left most, if
the photographs published by Falletti make it not all, of the actual painting to his workshop,
difficult to assess the extent of the use of spol- mostly to Lorenzo di Credi. Liletta Fornasari
veri (except for the vase, the images for which (“Andrea del Verrocchio e le botteghe toscane:
in Falletti’s report seems to support Bambach’s l’atelier del Rinascimento,” in Leonardo e dintorni:
il Maestro, le botteghe, il territorio, ed. Liletta 30 “[I]l moto ed il fiato.” Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 4,
Fornasari and Carlo Starnazzi, exh. cat., Palazzo p. 11 and pp. 7–15.
del Comune, Arezzo (Arezzo, 2001), 11-90), and 31 “Veramente mirabile e celeste fu Lionardo.”
Jill Dunkerton and Luke Syson (“In search of Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 4, p. 18.
Verrocchio the painter: the cleaning and exam- 32 Other examples of fifteenth-century Florentine
ination of the Virgin and Child with Two Angels,” artists working in different media include
National Gallery of Art Technical Bulletin 31 (2010), Donatello, Lorenzo Ghiberti, Masaccio, and
4-41, p. 4) attribute the painting to Lorenzo di the Pollaiuolo brothers. Although Antonio
Credi. For a recent study of the painting, see and Piero Pollaiuolo worked in a wide range
Andrea De Marchi, “Due passaggi di Andrea of media (on this, see Alison Wright, The
del Verrocchio pittore per Pistoia,” in Il Museo Pollaiuolo Brothers:The Arts of Florence and Rome
e la città.Vicende artistiche pistoiesi del Quattrocento, [New Haven, CT, 2005]), Verrocchio sur-
eds. Elena Testaferrata, Giacomo Guazzini, passed them in this regard. According to the
and Andrea De Marchi (Pistoia, 2013), 67–95, Anonimo Magliabechiano (see Carl Frey, ed., Il
pp. 78–95, who attributes the painting’s design Codice Magliabechiano, contente notizie sopra l’arte
to Verrocchio and its execution to Lorenzo di degli antichi e quella ed’ fiorentini da Cimabue a
Credi. Michelangelo Buonarroti scritte da Anonimo
28 See, for instance, David Alan Brown, Leonardo Fiorentino [Berlin, 1892], p. 77), Donatello was
da Vinci. Origins of a Genius (New Haven, a painter. Ghiberti was called pittore by Vasari
CT, 1998). This attitude has also led to attri- in the first edition of the Vite. (This point has
butions to Leonardo for all or part of works been discussed by Lorenzo Bartoli, “Rewriting
by Verrocchio deemed too groundbreak- History: Vasari’s Life of Lorenzo Ghiberti,”
ing or perfect for Verrocchio to have made, Word and Image 13, no. 3 [July–September,
such as his tomb for Piero and Giovanni de’ 1997]: 245–52.) And Ghiberti and Vasari both
Medici in San Lorenzo (Brown, Leonardo da mentioned fresco work that Ghiberti was
Vinci, pp. 65–67; Adolfo Venturi, La Scultura del involved in at Pesaro before making the bronze
Cinquecento, vol. 10 of Storia dell’arte italiana, doors of the Baptistery (Lorenzo Ghiberti,
11 vols. [Milan, 1901–75], Part I, p. 19); the “Commentario Secondo,” in I Commentari,
Silver Altar relief of the Beheading of Saint ed. Ottavio Morisani [Naples, 1947], p. 42;
John the Baptist (Gary M. Radke, “Leonardo, and Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 2, p. 223). It has also
Student of Sculpture,” in Leonardo da Vinci and been suggested that Masaccio made terra-
the Art of Sculpture, ed. Gary M. Radke, exh. cotta reliefs before joining the guild of doctors
cat. High Museum of Art, Atlanta, October 6, and apothecaries, which was associated with
2009–February 21, 2010, and The J. Paul Getty painters (James Beck, “Masaccio’s early career
Museum, Los Angeles, March 23–June 20, as a sculptor,” Art Bulletin 2 [1971]: 177–95;
2010 [New Haven, CT, 2010], pp. 56–57); and and Paul Joannides, “Masaccio, Masolino and
the Christ and Saint Thomas (Maria Vittoria ‘minor’ sculpture,” Paragone 38, no. 451 [1987]:
Brugnoli, “Documenti, notizie e ipotesi sulla 3–24). Alberti referred to himself as a painter,
scultura di Leonardo,” in Leonardo, saggi e and there are bronze reliefs attributed to him
ricerche, ed. Achille Marazza [Rome, 1954], (Alessandro Parronchi,“Leon Battista Alberti as
359–89, p. 377; Theodore Andrew Cook, a Painter,” Burlington Magazine 101 [1962]: 280–
Adolfo Venturi in Leonardo da Vinci Sculptor 87; and Kurt Badt, “Drei plastische Arbeiten
[London, 1923], p. 70; and Leonardo da Vinci, von Leone Battista Alberti,” Mitteilungen des
I manoscritti e i disegni di Leonardo da Vinci, ed. Kunsthistorisches Institutes in Florenz 8, no. 2
Adolfo Venturi, 7 vols. [Rome, 1928–52], vol. 1, [1957–59]: 78–87). Matteo Civitali, best known
p. 13). A nuanced consideration of Leonardo’s as a sculptor, was documented as a painter. (This
debt to Verrocchio can be found in Kathleen has been discussed by Steven Bule, “A Unique
Weil Garris Brandt’s “Leonardo e la scultura,” Partnership: Matteo Civitali and Domenico
Lettura vinciana 38 (April 18, 1998): 9–39. Orsolino,” in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento
29 “[A]lquanto dura e crudetta, come quello che Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps
con infinito studio se la guadagnò, più che Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi [Florence,
col benefizio e facilità della natura.” Vasari- 1992], 363.) Inventories sometimes imply that
Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 357–58. artists moved between media.The inventory of
the residence of the Sienese artist Neroccio di civilità artistica del tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico
Landi, made in 1500, lists several hundred items, (Florence, 1991); Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea
including pieces of Carrara marble in different del Verrocchio; and Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio.
sizes, heads and figures of terracotta, pieces of 35 “[P]erché Andrea mai non si stava.” Vasari-
ancient marble, a capital made from serpentine, Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 365. (Verrocchio was never
a head and hands of wax, and pieces of wood still.)
for painting. Some of the sculptures in the 36 See the catalogue from the important exhibi-
inventory, however, are ascribed to other artists, tion: Patricia Lee Rubin and Alison Wright,
including a Madonna in gesso by Donatello Renaissance Florence.The Art of the 1470s, exh. cat.
and a roughed-out figure of San Bernardino National Gallery, London, October 20, 1999–
by Vechietta (Gertrude Coor, Neroccio de’ Landi January 16, 2000 (London, 1999).
[Princeton, NJ, 1961], pp. 152–59). According 37 “Materiality” has been a topic of interest not
to Arne Flaten, an inventory made in 1515 of only in the history of art but also the history of
the estate and workshop of the fifteenth-cen- science. For art history, important studies include
tury medallist, Niccolò Fiorentino, lists much Rebecca Zorach, “Everything Swims with
bronze, and many bronze figures and medals, Excess: Gold and Its Fashioning in Early Modern
“a small number of humanist and religious France,” Res:Anthropology and Aesthetics 36: Factura
texts, wood and marble sculptures, paintings (Autumn 1999): 125–37; and Rebecca Zorach,
and a wide assortment of tools, waxes and Blood, Milk, Ink, Gold: Abundance and Excess in the
clays.” Flaten, however, has questioned whether French Renaissance (Chicago, IL, 2005). For a use-
Fiorentino worked in other media apart from ful theorization of making, see Joseph Koerner,
bronze medals, which other scholars have ten- “Editorial: Factura,” Res: Anthropology and
tatively suggested, implying that not all of the Aesthetics 36 (autumn 1999): 5–19. For the history
objects were made by him (Arne R. Flaten, of science, Pamela H. Smith’s work stands out,
“Portrait Medals and Assembly-Line Art in for which see the following: “Giving Voice to
Late Quattrocento Florence,” in The Art Market the Hands:The Articulation of Material Literacy
in Italy [15th–17th Centuries]. Il Mercato dell’arte in the Sixteenth Century,” in Popular Literacy:
in Italia [secc. xv–xvii], eds. Marcello Fantoni, Studies in Cultural Practices and Poetics, ed. John
Louisa C. Matthew, and Sara F. Matthews- Trimbur (Pittsburgh, PA, 2001), 74–93; The Body
Grieco [Modena, 2003], 127–39, pp. 133–34). of the Artisan. Art and Experience in the Scientific
On fifteenth-century artists working in differ- Revolution (Chicago, IL, 2004); “Making and
ent media, see also 61-73 in my chapter 1. Knowing in a Sixteenth-Century Goldsmith’s
33 Verrocchio was not unique in transferring tools Workshop,” in The Mindful Hand: Inquiry and
and techniques from one medium to another, Invention between the Late Renaissance and Early
but the extent to which he did this does appear Industrialization, eds. Lissa Roberts, Simon
to have been unusual. Schaffer, Peter Dear (Amsterdam, 2007), 20–37;
34 Monographic studies on Verrocchio have Pamela H. Smith and Tonny Beentjes, “Nature
tended to focus either entirely on his output and Art, Making and Knowing: Reconstructing
as a sculptor (with the exception of Passavant’s Sixteenth-Century Life Casting Techniques,”
Verrocchio als Maler), or his work as a painter has Renaissance Quarterly 63, no. 1 (Spring, 2010):
been relegated to a separate chapter of a larger 128–79; and Christie Anderson, Anne Dunlop,
study. Even those studies that approach the art- and Pamela H. Smith, eds., The Matter of Art.
ist’s oeuvre from a chronological standpoint Materials, Practices, Cultural Logics, c. 1250–1750
have ignored Verrocchio’s tendency to transfer (Manchester, 2015).
tools and processes of making from one mate- 38 Michael Wayne Cole, “The Cult of Materials,”
rial to another.The standard monographic stud- in Revival and Invention, eds. Sébastien Clerbois
ies on the artist are Hans Mackowsky, Verrocchio and Martina Droth (Oxford, 2011), 1–15, p. 3.
(Berlin, 1901); Maud Cruttwell, Verrocchio 39 Notable exceptions are Wendy Stedman Sheard,
(London and New York, 1904); Leo Planiscig, “Verrocchio’s Medici Tomb and the Language
Andrea del Verrocchio (Vienna, 1941); Seymour, of Materials: With a Postscript on His Legacy
Sculpture of Verrocchio; Szergej Androsov, Andrea in Venice,” in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento
Verrocchio, 1435–1488 (Leningrad, 1984); Piero Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps
Adorno, Il Verrocchio. Nuove proposte nella Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi (Florence,
1992), 63–90; and Georges Didi-Huberman, Fra Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova,
Angelico. Dissemblance and Figuration, trans. Jane exh. cat., The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston,
Marie Todd (Chicago, IL, 1995). November 18, 2001–February 3, 2002, and
40 To list only some of the most important, on The Victoria and Albert Museum, London,
bronze: Norberto Gramaccini,“Zur Ikonologie March 14–July 7, 2002 (New Haven, CT, 2001);
der Bronze im Mittelalter,” Städel Jahrbuch Gary M. Radke, The Gates of Paradise. Lorenzo
11 (1987): 147–70; Thomas Raff, Die Sprache Ghiberti’s Renaissance Masterpiece, exh. cat. High
der Materialien: Anleitung zu einer Ikonologie Museum of Art, Atlanta, April 28–July 15, 2007,
der Werkstoffe (Munich, 1994); Elizabeth The Art Institute of Chicago, July 28–October
Dalucas, “‘Ars erit archetypus naturae.’ Zur 13, 2007, The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Ikonologieder Bronze in der Renaissance,” in New York, October 30, 2007–January 30, 2008,
Von allen Seiten schön. Bronzen der Renaissance Seattle Art Museum, January 26–April 6, 2008
und des Barock, ed. Volker Krahn, exh. cat., (New Haven, CT, 2007); Denise Allen, ed.,
Altes Museum, Berlin, October 31, 1995– with Peta Motture, Andrea Riccio, exh. cat.,
January 28, 1996 (Berlin, 1996), 70–81; Michael The Frick Collection, New York, October
Wayne Cole, “Cellini’s Blood,” Art Bulletin 15, 2008–January 18, 2009 (New York, 2008);
81 (1999): 216–35; Francesca Bewer, “The Eleonora Luciano, ed., Antico: the Golden Age of
Sculpture of Adriaen de Vries: A Technical Renaissance Bronzes, exh. cat., National Gallery
Study,” in Small Bronzes in the Renaissance, of Art, Washington, DC, November 6, 2011–
vol. 62 of Studies in the History of Art, ed. April 8, 2012 and The Frick Collection, New
Debra Pincus (New Haven, CT, 2001), 159–93; York, May 1–July 29, 2012 (Washington, 2011);
Michael Wayne Cole, Cellini and the Principles David Ekserdjian, Bronze, exh. cat. The Royal
of Sculpture (Cambridge, 2002); Michael Wayne Academy, London, September 15–December
Cole, “The Medici Mercury and the Breath of 9, 2012 (London, 2012); Ian Wardropper, Tony
Bronze,” in Large Bronzes in the Renaissance, ed. Sigel, and C. D. Dickerson III, Bernini. Sculpting
Peta Motture, vol. 64 of Studies in the History of in Clay, exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Art. (New Haven, CT, 2003), 129–53; Martina New York, October 3, 2012–January 6, 2013
Droth, Frits Scholten, and Michael Wayne (New Haven, CT, 2012).
Cole, Bronze: The Power of Life and Death, exh. 42 Prominent studies include Jacqueline
cat. Henry Moore Institute, Leeds, September Musacchio, The Art and Ritual of Childbirth
15, 2005–January 7, 2006 (Leeds, 2005); Edgard in Renaissance Italy (New Haven, CT, 1999);
Lein, Ars Aeraria: Die Kunst des Bronzegießens Roberta Panzanelli, ed., Ephemeral Bodies. Wax
und die Bedeutung von Bronze in der florentinish- Sculpture and the Human Figure (Los Angeles, CA,
chen Renaissance (Mainz, 2004); Jane L. Bassett, 2008); and Fredrika H. Jacobs, Votive Panels and
The Craftsman Revealed: Adriaen de Vries, Sculptor Popular Piety in Early Modern Italy (Cambridge,
in Bronze (Los Angeles, CA, 2008); on wood: 2013). A useful overview of Renaissance stud-
Michael Baxandall, The Limewood Sculptors of ies of materiality is Timothy McCall and Sean
Renaissance Germany (New Haven, CT, 1980), Roberts, “Raw Materials and Object Lessons,”
and John T. Paoletti, “Wooden Sculpture in in The Routledge History of the Renaissance, ed.
Italy as Sacral Presence,” Artibus et Historiae William Caferro (London, 2017), 105–24.
13 (1992): 85–100; on porphyry: Suzanne 43 Among the vast number of studies on this
Butters, The Triumph of Vulcan: Sculptors’ Tools, topic, I have found the following especially
Porphyry, and the Prince in Ducal Florence, 2 vols. illuminating: Hanna Rose Shell, “Casting
(Florence, 1996); on pigments: Spike Bucklow, Life, Recasting Experience: Bernard Palissy’s
The Alchemy of Paint. Art, Science and Secrets from Occupation between Maker and Nature,”
the Middle Ages (London, 2009). Configurations 12 (Winter 2004): 1–40; Marjolijn
41 Frits Scholten, ed. Adriaen de Vries , 1556–1626, Bol and Ann-Sophie Lehmann, “Painting Skin
exh. cat., Rijksmuseum,Amsterdam, December and Water. Towards a Material Iconography
12, 1998–March 14, 1999, Nationalmuseum, of Translucent Motifs in Early Netherlandish
Stockholm, April 15–August 29, 1999, and J. Painting,” in Rogier Van der Weyden in Context,
Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, October ed. Lorne Campbell (Paris, 2012), 214–25;
12, 1999–January 9, 2000 (Los Angeles, CA, Matthew C. Hunter, Wicked Intelligence. Visual
1998); Bruce Boucher, ed. Earth and Fire. Italian Art and the Science of Experiment in Restoration
NOTES TO PAGE 14 251
London (Chicago, IL, 2013); Ulinka Rublack, 318–23) in many studies of materiality, of falling
“Matter in the Material Renaissance,” Past for the allure of an object (the fetishizing of a
and Present 219 (May, 2013): 41–85; Fabian commodity) by assuming an agency that ignores
Kraemer, “Ulisse Aldrovandi’s Pandechion the cultural context producing that allure.
Epistemonicon and the Use of Paper Technology Although I call for a consideration of materials
in Renaissance Natural History,” Early Science and techniques as possessing a kind of agency,
and Medicine 19 (2014): 398–423. this agency was one recognized by Verrocchio
44 Rick Dolphijn and Iris van der Tuin, “A ‘New himself rather than the result of a fundamen-
Tradition’ in Thought,” in New Materialism: tal breakdown between the human and the
Interviews & Cartographies, eds. Rick Dolphijn nonhuman. For a historically nuanced consid-
and Iris van der Tuin (Ann Arbor, MI, 2012), eration of the blurring between human and
86–92, p. 91. nonhuman with ramifications for art history, see
45 For a useful overview of the historiography Sarah Stanbury, The Visual Object of Desire in Late
on material agency, see Ann-Sophie Lehmann, Medieval England (Philadelphia, PA, 2008).
“The Matter of the Medium: Some Tools for 47 Jeffrey F. Hamburger usefully addresses similar
Art–Theoretical Interpretations of Materials,” issues about approaching Jan van Eyck’s art-
in The Matter of Art. Materials, Practices, Cultural istry in his article “Seeing and Believing. The
Logics, c.1250–1750, eds. Christy Anderson, Anne Suspicion of Sight and the Authentication of
Dunlop, and Pamela H. Smith (Manchester, Vision in Late Medieval Art and Devotion,” in
2015), 21–36, pp. 22–26. On material agency, Imagination und Wirklichkeit. Zum Verhältnis von
some important studies are: Alfred Gell, Art mentalen und realen Bildern in der Kunst der frühen
and Agency: An Anthropological Theory (Oxford, Neuzeit, eds. Klaus Krüger and Alessandro
1998); Timothy Ingold, “Making Culture and Nova (Mainz, 2000), 47–69. Scholars have long
Weaving the World,” in Matter, Materiality recognized the importance of Verrocchio’s
and Modern Culture, ed. Paul Graves-Brown formal innovations for later artists, such as the
(London, 2000), 50–71; Bill Brown, ed. relationship between figures and frame, the rep-
“Things,” Critical Inquiry Special Issue 28, 1 resentation of states of the soul, and the use mul-
(2001): 1–363; Bruno Latour, Reassembling the tiple viewpoints in his Christ and Saint Thomas,
Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory which anticipate later developments in High
(Oxford, 2005); Brigitte Buettner, “From Renaissance and Baroque sculpture. (See, for
Bones to Stones: Reflections on Jeweled instance, the discussion in Butterfield, Sculptures
Reliquaries,” in Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds. of Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 64–66.) I am pro-
Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint (Berlin, posing to move away from this formal model
2005), 43–59; Carl Knappett and Lambros of analysis by situating Verrocchio’s develop-
Malafouris, eds., Material Agency.Towards a Non- ments within their broader cultural frame-
Anthropocentric Approach (New York, 2008); Jane works. In so doing, formal qualities become
Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of more meaningful, revealing, for instance, their
Things (Durham, CT, 2010); Jeffrey Jerome role in exploring the relationship between sub-
Cohen, “Stories of Stone,” Postmedieval: A ject (viewer) and object, which, as Hamburger
Journal of Medieval Cultural Studies 1 (2010): (“Seeing and Believing”) and Kellie Robertson
56–63; Michael Wayne Cole, “The Cult of (“Medieval Things: Materiality, Historicism,
Materials;” Caroline Walker Bynum, Christian and the Premodern Object,” Literature Compass
Materiality: An Essay on Religion in Late Medieval 5 [2008]: 1–21) have argued in the case of late
Europe (New York, 2011); Ittai Weinryb, medieval culture, was highly contested and
“Beyond Representation: Things – Human one crucial for understanding materiality in
and Non-Human,” in Cultural Histories of the premodern Europe. Robertson’s essay usefully
Material World, ed. Peter N. Miller (Ann Arbor, emphasizes the historical specificity of late
MI, 2013), 172–86; and Ittai Weinryb, “Living medieval subject-object relationships, though
Matter: Materiality, Maker, and Ornament in it should be noted that the arguments made
the Middle Ages,” Gesta 52, no. 2 (2013): 113–31. would be effectively refined by a closer consid-
46 I hope in this way to avoid the significant pitfall eration of the decades of work by art historians
identified by Andrew Cole (“Those Obscure on devotional art and piety, especially the work
Objects of Desire,” Artforum [Summer 2015]: of Jeffrey Hamburger.
48 See, for instance, Robertson, “Medieval for Verrocchio,” in Studi di storia dell’arte in onore
Things;” Kellie Robertson, “Medieval Mate- di Mina Gregori, ed. Miklós Boskovits (Milan,
rialism: A Manifesto,” Exemplaria 22 (2010): 1994), 51–55; Franca Falletti, ed., I Medici, il
99–118; Andrew Cole, “The Call of Things: Verrocchio e Pistoia. Storia e restauro di due cap-
A Critique of Object-Oriented Ontologies,” olavori nella Cattedrale di S. Zeno: Il monumento
The Minnesota Review 80 (2013): 106–18; Cole, al cardinale Niccolò Forteguerri, la Madonna di
“Those Obscure Objects of Desire;” and piazza (Livorno, 1996); Brown, Leonardo da
Aden Kumler, “Manufacturing the Sacred in Vinci; Kemp, “Verrocchio’s San Donato and the
the Middle Ages: The Eucharist and Other Chiesina della Vergine;” Antonio Natali, ed.
Medieval Works of Ars,” English Language Lo sguardo degli Angeli. Verrocchio, Leonardo e il
Notes 53, no. 2 (Fall/Winter, 2015): 9–44. Battesimo di Cristo (Cinisello Balsamo, 1998);
For a useful consideration of attitudes towards Luciano Bellosi, “The Landscape ‘alla fiam-
matter (and its mutability) during the Renais- minga’,” in Italy and the Low Countries: Artistic
sance, see William R. Newman, Promethean Relations: The Fifteenth Century. Proceedings of the
Ambitions. Alchemy and the Quest to Perfect Symposium Held at Museum Catharijneconceny,
Nature (Chicago, IL, 2004). Utrecht, March 14, 1994, ed. Victor M. Schmidt,
49 A recent important exception to this tendency Gert Jan van der Sman et al. (Florence, 1999),
is Donatello, Michelangelo, Cellini: Sculptors’ 97–108; and De Marchi, “Due passaggi di
Drawings from Renaissance Italy, ed. Michael Andrea del Verrocchio pittore per Pistoia.”
Wayne Cole, exh. cat., Isabella Stewart Gardner 51 Jill Dunkerton and Luke Syson, “Andrea del
Museum, Boston, October 23, 2014–January Verrocchio’s First Surviving Panel Painting and
23, 2015 (London, 2014). Other Early Works,” Burlington Magazine 153,
50 Günter Passavant, Andrea del Verrocchio als Maler no. 1299 (June, 2011): 368–78; and Dunkerton
(Düsseldorf, 1959). Other important stud- and Syson,“In Search of Verrocchio the Painter.
ies that have addressed Verrocchio’s role as a 52 Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio;
painter include: Bernard Berenson, “Verrocchio Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio.
e Leonardo, Leonardo e Credi,” Bolletino d’arte 53 Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi, “An Unpublished
27, nos. 5 and 6 (1933–34): 193–214, 241–64; Crucifix by Andrea del Verrocchio,” Burlington
Federico Zeri, “Il Maestro dell’ Annunciazione Magazine 136, no. 1101 (December, 1994):
Gardner,” Bollettino d’arte 38 (1953): 125–39 808–15.
and 233–49; Konrad Oberhuber, “La problème 54 Anthony Radcliffe,“New Light onVerrocchio’s
des premières oeuvres de Verrocchio,” Revue Beheading of the Baptist,” in Verrocchio and
de l’art 42 (1978): 63–76; John Shearman, “A Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven
Suggestion for the Early Style of Verrocchio,” Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi
Burlington Magazine 109 (March 1967): 121–27; Gioffredi (Florence, 1992), 117–23.
Sheldon Grossman, “The Madonna and Child 55 In addition to the articles by Paolozzi Strozzi
with a Pomegranate and Some New Paintings and Radcliffe mentioned earlier, the follow-
from the Circle of Verrocchio,” Report and ing have contributed to our understanding of
Studies in the History of Art 2 (1968): 47–69; Verrocchio’s techniques: David Alan Brown and
Craig H. Smyth, “Venice and the Emergence Charles Seymour, Jnr., “Further Observations
of the High Renaissance in Florence: on a Project for a Standard by Verrocchio
Observations and Questions,” in Quattrocento, and Leonardo”; Boni, “La palla;” Stephen
vol. 1 of Florence and Venice: Comparisons and Rees-Jones, “A Fifteenth-Century Florentine
Relations. Acts of Two Conferences at Villa I Tatti Terracotta Relief: Technology-Conservation-
in 1976–1977, eds. Sergio Bertelli and Nicolai Interpretation,” Studies in Conservation 23
Rubinstein (Florence, 1979), 209–49; Dario (1978): 95–113; Mario Scalini, “La terracotta
A. Covi, “Verrocchio and Venice, 1469,” Art nella bottega del Verrocchio,” in La civiltà del
Bulletin 65, no. 2 (1983): 253–73; Luciano Bellosi, cotto: arte della terracotta nell’area fiorentina dal
“Andrea Verrocchio,” in Pittura di luce. Giovanni XV al XX secolo, ed. Antonio Paolucci, exh
di Francesco e l’arte fiorentina di metà Quattrocento, cat. Impruneta (Florence, 1980); Jean Cadogan,
ed. Luciano Bellosi, exh. cat., Casa Buonarroti, “Linen Drapery Studies by Verrocchio,
Florence, May 16–August 20, 1990 (Milan, Leonardo and Ghirlandaio,” Zeitschrift für
1990), 177–83; Everett Fahy, “Two Suggestions Kunstgeschichte 46 (1983): 27–62; Stefano
Agnoletti, Flavia Callori, Fabrizio Jacopini, Holofernes,” in Small Bronzes of the Renaissance,
Maria Rosa Lanfranchi and Pietro Ruschi, ed. Debra Pincus, vol. 62 of Studies in the
“Note sul restauro del monumento funebre History of Art (New Haven, CT, 2001), 54–69
mediceo di Andrea del Verrocchio,” Kermes 6, (on Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas);
no. 1 (February 1988): 10–17; Françoise Viatte, Maria Grazia Vaccari, eds., Pollaiolo e Verrocchio,
Léonard de Vinci: Les études de draperie, exh. cat., Due ritratti fiorentini del Quattrocento, exh. cat.
Musée du Louvre, Paris, December 5, 1989– Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence,
February 26, 1990 (Paris, 1989); Marco Ciatti March 28–October 15, 2001 (Florence, 2001);
and Teresa Cianfanelli, “‘San Girolamo’: attr. Gary M. Radke, ed., Verrocchio’s David Restored:
Andrea del Verrocchio (Firenze, 1435–Venice, A Renaissance Bronze for the National Museum of
1488), Firenze, Palazzo Pitti, Galleria Palatina,” the Bargello, Florence, exh. cat., Museo Nazionale
OPD. Restauro 3 (1991): 181–83; David Alan del Bargello, Florence, October 7–November
Brown, “Verrocchio and Leonardo: Studies for 9, 2003, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta,
the Giostra,” and Claire Van Cleave, “Tradition November 22, 2003–February 8, 2004, and
and Innovation in the Early History of Black the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC,
Chalk Drawing,” in Florentine Drawing at the February 13–March 21, 2004 (Florence, 2003);
Time of Lorenzo the Magnificent, ed. Elizabeth and Mari Yanagishita, Jennifer Di Fina, Bruna
Cropper, vol. 4, Villa Spelman Colloquia, Mariani, and Raffaella Zurlo, “L’altare d’ar-
Florence, 1992 (Bologna, 1994), 99–109 and gento di San Giovanni,” in Ori, argenti, gemme:
231–44; Fabio Burrini and Paolo Nencetti, restauri dell’opficio delle pietre dure, ed. Clarice
“The Restoration of the Bronze Figures of Innocenti, exh. cat., Palazzo Medici Riccardi,
Christ and St. Thomas,” and Massimo Leoni, Florence, September 30, 2007–January 8, 2008
“Casting Techniques in Verrochio’s Workshop (Florence, 2007), 62–77.
when the Christ and St Thomas Was Made,” in 56 The most thorough study of Verrocchio’s
Verrocchio’s Christ and St Thomas. A Masterpiece workshop in terms of the contribution of
of Sculpture from Renaissance Florence, ed. Loretta his assistants is Richard David Serros, “The
Dolcini, exh. cat., Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, Verrocchio Workshop: Techniques, Production
and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New and Influences” (Ph.D. diss., University of
York, December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993 (New California, Santa Barbara, 1999).
York, 1992), 25–35 and 83–100; Lisa Venerosi 57 See n. 34 earlier.
Pesciolini, “L’intervento di restauro,” OPD 58 Leonardo’s ideas about painting are recorded
Restauro 7 (1995): 26–32; Falletti, ed., I Medici, in his so-called Trattato della pittura (the Codex
Il Verrocchio e Pistoia; Frits Scholten, “Technical Urbinas in the Vatican, Rome), the standard
Aspects of Verrocchio’s Candelabrum,” Bulletin critical edition of which is Leonardo da Vinci,
van het Rijksmuseum 44, no. 2 (1996): 123–29; Leonardo da Vinci: Das Buch von der Malerei nach
Brown, Leonardo da Vinci, p. 54 (on the Tobias dem Codex Vaticanus (Urbinas) 1270, ed. Heinrich
and the Angel [National Gallery, London]); Ludwig, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1882).
Natali, ed., Lo sguardo degli Angeli; Antonio 59 We cannot be sure of the exact year of his
Natali, “Lo sguardo degli angeli. Tragitto indi- birth because the documents are imprecise:
ziario per il Battesimo di Cristo di Verrocchio Verrocchio’s father states in his catasto decla-
e Leonardo,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen ration of 1446 (the first mention of Andrea)
Institutes in Florenz 42, no. 2/3 (1998): 252–73; that Andrea is 12; in 1457 Andrea states that he
Amelio Fara, ed., Leonardo a Piombino e l’idea is 21; in 1470, Andrea claims that he is 33; and
della città moderna tra Quattro e Cinquecento in 1480 he gives his age as 45. ASF, Catasto,
(Florence, 1999); Alison Luchs, “Lorenzo from 665 (S. Croce, Ruote, 1446), No. 176, fol.
Life? Renaissance Portrait Busts of Lorenzo 449r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
de’ Medici,” Sculpture Journal 4 (2000): 6–23; p. 265, doc. I.1; ASF, Catasto, 808 (S. Croce,
Antonio Natali, “Il Battesimo di Cristo di Ruote, 1457), No. 183, fols. 586r–587r, ibid.,
Verrocchio e Leonardo: ripensamenti e cron- p. 268, document I.3; ASF, Catasto, 915, Part
ologia,” in Oltre il visibile: indagini riflettogra- I (S. Croce, Ruote, 1469: Campione dei cit-
fiche, ed. Duilio Bertani (Milan, 2001), 125–44; tadini), fols. 19r–v), ibid., p. 269, doc. I.4; and
Richard E. Stone, “A New Interpretation ASF, Catasto, 1006 (S. Croce, Ruote, 1480), fol.
of the Casting of Donatello’s Judith and 51r, ibid., p. 271, doc. I.5.
60 ASF, Catasto, 665 (S. Croce, Ruote, 1446), No. up of leaves of different sizes, surmounted by
176, fol. 449r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del a crown of lilies above which is a palla, itself
Verrocchio, p. 265, doc. I.1. On the term fornaciaio, decorated with the Medici palle, set in a dia-
see Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, mond ring, and the handle was decorated in
p. 3. There was no distinction made in guild the form of a dragon’s wing. No physical evi-
records in Florence between kilnmen with dence on the vase itself or in any surviving
respect to their products (Richard Goldthwaite, documents can confirm or deny the attribu-
The Building of Renaissance Florence [Baltimore, tion to Verrocchio, but the stylistic connec-
MD, 1980], p. 187).Verrocchio’s father does not tions Bemporad draws with other works by
mention a kiln in his 1446 catasto declaration, Verrocchio supports the attribution (Dora
commonly noted in the catasti of fornaciai, but Liscia Bemporad, “Per Andrea del Verrocchio
he does record that he owned a property at orafo,” Medioevo e Rinascimento 16, n. 13 (2002):
castello di Certaldo (beyond Impruneta out- 189–206, pp. 196–97).
side Florence), which he inhabited, and per- 64 Verrocchio received a payment on October
haps this property had a kiln. ASF, Catasto, 31, 1461, for his entry. Archivio dell’Opera del
665 (S. Croce, Ruote, 1446), No. 176, fol. 449r, Duomo, Orvieto, Cam. 1460–1469, unnum-
transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 265, bered folio, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del
doc. I.1. A small number of kilns operated near Verrocchio, p. 288, doc.VI.29.
the city walls of Florence, but many more kilns 65 “Tutto chuesto libro è paghato: chostò lire
operated near Impruneta, which was famous dieci. Chostò lire tre e mezo la dipintura
for its clay. “Botteghe, Artigiani e Fornaci,” in a dDre’del Verrocchino esta a cchapo a via
Antonio Paolucci, ed., La civiltà del cotto. Arte Ghibellina ; lire sett[]e mezzo chostò la scrit-
della terracotta nell’area fiorentina dal XV al XX tura, a paghare Piero dei Rici. Paghossi detti
secolo, exh. cat., Impruneta, May–December danari a di 12 di ferraio 1462. Chosta piú la
1980 (Florence, 1980), pp. 161ff. leghatura, e che ci arrogierai di piú.” Biblioteca
61 ASF, Catasto, 702 (S. Croce, Ruote, 1451), No. Riccardiana, ms. 1591, fol. 175r.
291, fols. 638r–v, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del 66 During the Renaissance, via Ghibellina was
Verrocchio, p. 265, doc. I. 2. shorter in length than it is today, and there-
62 ASF, Catasto 793 (S. Spirito, Ferza 1457), 137r, fore the location of the workshop mentioned
transcribed in Doris Carl, “Zur Goldschmiede- in the document would have been very close
familie Dei mit neuen Dokumenten zu Antonio to the house in which Andrea del Verrocchio
Pollaiuolo und Andrea Verrocchio,” Mitteilungen resided. Although it is not certain that the
des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 26, no. “Verrocchino” mentioned in the document
2 (1982): 129–66, p. 162, doc. XXIII; and Covi, is the same as Andrea del Verrocchio, it seems
Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 271, doc. I.6. On the term more probable that they were the same person,
fattorino, see Anabel Thomas, The Painter’s Prac- than that two men, both artists, with almost
tice in Renaissance Tuscany (Cambridge, 1995), identical names, lived and worked next door
p. 84. Before that, Verrocchio probably trained to one another, arguments made by Brown,
in the bottega of Francesco di Luca Verrocchio, “Leonardo apprendista,” Lettura vinciana 39 (17
who had workshops on via Vacchereccia and aprile 1999, Florence, 2000), p. 13.
via Calimala. ASF, Catasto, 615 (S. Croce, Bue, 67 See n. 65 earlier.
1442), No. 256, fols. 415r–416r; ASF, Catasto, 660 68 The tomb was probably begun around March
(S. Croce, Bue, 1446), No. 196, fol. 487v; ASF, 20, 1456, when discussions began on fur-
Catasto, 697, Part I (S. Croce, Bue, 1451), No. nishing a suitable resting place for Cosimo.
195, fol. 429v; ASF, Catasto, 800 (S. Croce, Bue, Biblioteca Centrale Nazionale di Firenze, MS
1457), No. 188, fol. 579r, partially transcribed in II.IV, 309, fol. IV (Ricordo of Cosimo’s grand-
Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 18, ns. 11–14. son Lorenzo the Magnificent), transcribed in
63 Bemporad has convincingly attributed to Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 288, doc.VI.30.b.
Verrocchio the mounting of a sardonyx ewer It was finished by October 22, 1467, recorded
(Figure 91) that formed part of the Medici in a document for the transferral of Cosimo’s
collection. The mount consists of a stepped, remains. Archivio Capitolare di San Lorenzo,
raised base and a lid and handle. The domed vol. 1938 (4), fol. 12v, transcribed in Covi,
lid was decorated with a foliate design made Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 288, doc.VI.30.c.
69 The David is generally dated to the mid- David has led conservators to argue that the
to-late 1460s. It was made for the Medici sculpture was probably cast upright and not
family and only later sold to the Signoria. upside down (Salvatore Siano, Maria Ludovica
Verrocchio’s brother, Tommaso, recorded Nicolai, and Simone Porcinai, “Verrocchio’s
it in a list of debts for objects produced by David: Characterization and Conservation
his brother owed by the Medici, compiled Treatments,” in Verrocchio’s David Restored: A
in 1495–96, several years after Verrocchio’s Renaissance Bronze for the National Museum of
death. Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi, the Bargello, Florence, ed. Gary M. Radke, exh.
Florence, ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, cat., Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence,
vol. 1), fol. 43r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea October 7–November 9, 2003, the High
del Verrocchio, p. 287, doc. 28. Günter Passavant Museum of Art, Atlanta, November 22, 2003–
has proposed the David was commissioned February 8, 2004, and the National Gallery
by Piero de’ Medici before his death in 1469, of Art, Washington, DC, February 13–March
though cast c.1475, rather than by his sons 21, 2004 (Florence, 2003), 97–109, pp. 102 and
Lorenzo and Giuliano, who were recorded 104).There are also flaws in the casting and the
later as the owners. Günter Passavant, extensive work with the chisel after the bronze
Verrocchio. Sculptures, Paintings and Drawings, had cooled. Cannon-Brookes noted that there
trans. Katherine Watson (London, 1969), p. 15. was extensive chiseling on the David, which
This proposal was supported by Covi, Andrea led him to suggest a date in the mid-1460s
del Verrocchio, p. 46. The change in location or slightly earlier (Peter Cannon-Brookes,
for the sculpture, from the Medici palace “Verrocchio Problems,” Apollo 99 (January
to the Palazzo Vecchio (which occurred in 1974): 8–19, pp. 13–14). Butterfield noted the
1476), led to certain compositional changes to rough surface of the sculpture’s base and inte-
the work. See Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi and rior (Butterfield, Sculptures of Verrocchio, p. 204).
Maria Grazia Vaccari, “Verrocchio’s David: Covi noted that the casting seams are appar-
New Facts, New Theories,” in Verrocchio’s ent, a fill is visible on the back side of the right
David Restored: A Renaissance Bronze for the arm just below the shoulder, the feet are chis-
National Museum of the Bargello, Florence, ed. eled flat underneath, and the visible part of
Gary M. Radke, exh. cat., Museo Nazionale the sole of the left foot is unfinished, as are the
del Bargello, Florence, October 7-November palms of the hands, and the head of Goliath.
9, 2003, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, He has also pointed out that the details in the
November 22, 2003-February 8, 2004, and costume, the folds in the eyelids, and the fold
the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, of skin in the neck of David were created with
February 13-March 21, 2004 (Florence, 2003), a chisel, as were the patterns in the curls of
13-34, p. 26. hair and the eyebrows and beard of Goliath.
70 John Shearman, Only Connect: Art and the Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 46 n. 102 and 47.
Spectator in the Italian Renaissance (Princeton, All of this suggests Verrocchio’s inexperience
NJ, 1992), p. 28. as a bronze caster.
71 Visual and radiographic examinations of the 72 Verrocchio’s brother, Tommaso, recorded it
sculpture have revealed that it was cast with the in a list of debts for objects produced by his
use of a direct lost wax model, which explains brother owed by the Medici, compiled in
the excessive weight of the statue (126 kg) and 1495–96, several years after Verrocchio’s death.
the discrepancies in width of the bronze walls. Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence,
The head of Goliath was cast separately, using ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. 1), fol.
the same method, as indicated by the relatively 43r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
thick walls, but with a higher lead content than p. 287, doc. 28. On the sale, see ASF, Operai di
the David. The arms of the main figure were Palazzo, I, fol. 8r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del
cast solid, and other parts of the body contain Verrocchio, p. 333, doc. 43.
core materials, including the support and clay. 73 Paoletti has proposed that a green verde antica
Conservators found no openings in the David marble column with white marble base
for removing the core material, an iron ele- and capital (Victoria and Albert Museum,
ment protrudes from David’s left heel, and an London) may have been the original support
accumulation of lead in the lower part of the for the David. John T. Paoletti, “Verrocchio’s
David, Medici Patronage, and Contested Gregori, Antonio Paolucci, and Cristina
Public Spaces,” in Verocchio’s David Restored: A Acidini Luchinat, exh. cat., Palazzo Strozzi,
Renaissance Bronze for the National Museum of Florence, October 16, 1992–January 10, 1993
the Bargello, Florence, eds. Gary M. Radke, exh. (Milan, 1992), 19–22, p. 21.
cat., Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence, 80 Alessandro Perosa, ed., Il Zibaldone Quaresimale,
October 7–November 9, 2003, the High vol. 1 of Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, 2
Museum of Art, Atlanta, November 22, 2003– vols. (London 1960), pp. 2, 23–24.
February 8, 2004, and the National Gallery of 81 Benedetto Dei, Memorie Istoriche (1470), 44v
Art, Washington, DC, February 13–March 21, and 49r, published in Giuseppina Carla Romby,
2004 (Florence, 2003), 61–81, pp. 64–65. Descrizioni e Rappresentazioni della citta’ di Firenze
74 Paolozzi Strozzi and Vaccari, “Verrocchio’s nel xv secolo, con la trascrizione inedita dei mano-
David,” p. 26. scritti di Benedetto Dei e un indice ragionato dei
75 On the candelabrum, see Scholten, “Technical manoscritti utili per la storia di Firenze (Florence,
Aspects of Verrocchio’s Candelabrum.” 1976), Appendix 2, 56–73, pp. 71–72.
76 Scholten, “Technical Aspects of Verrocchio’s 82 Luigi Pungileoni, Elogio storico di Giovanni
Candelabrum,” pp. 124 and 127. Santi. Pittore e poeta padre del gran Raffaello di
77 The awarding of the commission may have Urbino (Urbino, 1822), p. 74.
been contingent on entries in a competition, 83 “Nor is our Verrocchio inferior to Phidias:
suggested by the existence of a terracotta in this one thing he excels since he paints
group of Christ and Saint Thomas (Figure and melts bronze.” (“Nec minor est Phydia
102), attributed to Luca della Robbia, today noster Verrocchius: uno/ hoc superat quo-
in the Szapmuveszeti Muzeum, Budapest, niam pingit et aera liquat.” Ugolino Verino,
which may have been a model for a pro- Epigrammatum libri septem, in Epigrammi, ed.
posed competition for the Mercanzia niche Francesco Bausi [Messina, 1998], no. 23 [“De
at Orsanmichele. This was first proposed by pictoribus et sculptoribus florentinis qui
Paul Schubring, Luca della Robbia und seine priscis graecis equiperari possunt”], vv. 17–18,
Familie (Bielefield, 1905), pp. 68–70, a pro- p. 327; on the dating of the Eppigrami, see
posal left open by Giancarlo Gentilini, I Della ibid., pp. 24–33.)
Robbia: La scultura invetriata del Rinascimento, 84 Gauricus, De Sculptura, Chastel and Klein,
2 vols. (Florence, 1992), vol. 1, p. 166 n. 48, pp. 258–61.
but rejected by John Pope-Hennessy, Luca 85 Frey, ed., Il Codice Magliabechiano, p. 89.
della Robbia (Oxford, 1980), p. 274, the lat- 86 ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 1539 (Atti
ter arguing it was either a fifteenth-century in cause ordinarie, July 23, 1490–March 3,
pastiche or a nineteenth-century forgery. 1490/91), fols. 301r–302v, transcribed in Covi,
This has been discussed by Bruce Boucher, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 286, doc.V.27.
“Luca della Robbia, Christ and St. Thomas, 87 Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi,
1463–5,” in Earth and Fire, p. 120, cat. 9. ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. I), fol.
78 ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 305 43r, transcribed in ibid., p. 287, doc.VI.28.
(Deliberazioni July 1–December 31, 1469), fol. 88 ASP, Comune, Consigli, Provvisioni e Riforme,
165v, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, 48 (1483–1492; formerly Archivio Comunale,
p. 330, doc.VI.36. Provvisioni del Comune, 68), fols. IIIV–112r,
79 The following art historians have questioned transcribed in ibid., p. 350, doc.VI.51.a.
whether Verrocchio was a painter at all: Ettore 89 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 365–66. On
Camesasca, Artista in bottega (Milan, 1966), p. Verrocchio painting frescoes, Vasari wrote:
429; Ettore Camesasca, L’opera completa del “[F]ece i cartoni d’una battaglia d’ignudi diseg-
Perugino (Milan, 1969), p. 85; Cannon-Brookes, nati di penna molto bene, per farli di colore in
“Verrocchio Problems,” pp. 16–17; Sheldon una facciata.” Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 363.
Grossman, “Ghirlandaio’s ‘Madonna and 90 Roberta Bartoli, Biagio d’Antonio (Milan,
Child’ in Frankfurt and Leonardo’s Beginnings 1999), pp. 31–38.
as a Painter,” Städel-Jahrbuch 7 (1979): 101–25, 91 Brown, Leonardo da Vinci, p. 26.
pp. 101–02, 116, 121; and Anna Padoa Rizzo, 92 “Andrea del Verrocchio dipintore e’ntaglia-
“Introduzione,” in Maestri e botteghe: Pittura tore.” ASF, Accademia del Disegno, 2 (Debitori
a Firenze alla fine del Quattrocento, eds. Mina e creditori e ricordi, libro rosso A, 1472–1520),
fol. II left side, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del 1 01 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 373–34.
Verrocchio, p. 277, doc. III.16. 102 A document of 1485 states that the altarpiece
93 ASF, Accademia del Disegno, 2 (Debitori e would have been completed six years earlier
creditori e ricordi, libro rosso A, 1472–1520), if Verrocchio had been paid in total for his
fol. 11 left side, transcribed in Covi, Andrea work. ASP, Comune, Consigli, Provvisioni
del Verrocchio, p. 277, doc. III.16. This point e Riforme, 48 (1483–92; formerly Archivio
has been made by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, Comunale, Provvisioni del Comune, 68), fols.
pp. 6–7. Matriculation in the Arte dei Medici IIIV–112r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del
e Speziali to which painters were affiliated Verrocchio, p. 350, doc.VI.51.a. On the painting’s
was a precondition for membership in the attribution, see n. 27 earlier in this chapter.
Compagnia di San Luca (unfortunately, the 103
AOF, VIII.I.61 (Quaderno di cassa, July–
records of the guild for the late fifteenth cen- December, 1475), fol. 64 right side, transcribed
tury are missing). For the guild and its statutes in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 332, doc. 42.
as they related to painters see Carlo Fiorilli, On the standrard, see Enzo Settesoldi, “Il
“I dipintori a Firenze nell’Arte dei Medici e gonfalone del comune di Carrara dipinto da
Speziale e Merciai,” Archivio storico italiano 2 Andrea del Verrocchio,” Paragone 31, no. 363
(1920): 6–74. Furthermore, Roberto Bellucci (May, 1980): 87–91.
and Cecilia Frosinini have pointed out that 104 Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, doc.VI.44.b.
entry into the guild did not mark the begin- 105 Ibid., doc.VI.46.
nings of painters’ activity in that area because 106 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 366–67.Vasari’s claim
“there are numerous instances of enrollments that Verrocchio produced a statue of Marsyas
in the guild by older workers whose inde- for the Medici is supported by the second item
pendent work was so well-known that they listed in Tommaso’s inventory of goods made
could no longer hope to elude the guild’s con- for the Medici, which reads: “lo gnudo rosso.”
trol.” Roberto Bellucci and Cecilia Frosinini, (Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi,
“Working Together: Masaccio’s and Masolino’s ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. 1), fol.43r,
Technique and Technical Innovations in Panel transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 287,
Painting,” in The Panel Paintings of Masolino and doc.VI.28). This was pointed out by Francesco
Masaccio:The Role of Technique, ed. Carl Strehlke Caglioti, “Due restauratori per le antichità dei
(Milan, 2002), 29–67, p. 29. primi medici: Mino da Fiesole, Andrea del
94 Perosa, ed., Il Zibaldone Quaresimale, vol. 1 of Verrocchio e il ‘Marsia rosso’ degli Uffizi. I,”
Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, pp. 2, 23–4. Prospettiva 72 (1993): 17–42, p. 23.
95 Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi, 107 Butterfield (Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio,
ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. 1), fol.43r, pp. 232–33) discusses the documents concern-
transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 287, ing the commission.
doc.VI.28. 108 Butterfield, Sculptures of Verrocchio, pp. 233–36.
96 ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 305 109
For the documents, see Carl Frey, Die
(Deliberazioni July 1– December 31, 1469), fol. Loggia dei Lanzi zu Florenz: Eine quellenkri-
165v, transcribed in ibid., p. 330, doc.VI.36. tische Untersuchung (Berlin, 1885), p. 345. On
97 Giovanni Poggi, Il Duomo di Firenze: documenti Florentine artists working in multiple crafts
sulla decorazione della chiesa e del campanile, tratti and the guild context, see Alfred Doren, Le arti
dall’archivio dell’opera, ed. Margaret Haines, 2 fiorentine, trans. G. B. Klein, 2 vols. (Florence,
vols. (Berlin, 1909, repr. 1988), vol. 1, pp. 240– 1930), vol. 1, pp. 86–88. On the Florentine
43, docs. 1205 and 1206. painters’ guild, see Irene Hueck, “Le matricole
98 Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi, dei pittori fiorentini prima e dopo il 1320,”
ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. I), fol. Bolletino d’arte 57, no. 2 (1972): 114–21.
43r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, 110 Jean Cadogan, Domenico Ghirlandaio. Artist and
p. 287, document VI.28. Artisan (New Haven, CT, 2000), p. 30.
99 On this commission, see Chapter 2. 111 The painter Smeraldo di Giovanni was also a
100 Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi, member of the Legnaioli. Margaret Haines, “Il
ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. I), fol. mondo dello Scheggia: persone e luoghi di una
43r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, carriera,” in Lo Scheggia, eds. Luciano Bellosi and
p. 287, doc.VI.28. Margaret Haines (Siena, 1999), pp. 38 and 40.
112 On Florentines of different social rank (includ- at the beginning of a volume of other authors.
ing some members of the popolani) as knowl- The earliest known incunabulum of Lucian
edgeable and the implications of this for the which contains the Muscae laudatio was printed
reception of works of art, see Dale Kent, in Venice in 1500 (Hain 10263). See Dario A.
Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine Renaissance: Covi, “Four New Documents Concerning
The Patron’s Oeuvre (New Haven, CT, 2000); Andrea del Verrocchio,” Art Bulletin 48, no. 1
and Amy Bloch, Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Gates (March 1966): 97–103, p. 99, n. 18.
of Paradise. Humanism, History, and Artistic 119 Silvia Rizzo, “Codice e libro a stampa,” in Il
Philosophy in the Italian Renaissance (New York, Lessico Filologico degli umanisti (Rome, 1973), p.
2016). 76. I am grateful to Luca Boschetto for point-
113 Robert Black has argued that the level of lit- ing this out to me. See also Salvatore Battaglia,
eracy among Florentine males was around 67 “Gettare in forma: stampara. Libro in forma: in
to 83 percent. See Robert Black, “Education stampa,” in Grande Dizionario della Lingua
and the Emergence of a Literate Society,” Italiana, 21 vols. (Turin, 1961), vol. 6, no. 38, p.
in Italy in the Age of the Renaissance, ed. John 173. “In forma” was used in counter distinction
M. Najemy (Oxford, 2004), 18–36, p. 18; and from “in penna,” which was also used in inven-
Robert Black, “Literacy in Florence, 1427,” in tories to refer to handwritten texts. On this
Florence and Beyond. Culture, Society and Politics point, see Bec, Les livres des Florentines, p. 51.
in Renaissance Italy. Essays in Honour of John 120 It is unlikely that Alberti’s Musca was published
M. Najemy, eds. David S. Peterson and Daniel by 1490, the date of the inventory, as Alberti’s
E. Bornstein (Toronto, 2008), 195–210. See other apologues, including his eulogy to his dog,
also, Gene Brucker, “Voices from the Catasto, were not printed until 1499 in a rare edition by
1427–1480,” I Tatti Studies 5 (1993): 11–32. Girolamo Massaini and not again until an Italian
114 Black, “Literacy in Florence, 1427;” Brucker, edition of 1568. See David Marsh, “Aesop and
“Voices from the Catasto,” pp. 17–18; and Kent, the Humanist Apologue,” Renaissance Studies 17,
Cosimo de’ Medici, p. 42. no. 1 (2003): 9–26, pp. 11–12.
115 Christian Bec, Les livres des Florentines (1413– 121 Gloria Allaire, Andrea da Barberino and the
1608) (Florence, 1984). Language of Chivalry (Gainsville, FL, 1997),
116
Scholars have assigned the Cento Novelle to p. 6. On the oral culture of San Martino, see
Franco Sacchetti, but this is not correct. See Blake Wilson, “Dominion of the Ear: Singing
Armando F. Verde, “Libri tra le pareti domes- the Vernacular in Piazza San Martino,” I Tatti
tiche,” Tradizione medievale e innovazione uman- Studies in the Italian Renaissance 16, no. 1/2
istica a Firenze nei secoli xv–xvi 18 (1987): 1–226, (2013): 273–87.
p. 63 n. 54, where he notes that Cento Novelle 122 Guerrino il Meschino was first published in Padua
in inventories contemporary with Verrocchio’s in 1473 making it a possible candidate. Gloria
indicates Boccaccio’s Decameron, with further Allaire, “Un ignoto manoscritto di Guerrino il
bibliography. Meschino,” Bibliofilia: Rivista di Storia del Libro e
117
ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 1539 (Atti di Bibliografia 96, no. 3 (September–December
in cause ordinarie, July 23, 1490–March 3, 1994): 232–39, p. 234. In a 1484 inventory, the
1490/91), fols. 301r–302v, transcribed in Covi, book is referred to as “Guerino Meschino in
Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 286, doc.V.27. forma.” Verde, “Libri tra le pareti domestiche,”
118
According to Dario A. Covi, the earliest p. 110. For a history of the printed editions of
printed Moschus recorded is a Greek and Latin Guerrino il Meschino, see Z. Ostella, “Il Guerrin
edition of Carmen de raptu Helenae, printed Meschino,” Pallante 10, fasc. 9–10 (1932): 29–37.
by Dionysius Bertochus at Reggio Emilia 123 Marco Villoresi, “Un itinerario cavalleresco
(Hain 11620), which has been dated c. 1498 attraverso il fondo manoscritti della Biblioteca
by Dietrich Reichling, Appendices ad Hainii- Riccardiana di Firenze,” in Paladini di carta.
Copingeri Repertorium bibliographicum: additiones La cavalleria figurate, ed. Giovanna Lazzi, exh.
et emendations (Munich, 1905–11), Fasc. III, 116f; cat., Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence, May 8–
and not earlier than 1501 by Robert Proctor, August 8, 2003. (Florence, 2003), 11–25, p. 22.
The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century 124 Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 16. Their books
(Oxford, 1900), p. 109f. Paul O. Kristeller has included the Bible, the Lives of the Saints, a history
suggested the possibility of a Moschus bound of Florence, the Miracles of Our Lady, an account of
the death of Saint Jerome, a little book of virtues 128 “Ben è vero, perché tu sé quelli che vi ci fai
and vices, The Life of Alexander, a book of Saint stare . . . E sappiate che tutte le cose non sono
Bernard, a book by Dante, a book of Lauds, the licite a ogni persona.” Alberto Conte, ed., Il
Gospels, and the Epistles, The Lives of the Church novellino (Rome, 2001), pp. 131–32, translated
Fathers, extracts from Livy’s Decades, Boccaccio’s and discussed by Alison Cornish, Vernacular
Decameron, a dialogue of Saint Gregory, the Little Translation in Dante’s Italy. Illiterate Literature
Flowers of Virtue (of Saint Francis), a work by (Cambridge, 2011), pp. 32–33. On attitudes
Cristoforo Landino, a treatise of Saint Antoninus, toward vernacular translation, see Cornish,
and a poem of the wars of Charlemagne. On Vernacular Translation, chapter 1, pp. 16–43.
the Maiano inventory, see Lorenzo Cèndali, 129
The classic study of Dante’s knowledge of,
Giuliano e Benedetto da Majano (San Casciano and references to, classical antiquity is Edward
[Val di Pesa], 1926), pp. 183–84. Moore, Studies in Dante. First Series: Scripture
125
The engraver and cartographer Francesco and Classical Authors in Dante (Oxford, 1896).
Rosselli owned seven religious texts, a copy Boccaccio expounded in great detail Dante’s
of one of Dante’s works, and an edition allusions to classical mythology in his Esposizioni
of Josephus, presumably in the vernacular. sopra la Comedia, his unfinished commentary on
(Iodoco del Badia, “La bottega di Alessandro di Dante’s Comedia that was read widely and first
Francesco Roselli merciaio e stampatore bot- delivered in the form of lectures at the church
tega di Alessandro di Francesco Roselli merci- of Santo Stefano di Badia in Florence in 1374.
aio e stampatore [1525],” in Miscellanea Fiorentina Boccaccio took Dante’s references as an oppor-
di erudizione e storia, 2 vols. [Rome, 1978], vol. 2, tunity to relate many references to classical
no. 14, 24–30, p. 26.) And an inventory of the myth and literature, often including extracts
painter Stefano di Lorenzo’s possessions, com- from classical texts to discuss specific points.
posed in 1435, included a book of saints in the Simon A. Gilson, Dante and Renaissance Florence
vernacular, the Virtues of Seneca in the ver- (Cambridge, MA, 2005), pp. 42–47. I thank one
nacular, the Soliloquies of Saint Augustine, the of my anonymous readers for pointing this
Letters of Saint Paul, a work of Beato Eusebio, out to me. On Florentine ownership of Dante
the Mirror of Penitence, a Christian life, a work commentaries, see Bec, Les livres des Florentines,
by Jonah the Prophet, Saint Gregory’s Letters, pp. 26; and on the commentaries, Luca Carlo
the Meditations on the Life of Christ, a book on Rossi, “7. Commedia: Early Commentaries,” and
poverty, and a text dedicated to Our Lady. ASF, Deborah Parker, “8. Commedia: Renaissance
Notariale Antecosimiano 15591, 237v and 238r. Commentaries,” in The Dante Encyclopedia, ed.
I am grateful to Luca Boschetto for showing Richard Lansing (New York, 2000), 206–09
me this last document in the Florentine State and 209–13.
Archives. 130 Alan K. Smith, “Fraudomy: Reading Sexuality
The inventory of Filippino Lippi’s bottega
126
and Politics in Burchiello,” in Queering the
records that he had in his possession a bible, Renaissance, ed. Jonathan Goldberg (Durham,
Ovid in the vernacular, nine recent texts NC, 1994), 84–106, p. 86.
(including works by Dante, Petrarch, and 131 Smith, “Fraudomy,” p. 102 n. 8. On this point
Boccaccio), and a copy of Livy. Doris Carl, see Leon Battista Alberti, Rime e versioni poet-
“Das Inventar von Filippino Lippi aus dem iche, ed. Giuglielmo Gorni (Milano, 1975),
Jahre 1504,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen p. 3ff; and Giuliano Tanturli, “Note alle
Institutes in Florenz 31 (1987): 373–91, pp. Rime dell’Alberti,” Metrica 2 (1981): 103–21,
388–89. Luca della Robbia’s books included pp. 104–06.
works by Cavalcanti, Jacopone da Todi, Dante, 132 Renee Watkins, “Il Burchiello (1404–48):
Boccaccio, Petrarch, and Manetti. Alessio Poverty, Politics and Poetry,” Italian Quarterly
Decaria, “Una copista di classici italiani e i 54 (1970): 21–87, pp. 37–38.
libri di Luca della Robbia,” Rinascimento, s. 2, 133 Luca Boschetto, “Burchiello e il suo ambiente
47 (2007): 243–87, esp. pp. 245–51. sociale: esplorazioni d’archivio sugli anni fior-
127
On these efforts, see Giuseppe De Luca, entini,” in La fantasia fuor de’ confini: Burchiello e
“Introduction,” in Prosatori minori del Trecento: dintorni a 550 anni dalla morte (1449–1999). Atti
scrittori di religione, ed. Giuseppe De Luca del convegno. Firenze, 1999, ed. Michelangelo
(Milan, 1954), pp. xi–xl. Zaccarello, (Rome, 2002), 35–57, pp. 38–39.
134
Caroline Elam (referred to by Hugh and a house in Piazza Duomo (Staccioli,
MacAndrew, Old Master Drawings from the “Profilo congressuale di Filippo Brunelleschi,”
National Gallery of Scotland, exh. cat., National pp. 40–41). Ammannatini later emigrated to
Gallery, Washington, DC, June 24–September Hungary and acquired considerable wealth
3, 1990, and Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth, there, according to contemporary tax records
TX, November 3, 1990–January 13, 1991 (Eugenio Battisti, Brunelleschi. The Complete
(Washington, DC, 1990, p. 26) has compared Works, trans. Robert Erich Wolf [New York,
the inscriptions on the verso with an autograph 1981; Milan, 2002], p. 326). Grasso is known in
of 1470 attributed to Verrocchio by Carlo Pini five redactions, some of which attribute the tale
and Gaetano Milanesi, La scrittura di artisti ital- to Filippo Brunelleschi himself. Given the con-
iani (sec. XIV–XVII), 3 vols. (Florence, 1876), temporary practice of oral storytelling, though,
vol. 1, no. 56, and she believes it is possible it is highly likely that the story was recounted
that both are by the same person. I have com- by different people and thus its authorship
pared the writing on the drawing with that on cannot be securely attributed to any one per-
Verrocchio’s autograph catasto declaration, and I son. Nevertheless, Brunelleschi’s propensity for
agree with Elam’s attribution to the same hand. practical jokes is a recurring theme in Manetti’s
The presence of a lute, recorded in the inven- life of the artist (though this cannot be con-
tory made after the artist’s death, might also sug- firmed), including his well-known trick on
gest that Verrocchio performed poetry. For the his arch nemesis Lorenzo Ghiberti after the
inventory, see Covi, “Four New Documents,” two were named co-supervisors for the cupola
p. 103. project – Brunelleschi pretended to be sick
135
Two passages in Manetti’s vita allude to in order to show up Ghiberti as supervisor of
Brunelleschi as a poet: the first, probably dat- the dome’s construction. (Manetti, Vita, p. 93).
ing after 1429, metions “certain sonnets” in a This has been discussed by Margaret Haines,
discussion of a dispute between Brunelleschi “Brunelleschi and Bureaucracy: The Tradition
and Donatello while the two were working on of Public Patronage at the Florence cathedral,”
the Old Sacristy; and the second, in a discus- I Tatti Studies 3 (1989): 89–126, p. 115.
sion of Antonio di Manetto Ciàccheri (one of 137 See Sanne Rusalka Wellen, “‘Andrea del Sarto
Brunelleschi’s competitors for the lantern of pittore senza errori.’ Between biography,
the cupola in 1436), Manetti mentions a son- Florentine society, and literature” (Ph.D. diss.,
net by Brunelleschi. (Staccioli notes, however, Johns Hopkins University, 2004).
that Manetti does not mention the tenzone by 138 Ms. Magliabechiano XXI, 87, fol. 30v.
Giovanni Gherardo da Prato.) And Vasari refers 139 This has been pointed out by John Onians,
to sonnets by Brunelleschi in both editions for example, who has argued Brunelleschi
of the Vite. Giuliano Staccioli, “Profilo con- was a volgare, rather than a humanist, archi-
gressuale di Filippo Brunelleschi e della ten- tect. John Onians, “Brunelleschi: Humanist or
zone poetica con Giovanni Gherardi” in Der Nationalist?” Art History 5 (1982): 259–72.
Humanismus der Architektur in Florenz. Filippo 140 Giuliano Tanturli, “Rapporti del Brunelleschi
Brunelleschi und Michelozzo di Bartolomeo, ed. con gli ambienti letterari fiorentini,” in
Wolfgang von Löhneysen (Hildesheim, 1999), Filippo Brunelleschi, la sua opera e il suo tempo,
35–55, pp. 42–44. For Brunelleschi’s sonnets, 2 vols. (Florence, 1980), vol. 1, 125–44. The
see Filippo Brunelleschi, Sonetti di Filippo earliest literary reference to Brunelleschi
Brunelleschi, introduction by Giuliano Tanturli, comes not from a humanist but a vernacu-
notes on the text by Domenico De Robertis lar writer, Domenico da Prato, a notary and
(Florence, 1977). scribe (and one of the writers to whom
136 Grasso is included in Manetti’s vita of was attributed Geta and Birria in one of the
Brunelleschi, where it precedes the life of commonplace books made in Verrocchio’s
the artist (Antonio Manetti, Vita di Filippo workshop). In a letter to his friend
Brunelleschi, ed. Domenico de Robertis (Milan, Alessandro Rondanelli dated 1413, Domenico
1976), pp. 3–44). The story is likely based on da Prato praised Brunelleschi for his inge-
fact: its central protagonist, the fat woodcarver, nuity as an architect. Tanturli, “Rapporti del
was based on Manetto Ammannatini, a master Brunelleschi,” p. 125. On the other hand,
carpenter with a bottega in Piazza San Giovanni Christine Smith (Architecture in the Culture of
Early Humanism. Ethics, Aesthetics, and Eloquence 150 Franco Franceschi, Oltre il ‘Tumulto’: i lavoratori
1400–1470 [New York, 1992]) has discussed fiorentini (Florence, 1993), pp. 318–19.
the importance of Brunelleschi’s architecture 151 Watkins, “Il Burchiello,” pp. 23–24; and Alan
for humanists. On Brunelleschi’s appeal to K. Smith, “Burchiello,” in Encyclopedia of the
humanists, see also Gabriella Befani Canfield, Renaissance, ed. Paul Grendler, 6 vols. (New York,
“The Florentine Humanists’ Concept of 1999), vol. 1, 315. This picture of Burchiello’s
Architecture in the 1430s and Filippo barber shop as a meeting place for men of
Brunelleschi,” in Scritti di storia dell’arte in different social ranks has been challenged by
onore di Federigo Zeri, ed. Mauro Natale, 2 vols. Luca Boschetto (“Burchiello e il suo ambi-
(Venice, 1984), vol. 1, 112–21, p. 112. ente sociale,” pp. 50–51). Boschetto’s claims
141 Christopher Celenza, The Lost Renaissance: are significant but not conclusive. Important
Humanists, Historians, and Latin’s Legacy correctives to Boschetto’s arguments include
(Baltimore, MD, 2004), p. 114. For an important Domenico De Robertis, “Una proposta per
consideration of a fifteenth-century Florentine Burchiello,” Rinascimento 8 (1968): 3–119; and
artist’s engagement with vernacular and Latin Michelangelo Zaccarello, “An Unknown
literary sources, see Bloch, Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Episode of Burchiello’s Reception in the
Gates of Paradise. Early Cinquecento: Florence, Biblioteca
142 Peter Howard, “The Aural Space of the Sacred Riccardiana, ms. 2725, fols 80r–131v,” Modern
in Renaissance Florence,” in Renaissance Language Review 100, no. 1 (January, 2005):
Florence: A Social History, eds. Roger J. Crum 78–96.
and John T. Paoletti (New York, 2006), 376– 152 Margery A. Ganz, “A Florentine Friendship:
93; Peter Howard, “Preaching to the Mob: Donato Acciaiuoli and Vespasiano da Bisticci,”
Space, Ideas, and Persuasion in Renaissance Renaissance Quarterly 43, no. 2 (1990): 372–383,
Florence,” in Mobs: An Interdisciplinary Inquiry, pp. 372–74.
eds. Nancy Van Deusen and Leonard Michael 153 Trans. Lauro Martines, Italian Renaissance Sextet
Koff (Leiden, 2012), 203–22; and Wilson, (New York, 1994), p. 179.
“Dominion of the Ear.” 154
Elena Del Gallo notes that Lodovico Frati
143
Vittorio Rossi, “Dante nel Trecento e nel (“Cantari e sonetti ricordati nella Cronaca
Quattrocento,” in Vittorio Rossi, Saggi e discorsi di Benedetto Dei,” Giornale storico della letter-
su Dante (Florence, 1930), 293–32, pp. 324–25. atura italiana 4 (1884), pp. 179–81) has proposed
144
Dario Del Puppo, “In margine ai codici that Lo Za was the brother of Antonio di
delle rime di Burchiello: individuo e società Tommaso Finiguerra (b. 1389–d. 1464), mak-
nelle antologie e miscellanee letterarie del ing him Maso’s uncle, but this cannot be con-
Quattrocento,” in La fantasia fuor de’ confini: firmed (Elena Del Gallo “Finiguerri, Stefano,
Burchiello e dintorni a 550 anni dalla morte (1449– detto il Za,” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani,
1999), ed. Michelangelo Zaccarello (Rome, 45 vols. [Rome, 1997], vol. 48, ed. Alberto M.
2002), 101–113, pp. 231–33. Ghisalberti, p. 55).
145
John Ahern, “Singing the Book: Orality in 155
The assistant responsible for the portrait of
the Reception of Dante’s Comedy,” in Dante: Seneca may have been Francesco Botticini, evi-
Contemporary Perspectives, ed. Amilcare A. dent from a comparison between the pen and
Iannucci (Toronto, 1997), 216–39, p. 214. ink sketch in ms. 1591 and that of Saint Eusebius
146 Ahern, “Singing the Book,” p. 215. in Botticini’s Saint Jerome in Penitence (Lisa
147 Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici, p. 44.This is confirmed Venturini, Francesco Botticini [Florence, 1994], p.
by an account of Poggio Bracciolini retold in 130) and Saint Augustine, a lateral panel for an
Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici, pp. 43–44. unknown altarpiece. There are similarities in
148 On this point, see Lauro Martines,“The Politics the expression, the three-quarter view, the pose
of Love Poetry in Renaissance Italy,” Interpres of the head, and, most significantly, the distinc-
11 (1991): 93–111; and Suzanne Branciforte, tive three lines of shadow down the right side
“Poetry as Document: A Popolaresco Account of the figures’ faces. Botticini is known to have
of Life in Quattrocento Florence” (M.A. Diss., done drawings for manuscripts. He executed a
UCLA, 1986), referred to by Kent, Cosimo de’ pen and ink portrait of Matteo Palmieri dat-
Medici, p. 45. ing from c. 1473 in a manuscript (Biblioteca
149 Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici, p. 49. Medicea Laurenziana, Florence), and the
earliest references to the artist refer to him as however, they are the work of two distinct art-
a painter of playing cards, the same profession ists. The sonnets by Brunelleschi can be found
as his father (Venturini, Francesco Botticini, p. on fol. 30v, and by Alberti on fol. 20r, in Ms.
114, cat. 38, and p. 23). In 1463 Botticini would Magliabechiano XXI, 87.
have been seventeen or eighteen years old, an 159 Drawings on the following folios in ms.1591,
age when he had very likely completed his Biblioteca Riccardiana, have been pricked: 84v;
apprenticeship but before he had started work- 100r; 101v; 102v; 104r; 105v; 108v; 109v; 111v;
ing as an independent master. We know that 112v; 118r; 119v; 125v; 127r; 128v;129v; 131v;
Botticini had completed his apprenticeship in 132r; 133v;134v;136v;139v; 142v; 147v; 149r;
Neri di Bicci’s workshop by this date as Neri 151r; 152r; 153v;155r; 156v; 157v; 160r;166r;
recorded Botticini’s departure in his invalua- 167v;169v;172v;174r. A drawing in ms. 1591 on
ble Ricordi, in 1460, one year after the begin- fol. 153 v features pricking just for the figures,
ning of his training and less than three years especially obvious for the male figure.The per-
before the Riccardiana manuscript was made. son who did the pricking was so careless that
Neri di Bicci, Le Ricordanze (10 Marzo, 1453–24 the holes continue through the pages preced-
Aprile, 1475), ed. Bruno Santi (Pisa, 1976), 246, ing it (back to 148v).
pp. 126–27 and 628, p. 333. Scholars have often 160 There are no indications about the original
wondered whether Botticini spent time in owner of ms. 2805, Biblioteca Riccardiana that
Verrocchio’s workshop, but no documents have I could find.
been found that confirm this. On this issue, see 161
I have not identified the watermark in ms.
Venturini, Francesco Botticini, pp. 41–56. 2805, Biblioteca Riccardiana, but based on the
156 ASF, Notarile ante-cosimiano 6085 (formerly stylistic evidence it is likely that it was pro-
D 48) (Ser Giovanni di Ser Paolo Lorenzo duced in Verrocchio’s bottega. Dale Kent notes
Dieciaiuti, 1484–85), fol. 66v, transcribed in that in the sixteenth century ms. 2805 and ms.
Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 276, doc. II.12. 1591 belonged to the same owner: Simone di
157 Del Puppo, “In margine ai codici delle rime Giovanni Berti, known as “Lo Smunto,” who
di Burchiello,” pp. 107–08. Piero dei Ricci is was a member of the Accademia della Crusca.
identified as the scribe of ms. 1591 on fol. 175r. See Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici, p. 423 n. 81.
158 The drawings for Geta and Birria in the 162 Ms. Magliabechiano XXI, 87 is 23.6 cm high
Biblioteca Nazionale codex are very close and 17 cm wide; ms. 1591 is 23.2 cm high and
to those in the Riccardiana manuscript (ms. 16.5 cm wide; ms. 2805 is 21.6 cm high and
1591), so close that some scholars have attrib- 16.5 cm wide. Ms. 1591 has a watermark sim-
uted them to the same hand. See Tanturli, ilar to Briquet 6653; ms. 2805 has watermarks
“Rapporti del Brunelleschi,” p. 127 and n. 27. most similar to Briquet 6645, 6648, 6649, 6644,
According to Giunia Adini and Dario Del 6647, 6650, 6651, 6652, 6654, 6655, 6657, 6658,
Puppo, the illustrations in ms. 1591, Biblioteca 6662; and 3363, 3390, 3391, 3392, and 3393 (2805
Riccardiana, were done by an artist working in has some other watermarks that I have not
the styles of Maso Finiguerra and Apollonio di been able to identify); Magliabechiano XXI,
Giovanni (in particular the oriental style of some 87 has a watermark most similar to Briquet
of the figures). See Giunia Adini and Dario Del 5904, 5907, 5908, 5909, 5910, 5911. Dario Del
Puppo in Immaginare l’Autore. Il ritratto del letterato Puppo claimed that Magliabechiano XXI, 87
nella cultura umanistica, ed. Giovanna Lazzi, exh. and ms. 1591 have the same watermark, while
cat., Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence, March ms. 2805 has a flower watermark similar to
26–June 27, 1998 (Florence, 1998), p. 70, cat. 8. Briquet 6653. Del Puppo, “In margine ai codici
Most recently, Adriana Di Domenico has attrib- delle rime di Burchiello,” p. 106 and n. 7. It is
uted the drawings in the two manuscripts to the not clear if one of the codices was the model
same artist, and she provides a thorough discus- for the others, or whether all three codices
sion of attributions proposed by other schol- were copies of a different, common model.
ars. See Adriana Di Domenico, “Il ‘Cantare Del Puppo has proposed that in the case of
del Geta e Birria’ ‘visualizzato’ (e un ritratto the two Riccardiana manuscripts, the corre-
del Burchiello) nelle illustrazioni di un codice spondence of the same words on each page
magliabechiano,” Rivista di Storia della Miniatura supports an attribution to the same workshop.
nos. 1–2 (1996–97): 123–30, p. 123.To my mind, And this in turn suggests that the codices were
not commissioned by a patron, but rather, that coat of arms as that of the Pieri family. See
they were made in bulk to be sold at a book- Morpurgo, I manoscritti, p. 572, cat. 1591.
shop, in a mode familiar from the practices of 170
This argument has been presented by
the shop of Vespasiano Bisticci. Del Puppo, “In Ulrich Pfisterer in his book, Donatello und
margine ai codici delle rime di Burchiello,” die Entdeckung der Stile 1430–1445 (Munich,
p. 107. 2002).
163
The writing overlaps the drawings on the 171 Kenneth Clark, Leonardo da Vinci: An Account
following folios from ms. 1591: 56r, 70r, 79v, of His Development as an Artist (Cambridge,
81v, 82r, 87r, 91v, 93r, 153 v, 159r, 160r, 162v, MA,1939; reprint, Baltimore, 1967), p. 5.
164v, 166r, 167v, 169v, 172v, 174r. The scribe of 172 My approach challenges that of Francis Ames-
Magliabechiano XXI, 87, on the other hand, Lewis, who, in The Intellectual Life of the Early
appears to have written the text first, leaving Renaissance Artist (New Haven, CT, 2000)
room for the illustrations. proposed that judgment of an artist’s intellect
164
Richard H. and Mary A. Rouse, Cartolai, should be based on the works the artist cre-
Illuminators and Printers in Fifteenth-Century ated set against the standards of humanism. In
Italy. The Evidence of the Ripoli Press (Los this way, according to Ames-Lewis, art should
Angeles, CA, 1988), p. 51. be judged (and by implication, he suggests that
165 Rouse, Cartolai, Illuminators and Printers, they were judged) on the basis of its success at
pp. 53–54 and ns. 79 and 80. illustrating classical texts or correspondences to
166 Ibid., p. 29. And Rouse and Rouse have humanist learning. This attitude restricts what
concluded that “decorators work[ed] for counts as intellectual work, and oversimpli-
cartolai . . . most often in the shops of the car- fies the account of the intellectual culture in
tolai” (Rouse, Cartolai, Illuminators and Printers, which Renaissance artists worked. For a use-
p. 54). Although Rouse and Rouse are refer- ful critique of Ames-Lewis’ book, see Stephen
ring specifically to the decoration of printed Campbell, review of The Intellectual Life of the
books, their study focuses on this new medium Early Renaissance Artist, by Francis Ames-Lewis,
in its earliest years when it imitated the prac- Art Bulletin 83, no. 1 (March, 2001): 150–52.
tices of the manufacture of manuscripts and Historians of science have been uncovering a
thus can be used in this context. growing body of evidence for the sophistication
167 On the attribution to Filippo Brunelleschi, see of artisans’ thinking and production. Important
Tanturli, “Rapporti del Brunelleschi,” p. 127.The examples include Deborah E. Harkness, The
vernacular version of Geta and Birria found in Jewel House: Elizabethan London and the Scientific
the Riccardiana and Biblioteca Nazionale man- Revolution (New Haven, CT, 2007); and Smith,
uscripts was a Tuscan adaptation there attrib- The Body of the Artisan.
uted to Ghigo Brunelleschi and Domenico da 173 Smith, Architecture in the Culture of Early
Prato, one of only a handful of examples to do Humanism.
this (others present the tale as Ghigo’s alone). 174 Smith, The Body of the Artisan. On artisanal
Adini and Del Puppo, Immaginare l’Autore, cat. epistemology, see also Smith’s articles: “Giving
8, p. 70. In a manuscript contemporary to this Voice to the Hands”; “Making and Knowing in
one, also in the Biblioteca Riccardiana (ms. a Sixteenth-Century Goldsmith’s Workshop”;
1592, fol. 42v), the scribe attributes the vernac- “Vermilion, Mercury, Blood, and Lizards:
ular translation of Vitalis’ story to Boccaccio. Matter and Meaning in Metalworking,” in
See Salomone Morpurgo, I manoscritti della R. Materials and Expertise in Early Modern Europe:
Biblioteca Riccardiana di Firenze: manoscritti italiani, Between Market and Laboratory, eds. Ursula Klein
vol. 1 (Rome, 1893), p. 574. and Emma Spary (Chicago, IL, 2010), 29–49;
168 Leonardo da Vinci, The Madrid Codices, trans. and with Beentjes, “Nature and Art, Making
and commentary by Ladislao Reti, 4 vols. and Knowing.” For a useful theorization of
(New York, 1974), vol. 3, p. 91ff. making, see Koerner, “Editorial: Factura.”
169
The coat of arms consists of a bright blue 175 Much recent attention has been paid to objects
shield with three silver roundels and a silver and their agency (“things that talk,” as Lorraine
V, surrounded by a pink and green wreath and Daston has expressed it). (Lorraine Daston, ed.,
two curling ribbons in pink and blue flutter- Things That Talk: Object Lessons from Art and
ing at the sides. Morpurgo has identified the Science [NewYork, 2004].) Important references
on the history of materials and materiality are be historically situated. As theorists are them-
mentioned earlier in notes 37–41 and 43. See selves shaped by the agency of objects, it is
also the references on agency in n. 45 earlier important to contextualize them in order to
in this chapter. As Caroline Walker Bynum access this aspect of the objects about which
warns us, this theorizing about objects must we are writing.
1: VERROCCHIO’S INGENUITY
1 Michael Wayne Cole, Cellini and the Principles Firenze, 1486–93), fols. 33r–v, transcribed in
of Sculpture (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 49 and Dario A. Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio. Life and
185, n. 39. Work (Florence, 2005), p. 283, doc. V.23. The
2 Massimo Leoni, “Casting Techniques in document is a contract by Lorenzo di Credi,
Verrochio’s Workshop When the Christ and drawn up after Verrocchio’s death in 1488, to
St Thomas Was Made,” in Verrocchio’s Christ complete the Colleoni monument. Divisions
and St Thomas. A Masterpiece of Sculpture from inscribed on a related measured drawing by
Renaissance Florence, ed. Loretta Dolcini, Verrocchio of a horse may represent an ini-
exh. cat., Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, and The tial plan for the piece molds from which the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, bronze was to have been constructed. The
December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993 (New York, measurements along the horse’s body are not
1992), 83–100, pp. 89–90. precise (some are longer than the inscriptions
3 Earlier, for his bronze candelabrum for the would suggest [Gustina Scaglia, “Leonardo’s
Signoria in Florence, dated 1468, Verrocchio Non-Inverted Writing and Verrocchio’s
had experimented with bronze casting and sol- Measured Drawing of a Horse,” The Art
dering, for which see my introduction, p. 18-21. Bulletin 64 (1982): 32–44, pp. 40–1]), and they
At the end of his career,Verrocchio appears to conform to Vitruvius’s system of proportions,
have continued experimenting in bronze cast- where the head forms the basic unit (the six-
ing. The Colleoni monument, which was fin- teen sections in Verrocchio’s drawing may
ished after the artist’s death, was cast in sixteen derive from Vitruvius’s model of eight heads to
separate pieces, eight for the horse and eight the human body) (Carmen C. Bambach, ed.,
for the rider. Pieces were joined by a technique Leonardo da Vinci. Master Draftsman, exh. cat.,
known as recasting or rejection (the parts are The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
“sewn” together by threads of metal achieved January 22–March 30, 2003 [New Haven, CT,
by pouring molten metal along connect- 2003], p. 269). It is possible, then, that these
ing bridges). Giovanni Morigi and Lorenzo plans were adopted by Alessandro Leopardi
Morigi, “Note tecniche sul restauro del mon- when it came time to do the casting. On this,
ument a Bartolomeo Colleoni di Andrea del see my entry on Verrocchio’s Measured Drawing
Verrocchio,” in L’industria artistica del bronzo of a Horse Facing Left in Donatello, Michelangelo,
del rinascimento a Venezia e nell’Italia settentrion- Cellini. Sculptor’s Drawings from Renaissance Italy,
ale, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi ed. Michael W. Cole, exh. cat., Isabella Stewart
Venezia, Fondazione Giorgio Cini, Ottobre 23 Gardner Museum, Boston, October 23, 2014–
e 24, 2007, eds. Matteo Ceriana and Victoria January 23, 2015 (London, 2014), 142–4, p. 144.
Avery (Verona, 2008), 459–79. This approach 4 See n. 68 in my introduction.
is unlike Verrocchio’s other work in bronze, 5 Andrew Butterfield, The Sculptures of Andrea
but although Verrocchio was deceased by the del Verrocchio (New Haven, CT, 1997), p. 35.
time the Colleoni monument was cast, it is 6 Andrew Butterfield, “Monument and
possible that he played a role in determining Memory in Early Renaissance Florence,” in
how it was to be done. Documents attest to his Art, Memory, and Family in Renaissance Florence,
having made a life-size model of the Colleoni eds. Giovanni Ciappelli and Patricia Lee
horse in 1483, possibly in wax, and later hav- Rubin (Cambridge, 2000), 135–60, p. 140.
ing made clay models of horse and rider. “[E] 7 This is green porphyry from Lacedaemonian
quo et figura del terra.” ASF, Notarile ante-co- quarries. Suzanne Butters, The Triumph of
simiano, 20614 (Ser Antonio Ubaldini da Vulcan. Sculptors’ Tools, Porphyry, and the Prince
in Ducal Florence, 2 vols. (Florence, 1996), vol. 1, competent in working hard stones by the end of
p. 122 n. 12. the fifteenth century. Simonetta Valtieri, “La fab-
8 According to Butterfield, the dark stone frame brica del palazzo del Cardinale Raffaele Riario
around the structure is not original; it might (La Cancelleria),” Quaderni dell’Istituto di Storia
date from the eighteenth century when San dell’Architettura, ser. XXVII (1982), fasc. 169–74
Lorenzo was repaved; and the gray-brown (1983): 3–25 and Enzo Bentivoglio, “Nel can-
stone around the roundel of the tomb slab and tiere del palazzo del cardinale Raffaele Riario
the apertures is probably post-Renaissance in (la Cancelleria): organizzazione, materiali, maes-
date as well. Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del tranze, personaggi,” Quaderni dell’istituto di sto-
Verrocchio, p. 205. ria dell’architettura, ser. XXVII, 1982, ns. 169–74
9 Porphyry had been used before in (1983): 27–34), cited in Butters, Triumph of Vulcan,
Quattrocento arcosolia in Florence, but only vol. 1, p. 204. On the acquisition of porphyry in
as slabs for the tomb backs. Examples include fifteenth-century Florence (Rome was the pri-
Antonio and Bernardo Rossellino’s monu- mary site), see Angela Dressen, Pavimenti decorate
ment of Leonardo Bruni in Santa Croce and del Quattrocento in Italia (Venice, 2008), pp. 46–7.
Desiderio’s tomb of Carlo Marsuppini, also in Actually, according to Peter Rockwell, the great-
Santa Croce. See Hellmut Wohl, The Aesthetics est challenge in working with porphyry during
of Italian Renaissance Art: A Reconsideration the Renaissance was not the reworking of the
of Style (Cambridge, 1999), p. 182. Both of material (because it had to be acquired from an
these structures would have been familiar to ancient monument, usually from columns, floor-
Verrocchio, and he may have worked as an ing, or interior cladding), but instead the safe
assistant on the Marsuppini tomb. For con- disassembling of the material from its ancient
vincing attributions to Verrocchio of parts of context. Peter Rockwell, The Art of Stoneworking:
the Marsuppini tomb, see Charles Seymour, Jr., A Reference Guide (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 195–6.
The Sculpture of Verrocchio (London, 1971), p. 114; 13 Günther Passavant (Review of Charles
and Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 24–5. Seymour, The Sculpture of Verrocchio, The
10 Susan McKillop, “Dante and Lumen Christi: Burlington Magazine 117 (1975): 55-56, p. 56)
A Proposal for the Meaning of the Tomb of notes that the porphyry sarcophagus was made
Cosimo de’ Medici,” in Cosimo ‘il Vecchio’ de’ from fragments and cleverly disguised beneath
Medici, 1389–1464, ed. Francis Ames-Lewis the bronze decoration. See also Butterfield,
(Oxford, 1992), 245–301, n. 150. Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 207, cat. 7.
11 Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, pp. 186–7. 14 Richard David Serros, “The Verrocchio
12 Ibid., p. 105, 129, 143, 172, and 178. Vasari records Workshop: Techniques, Production and
that these were the usual techniques for work- Influences” (Ph.D. diss., University of
ing with porphyry. Giorgio Vasari, Vasari On California, Santa Barbara, 1999), p. 53; Johannes
Technique. Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Nathan, “The Working Methods of Leonardo
Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed da Vinci and Their Relation to Previous
to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors Artistic Practice” (Ph.D. thesis, Courtauld
and Architects (Florence, 1568), eds. Gerald Baldwin Institute of Art, University of London, 1995),
Brown, trans. Louise S. Maclehouse (New York, p. 126; and Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del
1960), p. 29. For some primary source documents Verrocchio, p. 207, cat. 7.
relating to tools used for working porphyry and 15 Serros, “The Verrocchio Workshop,” p. 54.
other marbles, see Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, 16 Other Tuscan examples of limewood crucifixes
vol. 2, Appendix IV, pp. 391–7; and Agostino del include Crucifix, attributed to Orcagna, 1352–
Riccio, Istoria delle pietre, eds. Raniero Gnoli and 60, San Carlo, Florence (see Luca Uzielli, Marco
Attilia Sironi (Turin, 1996), pp. 125–7. According Fioravanti, Ottaviano Allegetti, Riccardo
to Butters, for craftsmen such as gem engravers, Ballerini, Marino Piva, and Renzo Ricci, “Il
stone sawyers, and some stonecutters, working nuovo ancoraggio per il crofisso ligneo di
with porphyry would not have posed a prob- Andrea Orcagna nella chiesa di San Carlo a
lem. Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 121. Firenze,” in La scultura lignea policroma. Ricerche
Documents relating to the acquisition of tools e modelli operative di restauro, ed. Laura Sperenza
for the construction of Cardinal Riario’s palace (Florence, 2007), 171–84, p. 71); a Crucifix from
in Rome suggest Florentines were especially Badia a Passignano, attributed to Baccio da
Montelupo (see Maria Donata Mazzoni, “Il 20 Mari Yanagishita, Jennifer Di Fina, Bruna
Cristo di Badia a Passignano. Problematiche Mariani, and Raffaella Zurlo, “L’altare d’ar-
di tecnica artistica,” in L’Arte del Legno in gento di San Giovanni,” in Ori, Argenti, Gemme.
Italia Esperienze e Indagini a Confronto. Atti del Restauri dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure, ed. Clarice
Convegno, Pergola, May 2002, ed. Giovan Innocenti, exh. cat., Palazzo Medici Riccardi,
Battista Fidanza [Perugia, 2005], 319–26, p. 319); Florence, September 30, 2007–January 30, 2008
and the Crucifix attributed to Michelangelo (Florence, 2007), 62–77, p. 70.
at Santo Spirito, Florence (see Giancarlo 21 Despite the common assertion that the sil-
Gentilini, ed., Proposta per Michelangelo giovane. ver Executioner was cast (Anthony Radcliffe,
Un Crocifisso in legno di tiglio, exh. cat., Museo “New Light on Verrocchio’s Beheading of the
Horne, Florence, May 8– September 4, 2004 Baptist,” in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento
[Turin, 2004]).The crucifixes by Donatello and Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps
Brunelleschi, by contrast, were made from pear- Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi [Florence,
wood, an uncommon species for Tuscan sculp- 1992], p. 120), the recent technical study of
tures (Peter Stiberc, “Donatello, Brunelleschi Verrocchio’s relief revealed that it, too, was
and the Others. Construction Techniques made by repoussé (Yanagishita et al., “L’altare
in Early Renaissance Wooden Sculptures,” d’argento”). According to the conservator of
Polychrome Sculpture. Artistic Tradition and the Silver Altar, Mari Yanagishita, there are
Construction Techniques, ed. Kate Seymour, only three tiny details on Verrocchio’s relief
ICOM-CC Interim Meeting, Working Group that were made by casting: the left hands of
Sculpture, Polychromy, and Architectural the Executioner and the Youth with the salver, and
Decoration, Glasgow, April 13–14, 2012, the curls on the right side of the head of the
www.icom-cc.org/ul/cms/fck-uploaded/ Executioner (oral communication).
documents/Polychrome%20Sculpture%20 22 Mari Yanagishita, oral communication.
Papers%202010-2013/POLYCHROME%20 23 Pollaiuolo’s Birth of the Baptist, for instance, was
SCULPTURE%20Vol%202%20Glasgow.pdf, made by repoussé but from a single sheet of
15–23, pp. 17 and 19). silver, except for one figure. Yanagishita et al.,
17 Stiberc, “Donatello, Brunelleschi and the “L’altare d’argento,” p. 70.
Others.” 24 Verrocchio’s skills as a draftsman were singled
18 On the technical construction of Verrocchio’s out by Vasari in his vita of the artist, proof
Crucifix, see Lisa Venerosi Pesciolini, of which Vasari kept in his famous Libro de’
“L’intervento di restauro,” OPD Restauro disegni. Vasari emphasized in particular that
7 (1995): 26–32; Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi, Verrocchio’s drawings were made “con molta
“An Unpublished Crucifix by Andrea del pacienza e grandissimo giudizio” (with a
Verrocchio,” Burlington Magazine 136, no. 1101 lot of patience and great judgment). And he
(December, 1994): 808–15; Beatrice Paolozzi celebrated especially Verrocchio’s drawings
Strozzi, “Il crocifisso ligneo del Verrocchio: of heads of young women, “con bell’arie
letture,” Artista (1995): 30–53; and Beatrice ed acconciature di capelli” (with beautiful
Paolozzi Strozzi, “Il crocifisso ligneo di Andrea expressions and hairstyles), which, according
del Verrocchio: ritrovamento e restauro.” OPD. to Vasari, Leonardo always imitated.Vasari was
Restauro 7 (1995): 11–32, 97–101. For other not the only major collector of Verrocchio’s
examples of sculptures built up with stucco, drawings in the sixteenth century, for the vita
see Ida Giannelli, “Il restauro del Cristo Ligneo also mentioned Don Vincenzio Borghini,
attribuito a Michelozzo di Bartolommeo nella philologist, historian, artistic advisor, friend
chiesa di San Niccolò Oltrano,” in Legno e of Vasari, and collector, who owned a number
Restauro. Ricerche e restauri su architetture e man- of Verrocchio’s drawings. According to Vasari,
ufatti lignei, ed. Gennaro Tampone (Florence, Borghini owned a design for a tomb for a
1989), 276–8; Stiberc, “Donatello, Brunelleschi doge of Venice, the Adoration of the Magi,
and the Others,” pp. 20-21. and a head of a woman painted on paper.
19 On the commission and history of the Silver Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pit-
Altar, see Butterfield (Sculptures of Andrea del tori, scultori ed architettori, 1550, rev. 1568, ed.
Verrocchio, pp. 218–19) and Covi (Andrea del Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols. (Florence, 1878),
Verrocchio, pp. 115–21). vol. 3, p. 364.
25 Bambach has made the intriguing suggestion until the first printing presses were set up in
that a sheet in Edinburgh may be a page from a Italy in the early 1470s. Jill Dunkerton and
sketchbook by the artist. Certainly artists asso- Carol Plazzotta, “Drawing and Design in
ciated with Verrocchio’s bottega kept sketch- Italian Renaissance Painting,” in Underdrawings
books, including Leonardo and Francesco di in Renaissance Paintings, ed. David Bomford
Simone Ferrucci, to the latter of whom a group (London, 2002), 53–79, pp. 54–5.
of drawings known as the “so-called Verrocchio 28 The attribution of this drawing to Verrocchio
sketchbook” is generally attributed. Carmen has never been questioned since Giovanni
C. Bambach, “Introduction to Leonardo and Morelli first suggested it in 1891. Ivan
His Drawings,” in Leonardo da Vinci. Master Lermolieff (Giovanni Morelli), Kunstkritische
Draftsman, ed. Carmen C. Bambach, exh. cat., Studien über italienische Malerei. Die Galerien zu
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, München und Dresden (London, 1893), p. 350.
January 22–March 30, 2003 (New Haven, CT, 29 This has been noted by Bambach in Leonardo
2003), 3–30, p. 9. The verso of the Edinburgh da Vinci, ed. Bambach, p. 249.
sheet contains several inscriptions that have 30 The drawing has been variously attributed
been convincingly compared to Verrocchio’s to Verrocchio, Leonardo, Lorenzo di Credi,
hand. On this see p. 26 and p. 260, n. 134. and Perugino. For the attribution history, see
26 This has been noted by Bambach,“Introduction Gigetta Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio, Lorenzo di
to Leonardo and His Drawings,” p. 8. Credi, Francesco di Simone Ferrucci, trans. Susan
27 Bambach has described the tonal range Wise, exh. cat., Musée du Louvre, Paris, 2003
of black chalk as sculptural (Carmen C. (Milan, 2003), p. 76, cat. 1; and Covi, Andrea del
Bambach, Drawing and Painting in the Italian Verrocchio, pp. 242–3.
Renaissance Workshop: Theory and Practice, 1300- 31 Early in the fifteenth-century artists tended to
1600 [Cambridge, UK, 1999], p. 56).Vasari and work on parchment, as paper was too expen-
Armenini both encourage the use of black sive, but by the end of the Quattrocento the
chalk for this reason, as Bambach has pointed paper industry had developed sufficiently to
out (p. 56). Cennino Cennini mentions black fulfill the high demand for paper. Ames-Lewis,
chalk in his treatise in which he compares Drawing in Early Renaissance Italy, pp. 21–3.
it to charcoal, noting that with black chalk 32 On the technique of working with silverpoint,
“you can . . . draw however you want” (“puoi see Ames-Lewis, Drawing in Early Renaissance
.
.
. disegnia sechonda che huoi”). Cennino Italy, pp. 35–43.
Cennini, Cennino Cennini’s Il Libro dell’arte. 33 To the best of my knowledge, it has not been
A New English Translation and Commentary with noticed that this drawing was used as the basis
Italian Transcription, ed. and trans. Lara Broecke for the head of Christ (in reverse) in the Uffizi
(London, 2015), chapter 34, p. 55. As Francis Baptism of Christ, a figure generally attributed
Ames-Lewis has pointed out, this suggests to Leonardo. The shape of the face, the curling
Cennini’s utter ignorance for the many uses hair, and the position of the eyes and eyebrows
of black chalk. Francis Ames-Lewis, Drawing are particularly close.
in Early Renaissance Italy (New Haven, CT, 34 Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio, Lorenzo di Credi,
1981), p. 53. On the uses of black chalk in Francesco di Simone Ferrucci, p. 76, cat. 1.
fifteenth-century drawings see Claire Van 35 According to Antonio Natali, the sky, Saint
Cleave, “Tradition and Innovation in the John, Christ’s loin cloth, the rocks behind
Early History of Black Chalk Drawing.” Saint John, the front-facing angel, the drapery
In Florentine Drawing at the Time of Lorenzo held by his companion, the palm tree, and the
the Magnificent, ed. Elizabeth Cropper, Villa land on which the angels are situated were
Spelman Colloquia, vol. 4, Florence, 1992 all painted in tempera; Christ and the angel
(Bologna, 1994), 231–44, p. 232. Artists before in profile were painted in oil; and the land-
the last third of the fifteenth century were scape disappearing into the mist and all of the
limited also in recognizing the possibilities of water were painted in oil over a layer already
working with chalk by the restricted availabil- executed in tempera. Antonio Natali, “Lo
ity of paper. Paper mills were first established sguardo degli angeli,” in Lo sguardo degli Angeli.
at Fabriano in the late thirteenth century, but Verrocchio, Leonardo e il Battesimo di Cristo, ed.
paper production did not become widespread Antonio Natali (Cinisello Balsamo, 1998), pp.
64–78; Antonio Natali, “La Natura Artefatta,” God dispatching the dove from Heaven), one
in Leonardo a Piombino e l’idea della città mod- of whom was certainly Leonardo.” Nicholas
erna tra Quattro e Cinquecento, ed. Amelio Fara Penny, “Cast from the Life,” review of The
(Florence, 1999), 139–48, p. 140. On the techni- Sculptures of Verrocchio, by Andrew Butterfield,
cal analysis of the painting, see Alfio Del Serra, Times Literary Supplement 4957 (April, 1998):
“Il restauro,’ in Lo sguardo degli Angeli.Verrocchio, 3–4, p. 3.
Leonardo e il Battesimo di Cristo, ed. Antonio 37 The painting was first recorded at San Salvi
Natali (Cinisello Balsamo, 1998), pp. 95–118. by Francesco Albertini in his 1510 guidebook
36 Brown argues that Verrocchio worked on the (Memoriale di molte statue et picture sono nella
painting in two distinct phases: the second inclyta cipta di Florentia per mano di sculptori et
campaign is represented by the frontal angel, pictori excellenti moderni et antiqui tracto dalla pro-
which must have been done at the same time pria copia di messer Francesco Albertini prete fior-
as Leonardo’s angel, in the mid-1470s. David entino anno domini 1510, ed. Herbert Percy Horne
Alan Brown, Leonardo da Vinci: Origins of a [Florence, 1909], p. 20, referred to by Natali,
Genius (New Haven, CT, 1998), p. 27. Natali “Lo sguardo degli angeli,” p. 93, n. 5).
attributed the angel in profile and the land- 38 Natali, “Lo sguardo degli angeli,” p. 94, n. 62.
scape background to Leonardo. He proposed 39 Jill Dunkerton, “Leonardo in Verrocchio’s
that the leaves on the trees were executed Workshop: Re-Examining the Technical
by a nervous graphic hand – perhaps that Evidence,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin
of the young Filippino Lippi or Perugino. 32 (2011): 4–31, p. 7. Jill Dunkerton and
And Natali proposes that Botticelli may have Luke Syson have attributed a painting of the
painted the front-facing angel (a suggestion Madonna and Child with two angels (National
first made by Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti Gallery, London), which, if proven correct,
and repeated by Raymond S. Stites, Pietro provides another case of Verrocchio’s experi-
C. Marani and Ettore Camesasca), but he mental approach to painting. In its technique,
also does not exclude the possibility that the it tests the limits of tempera, taking it as far as
angel was painted by Verrocchio himself (as it will go in terms of intense, saturated colors
David Alan Brown has suggested), based espe- without being an oil painting. Jill Dunkerton
cially on the drawing style used in the under- and Luke Syson, “Andrea del Verrocchio’s First
drawing when compared with Verrocchio’s Surviving Panel Painting and Other Early
style. Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, “Inizio Works,” Burlington Magazine 153, no. 1299
di Leonardo,” Critica d’arte 2 (March 1954): (June, 2011): 368–78, p. 373.
102–18; Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, “Inizio di 40 “[U]na testa d’una donna, finissima quanto si
Leonardo,” Critica d’arte 4 (July, 1954): 302–29, possa, dipinta in carta.” Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3,
pp. 303–4; Raymond S. Stites, “La Madonna p. 364.
del Melograno di Leonardo da Vinci, I” Critica 41 For example, the Eyckian Saint Jerome in the
d’arte 15, no. 93 (1968): 59–73, p. 69; Pietro C. Detroit Institute of Arts. On this painting,
Marani, Leonardo. Catalogo completo dei dipinti which is related to another by Jan Van Eyck
(Florence, 1989), p. 42; Ettore Camesasca, Artisti (or his workshop) that was owned by the
in bottega (Milan, 1966), p. 429; and Natali, “Lo Medici (Paula Nuttall, From Flanders to Florence:
sguardo degli angeli,” pp. 64–78. More recently, The Impact of Netherlandish Painting, 1400–1500
Cecchi rejected the attribution of the angel [New Haven, CT, 2004], p. 107), see Maryan
to Botticelli on the grounds that by the time W. Ainsworth, Petrus Christus: Renaissance
Botticelli was purported to have been work- Master of Bruges, ed. Maximiliaan P. J. Martens,
ing on the Baptism, he was an independent exh. cat., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New
painter and thus unlikely to have accepted York, April 14–July 31, 1994 (New York, 1994),
such a minor role. Alessandro Cecchi, Botticelli p. 70; Barbara Heller and Leon P. Stodulski,
(Milan, 2005), p. 44. And in his Botticelli e l’età “Recent Scientific Investigation of the Detroit
di Lorenzo il Magnifico (Florence, 2007), Cecchi Saint Jerome,” in Petrus Christus in Renaissance
makes no mention of Botticelli’s role in the Bruges: An Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. Maryan
Baptism (p. 120). Nicholas Penny claimed that W. Ainsworth (New York, 1995), pp. 131–42,
the Baptism was executed by three painters esp. pp. 133–4 for a discussion of the support;
“(four, if we include the deplorable hands of and Barbara Heller and Leon P. Stodulski, “St
Jerome in the Laboratory: Scientific Evidence Clelia Galassi, “The Re-Use of Design-Models
and the Enigmas of an Eyckian Panel,” Bulletin by Carta Lucida in the XVI Century Italian
of the Detroit Institute of Arts 72 (1998): 39–55. Workshops: Written Sources and an Example
42 Nuttall, From Flanders to Florence, p. 120. There from Michele di Ridolfo del Ghirlandaio,”
is also a convention in Netherlandish painting in La peinture dans les Pays-Bas au 16ème siècle.
of heads on intermediate supports that were Pratiques d’atelier. Infrarouge et autres méthodes
inserted into larger paintings on canvas, but d’investigation, Colloque XII pour l’étude du
almost all of those, if not all, were painted on dessin sous-jacent et de la technologie dans la
tin leaf, not paper. The workshop of Rogier peinture, Bruges, Settembre 11–14, 1997, eds.
van der Weyden’s Sforza Triptych (c. 1444 or c. Hélène Verougstraete and Roger Van Schoute
1460, Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Brussels) (Louvain-La-Neuve, 1999), 205–13.
was described as possibly being a painting on
44 The painting does bear a striking resem-
paper or parchment (because a fibrous struc- blance to a terracotta model of Saint Jerome
ture was seen with a microscope), but Griet in the Chigi Saracini collection that has been
Steyaert has warned against interpreting the convincingly attributed to Verrocchio by
evidence this way, noting that heads painted Giancarlo Gentilini (“In morte di Donatello:
on intermediary supports for Rogier van der il ‘primato’ della scultura e la sua difficile
Weyden’s Seven Sacraments resembled paper or eredità,” in Il Quattrocento, eds. Gigetta Dalli
parchment under the microscope, but x-ray flu- Regoli and Roberto Paolo Ciardi, vol. 3 of
orescence later demonstrated this to be incor- Storia delle arti in Toscana, 7 vols. [Florence,
rect. Griet Steyaert, “‘The Seven Sacraments.’ 1999], 151–75, p. 155; “Perugino e la scultura
Some Technical Aspects Observed during fiorentina del suo tempo,” in Pietro Vannucci,
the Restoration,” in Rogier van der Weyden in il Perugino. Atti del convegno internazionale
Context. Papers Presented at the Seventeenth di studio [Perugia ottobre 25–8, 2000], eds.
Symposium for the Study of Underdrawing and Laura Teza and Mirko Santanicchia [Perugia,
Technology in Painting held in Leuven, October 2004], 199–227, p. 202, 213–14, n. 56; and in Il
22–24, 2009, ed. Lorne Campbell (Paris, 2012), Cotto dell’Impruneta. Maestri del Rinascimento e
118–35, p. 125. I am grateful to Carl Strehlke for le fornaci di oggi, eds. Rosanna Caterina Proto
drawing this to my attention. Pisani and Giancarlo Gentilini, exh. cat.,
43 Maryan W. Ainsworth, “Some Theories about Basilica and Chiostri di Santa Maria Loggiati
Paper and Parchment as Supports for Early del Pellegrino, Impruneta, 2009 [Florence,
Netherlandish Paintings,” in La peinture dans 2009], pp. 86–9, no. II.9). See also Tommaso
les Pays-Bas au 16ème siècle. Pratiques d’atel- Mozzati, Giovanfrancesco Rustici. Le Compagnie
ier. Infrarouge et autres méthodes d’investigation, del Paiuolo e della Cazzuola. Arte, letteratura,
Colloque XII pour l’étude du dessin sous-ja- festa nel’età della Maniera (Florence, 2008), p.
cent et de la technologie dans la peinture, 27, n. 140, and p. 33, n. 163.
Bruges, Settembre 11–14, 1997, eds. Hélène
45 The most important studies on the dra-
Verougstraete and Roger van Schoute (Leuven, pery studies are Jean Cadogan, “Linen
1999), 251–60, p. 256. On this technique, see also Drapery Studies by Verrocchio, Leonardo
Lorenza Melli, “Sull’uso della carta lucida nel and Ghirlandaio,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte
Quattrocento e un esempio per il Pollaiolo,” 46 (1983): 27–62; Françoise Viatte, Léonard de
Paragone 52, no. 36 (2001): 3–9; Elena Parma, Vinci: Les etudes de draperie, exh. cat., Musée du
ed., Perino del Vaga tra Raffaello e Michelangelo, Louvre, Paris, December 5, 1989–February 26,
exh. cat., Galleria civica di Palazzo Te, Mantua, 1990 (Paris, 1989); and Françoise Viatte, “The
March 18–June 10, 2001 (Milan, 2001); A. Early Drapery Studies,” in Leonardo da Vinci.
Petrioli Tofani, “Pentimenti, metodi di tras- Master Draftsman, ed. Carmen C. Bambach,
ferimento, manomissioni,” in Il Disegno. Forme, exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
tecniche, significati, eds. Anna Maria Petrioli New York, January 22–March 30, 2003 (New
Tofani, Simonetta Prosperi Valenti Rodinò, Haven, CT, 2003), 111–20.
Gianni Carlo Sciolla (Milan, 1999), 247–51;
46 Françoise Viatte, who had earlier claimed
C. Bambach, Drawing and Painting in the Italian (Léonard de Vinci, p. 74, cat. 16) that the dra-
Renaissance Workshop, Theory and Practice, 1300– pery studies were preliminary studies for other
1660 (New Haven, CT, 1999), p. 134; Maria works, has more recently (Viatte, in Leonardo
da Vinci. Master Draftsman, ed. Bambach, p. 288) 56 Pomponius Gauricus, De sculptura (1504), eds.
expressed the opinion that they were inde- and trans. André Chastel and Robert Klein
pendent works. (Geneva, 1969), pp. 258–61.
47 This has been proposed by Jean Cadogan: 57 Charlotte Hubbard and Peta Motture, “The
“Reconsidering Some Aspects of Ghirlandaio’s Making of Terracotta Sculpture: Techniques
Drawings,” Art Bulletin 65 (June 1983): 274–90, and Observations,” in Earth and Fire. Italian
pp. 282–3. Paul Hills has made the appealing Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello to Canova, ed.
suggestion that painters’ monochrome designs Bruce Boucher, exh. cat.,The Museum of Fine
on linen for Flemish weavers and embroiderers Arts, Houston, November 18, 2001–February
may have inspired Leonardo to make drawings 3, 2002, and The Victoria and Albert Museum,
in this technique. Paul Hills, “Leonardo and London, March 14–July 7, 2002 (London,
Flemish Painting,” Burlington Magazine 122 2001), 83–95, pp. 88–9; and p. 126, cat. 12.
(1980): 609–15, p. 613. 58 Günter Passavant, Verrocchio. Sculptures, Paintings
48 Nuttall, From Flanders to Florence, p. 106. and Drawings, trans. Katherine Watson (London,
49 On the subjects of Netherlandish paintings on 1969), p. 26.
cloth in the Medici collection, see ibid., pp. 59 Radcliffe, “New Light on Verrocchio’s
110–15. Beheading of the Baptist,” p. 120.
50 “Andrea del Verrocchio, fiorentino, fu ne’tempi 60 Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting and Sculpture:
suoi orefice, prospettivo, scultore, intagliatore, The Latin Texts of De Pictura and De Statua,
pittore e musico.”Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 357. trans. and ed. Cecil Grayson (London, 1972), p.
51 Alessandro Perosa, ed., Il Zibaldone Quaresimale, 121.
vol. 1 of Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, 2 61 The third kind of sculptors are those who work
vols. (London 1960), p. 24. solely by addition, like silversmiths. Alberti, On
52 Benedetto Dei, Memorie Istoriche (1470), 44v Painting and Sculpture, p. 121.
and 49r, published in Giuseppina Carla Romby, 62 One document relating to Verrocchio’s Christ
Descrizioni e Rappresentazioni della citta’ di Firenze and Saint Thomas includes the phrase “per non
nel xv secolo, con la trascrizione inedita dei mano- lasciare quastarsi e perire la bozza et princi-
scritti di Benedetto Dei e un indice ragionato dei pio di si bella cosa” (ASF, Provvisioni, Registri,
manoscritti utili per la storia di Firenze (Florence, 172 [1481], fol. 2v, transcribed in Covi, Andrea
1976), Appendix 2, 56–73, pp. 71–2. del Verrocchio, p. 300), which several scholars –
53 “[I]l chiaro fonte/ d’umanitate e innata following Fabriczy – have used to claim that
gentilezza/ che alla pittura e alla scultura Verrocchio had made a life-size model of Saint
è un ponte/ Sopra del qual si passa con Thomas that was purchased by the Università
destrezza/ dico Andrea da Verrocchio . .
.” dei Mercanti in 1482 to be placed on pub-
Luigi Pungileoni, Elogio storico di Giovanni lic display in the Palazzo della Mercanzia
Santi. Pittore e poeta padre del gran Raffaello (Cornelis von Fabriczy, “Ancora del taber-
di Urbino (Urbino, 1822), p. 74. It should be nacolo col gruppo del Verrocchio in Or San
noted that similar praise was lavished by Santi Michele,” L’arte 5 [1902]: 336–40; Irving Lavin,
on Vecchietta, Rossellino, Vittorio Ghiberti, “Bozzetti and Modelli, Notes on Sculptural
“Andrea da Roma,” and Antonio Riccio. Procedure from the Early Renaissance
54 “Nec tibi Lysippe est Thuscus Verrocchious through Bernini,” in Stil und Überlieferung
impar,/A quo quicquid habent pictores, fonte in der Kunst des Abendlandes, Akten des 21.
biberunt:/Discipulos pene edocuit Verrocchius Internationaler Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte
omnes,/Quorum nunc volitat Tyrrhena per in Bonn 1964, vol. 3 [Berlin, 1967], 93–104,
oppida nomen.” Ugolino Verino, De illustratione p. 100; and Edgar Lein, “Erlauterungen zur
urbis florentiae (Florence, 1636), p. 46. Technik des Bronzegusses und zur Bedeutung
55 “Nec minor est Phydia noster Verrocchius: von Bronze im 15. Jahrhundert am Beispiel
uno/ hoc superat quoniam pingit et aera liq- des Christus-Thomas-Gruppe von Andrea
uat.” Ugolino Verino, Epigrammatum libri septem, del Verrocchio,” in Christus-Thomas-Gruppe
in Epigrammi, ed. Francesco Bausi (Messina, von Andrea del Verrocchio, eds. Herbert Beck,
1998), no. 23 (“De pictoribus et sculptoribus Maraike Bückling and Edgar Lein [Frankfurt
florentinis qui priscis graecis equiperari pos- am Main, 1996], 233–57, pp. 233 and 251, n. 7).
sunt”), vv. 17–18, p. 327. However, Covi and Butterfield have rightly
expressed caution about interpreting “bozza” 64 Vasari describes this practice in the construc-
in this way, arguing instead that it refers not tion of models, though for marble sculpture.
a model but to an unfinished bronze statue Vasari, Vasari on Technique, pp. 148–51.
(Dario A. Covi, “Reinterpreting a Verrocchio 65 For a discussion of the quality of pictorialism
Document,” Source. Notes in the History of Art in Verrocchio’s sculptures, see Timothy Verdon,
12, no. 4 [1993], 5–12, pp. 7–10; Covi, Andrea del “Pictorialism in the Sculpture of Verrocchio,” in
Verrocchio, p. 76, n. 28; and Andrew Butterfield, Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture,
“Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas: eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps Darr and Fiorella
Chronology, Iconography, and Political Superbi Gioffredi (Florence, 1992), 25–31.
Context,” The Burlington Magazine 134, no. 66 This has been noted by David Alan Brown and
1069 [April 1992], 225–33, p. 232). Nevertheless, Charles Seymour, Jr., “Further Observations
Verrocchio probably did work from three- and on a Project for a Standard by Verrocchio and
two-dimensional models. Vasari says explicitly Leonardo,” Master Drawings 12, no. 2 (Summer
that Verrocchio made models for the Christ and 1974): 127–33, pp. 129–30.
Saint Thomas, and the artist must have made 67 On the technical construction of the Crucifix,
models given that the sculpture was made see p. 266, n. 18 earlier.
from bronze: “fattone i modelli e le forme, le 68 Of all the media created in Verrocchio’s work-
gettò” (he made the models and the molds, shop, it is assumed that the master played the
and he cast them). (Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. least direct role in the production of paintings.
362). Butterfield has suggested that the art- Technical and stylistic evidence suggests that
ist would have worked from small-scale clay paintings made in Verrocchio’s bottega were a
or wax models of the figures draped with collaborative effort, regardless of their scale,
cloth and placed in a wooden model of the and judging by Leonardo’s contribution in the
niche (Andrew Butterfield, “The Christ and Baptism of Christ, Verrocchio depended on his
St. Thomas of Andrea del Verrocchio,” in assistants for significant input in his paintings.
Verrocchio’s Christ and St. Thomas. A Masterpiece See pp. 6–7, 21, 45–46, 247–248n27, 268n36,
of Sculpture from Renaissance Florence, ed. Loretta 271–n68, 274n91. Even for small-scale drawings,
Dolcini, exh. cat., Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, Verrocchio appears to have collaborated with
and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New other artists. Brown has convincingly argued
York, December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993 [New that the Nymph and Cupid was executed by
York, 1992], 25–35, p. 74). It appears as though Verrocchio and Leonardo. X-radiography and
Verrocchio used clay models as visual guides infrared reflectography have revealed that the
for his work in silver, a practice he could have drawing was executed in pen and brown ink
employed for the Christ and StThomas (Christina superimposed over black chalk. Brown has pro-
Neilson, “Rediscovered Photographs of Two posed that the sketch was executed in two phases:
Terracotta Modelli by Verrocchio,” Burlington the first phase was carried out by Verrocchio,
Magazine 154, no. 1316 [November, 2012], pp. who sketched in the figures using black chalk;
762–7). On the use of three-dimensional mod- the drawing was then fixed and elaborated by
elli by Quattrocento artists, see Lavin, “Bozzetti Leonardo, who reinforced the figures in pen
and Modelli,” p. 97. Benvenuto Cellini reported and ink and added the plants and the rocky
in his Treatise on Sculpture that Donatello used ledge. Leonardo appears to have attempted to
small-scale three-dimensional models (Opere, complete Verrocchio’s slight chalk sketch of
ed. Bruno Maier [Milan, 1968], p. 830). A con- Cupid, for which only the head and right arm
tract dated 1464 between Agostino di Duccio and hand are faintly visible today. David Alan
and the Opera del Duomo for the figure that Brown, “Verrocchio and Leonardo: Studies for
became Michelangelo’s David refers to what the Giostra,” in Florentine Drawing at the Time of
must have been an undersized wax model Lorenzo the Magnificent, eds. Elizabeth Cropper,
(Hannelore Glasser, “Artists’ Contracts of the Villa Spelman Colloquia, vol. 4, Florence, 1992
Early Renaissance,” Ph.D. diss., Columbia (Bologna, 1994), 99–109, pp. 103–4.
University, 1965, Outstanding Dissertations in 69 A document records how Lorenzo di Credi
the Fine Arts [New York, 1975], p. 118). had “painted an altarpiece of Our Lady and
63 Passavant, Verrocchio. Sculptures, Paintings and other things,” for which he had been paid
Drawings, pp. 59–60. independently, while in Verrocchio’s employ.
ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 1539 (Atti Verrocchio as a painter are Günter Passavant,
in cause ordinarie, July 23, 1490–March 3, Andrea del Verrocchio als Maler (Düsseldorf, 1959);
1490/91), fols. 301r–302v, transcribed in Covi, and, more recently, Dunkerton, “Leonardo
Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 286, doc. V.27. The in Verrocchio’s Workshop”; Dunkerton and
painting has not been identified, and it is Syson, “Andrea del Verrocchio’s First Surviving
not known whether it was sold as a work by Panel Painting”; and Jill Dunkerton and Luke
Verrocchio or Credi. On the practice of assis- Syson “In Search of Verrocchio the Painter:The
tants producing works signed by their mas- Cleaning and Examination of The Virgin and
ter, see Martin Wackernagel, The World of the Child with Two Angels,” National Gallery Technical
Florentine Renaissance Artist. Projects and Patrons, Bulletin 31 (2010): 4–41. Other important stud-
Workshop and Art Market (1938), trans. Alison ies include Bernard Berenson, “Verrocchio e
Luchs (Princeton, 1981), p. 311; Jill Dunkerton, Leonardo, Leonardo e Credi,” Bolletino d’arte
Susan Foister, Dillian Gordon, and Nicholas 27, nos. 5 and 6 (1933–34): 193–214, 241–64;
Penny, Giotto to Dürer. Early Renaissance Federico Zeri, “Il Maestro dell’ Annunciazione
Painting in the National Gallery (New Haven, Gardner,” Bolletino d’arte 38 (1953): 125–39 and
1991), p. 137; Nicoletta Pons, “Dipinti a più 233–49; Konrad Oberhuber, “La problème
mani,” in Maestri e Botteghe: pittura a Firenze des premières oeuvres de Verrocchio,” Revue
alla fine del Quattrocento, eds. Mina Gregori, de l’art 42 (1978): 63–76; John Shearman, “A
Antonio Paolucci, and Cristina Acidini Suggestion for the Early Style of Verrocchio,”
Luchinat, exh. cat., Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, Burlington Magazine 109 (March 1967): 121–7;
October 16, 1992–January 10, 1993 (Milan, Sheldon Grossman, “The Madonna and Child
1992), 35–52; Anabel Thomas, The Painter’s with a Pomegranate and Some New Paintings
Practice in Renaissance Tuscany (Cambridge, from the Circle of Verrocchio,” Report and
1995), pp. 76–7. This occurred also in sculp- Studies in the History of Art 2 (1968): 47–69;
tors’ workshops, for which see Margaret Craig H. Smyth, “Venice and the Emergence
Haines, “Giuliano da Maiano capofamiglia e of the High Renaissance in Florence:
imprenditore,” in Giuliano e la bottega dei da Observations and Questions,” in Quattrocento,
Maiano. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, vol. 1 of Florence and Venice: Comparisons and
Fiesole, 1991, eds. Daniela Lamberini, Marcello Relations. Acts of Two Conferences at Villa I Tatti
Lotti, and Roberto Lunardi (Florence, 1994), in 1976–77, 2 vols. (Florence, 1979), 209–49;
131–42, p. 132. Dario A. Covi, “Verrocchio and Venice, 1469,”

70 Anna Padoa Rizzo, for instance, character- Art Bulletin 65, no. 2 (1983): 253–73; Luciano
izes Verrocchio’s role in the workshop as that Bellosi, “Andrea Verrocchio,” in Pittura di luce.
of a grand coordinator. Anna Padoa Rizzo, Giovanni di Francesco e l’arte fiorentina di metà
“Introduzione,” in Maestri e botteghe: Pittura Quattrocento, ed. Luciano Bellosi, exh. cat.,
a Firenze alla fine del Quattrocento, eds. Mina Casa Buonarroti, Florence, May 16–August
Gregori, Antonio Paolucci, and Cristina 20, 1990 (Milan, 1990), 177–83; Everett Fahy,
Acidini Luchinat, exh. cat., Palazzo Strozzi, “Two Suggestions for Verrocchio,” in Studi
Florence, October 16, 1992–January 10, 1993 di storia dell’arte in onore di Mina Gregori, ed.
[Milan, 1992], 19–22, p. 21. Miklós Boskovits (Milan, 1994), 51–5; Franca
71 See n. 28 in my introduction. Falletti, ed., I Medici, il Verrocchio e Pistoia. Storia
72 See, for instance, Brown, Leonardo da Vinci; e restauro di due capolavori nella Cattedrale di S.
and David Alan Brown, “The Presence of the Zeno (Livorno, 1996); Brown, Leonardo da Vinci;
Young Leonardo in Verrocchio’s Workshop,” in Martin Kemp, “Verrocchio’s San Donato and
Verrocchio’s David Restored. A Renaissance Bronze the Chiesina della Vergine di Piazza in Pistoia,”
from the National Museum of the Bargello, Florence, Pantheon 56 (1998): 25–34; Antonio Natali, eds.
ed. Gary M. Radke, exh. cat., Museo Nazionale Lo sguardo degli Angeli; and Luciano Bellosi,
del Bargello, Florence, October 7–November “The landscape ‘all fiamminga,’” in Italy and
9, 2003, the High Museum of Art, Atlanta, the Low Countries: Artistic Relations:The Fifteenth
November 22, 2003–February 8, 2004, and Century, Proceedings of the Symposium Held
the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, at Museum Catharijneconceny, Utrecht, March
February 13–March 21, 2004 (Florence, 2003), 14, 1994, eds. Victor M. Schmidt, Gert Jan van
55–60, p. 55. The most important studies on der Sman et al. (Florence, 1999), 97–108.
73 See, for instance, the important work done of the Florentine Renaissance Artist, pp. 310–11).
by Dunkerton: “Leonardo in Verrocchio’s Krautheimer noted, however, that several names
Workshop” and (with Luke Syson) “Andrea are mentioned twice. Seven of the eleven
del Verrocchio’s First Surviving Panel Painting” named in the list of 1407 stayed on after that
and “In Search of Verrocchio the Painter.” date. According to Krautheimer, this second list
74 The classic studies of Renaissance work- probably records the period between 1407 and
shops are Hanna Lerner-Lehmkuhl, Zur 1415, suggested by the fact that artists known to
Struktur und Geschichte des florentinischen have worked on the doors, such as Michelozzo,
Kunstmarkets im 15. Jahrhundert (Wattenscheid, are not named in the list. Richard Krautheimer
1936); Wackernagel, The World of the Florentine and Trude Krautheimer-Hess, Lorenzo Ghiberti,
Renaissance Artist; Camesasca, Artista in bot- 2 vols. (Princeton, 1970), vol. 1, pp. 106–9.
tega; and Mina Gregori, Antonio Paolucci, and 78 For the documents, see n. 3 in my introduc-
Cristina Acidini Luchinat, eds., Maestri e bot- tion. For the Christ and St Thomas, only one
teghe: Pittura a Firenze alla fine del Quattrocento, assistant is referred to by name, Giuliano d’An-
exh. cat., Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, October 16, drea; other workers are referred to simply as
1992–January 10, 1993 (Florence, 1992). See “workers” (“decto Andrea e i suoi lavoranti”)
also Thomas, The Painter’s Practice and Roberto in a document of December 1487. This has
Cassanelli, ed., La bottega dell’artista tra medioevo been noted by Covi (Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 87,
e rinascimento (Milan, 1998). n. 72).
75 This has been noted by Eve Borsook, Review 79 Dunkerton et al., Giotto to Dürer, p. 137.
of Le ricordanze, by Neri di Bicci, edited by 80 William E. Wallace, “Michelangelo at Work:
Bruno Santi, Art Bulletin 61, no. 2 (1979): 313– Bernardino Basso, Friend, Scoundrel and
18, p. 314. Capomaestro,” I Tatti Studies 3 (1989): 235–79, p.
76 According to Thomas, Neri’s ricordi indicate 244.The work of others hired by Michelangelo
that the painter did not gradually build up a was equally varied (Wallace, “Michelangelo at
workforce of assistants as he established him- Work,” p. 276). Though Michelangelo claimed
self in the trade. Instead, she argues the fluc- that he did not run a workshop like other
tuation in the number of assistants over the artists, Wallace has indicated that his workers
period covered by the Ricordanze suggests that fulfilled a wide range of tasks like they did in
he needed more assistants at certain periods. other botteghe. According to Wallace, the main
Thomas points out that when Neri was com- difference between Michelangelo’s workshop
missioned to paint several altarpieces in 1459, and others was that Michelangelo did not have
only two assistants were recorded in the shop. garzoni, only assistants (Wallace, “Michelangelo
Thomas, The Painter’s Practice, pp. 88–9. at Work,” p. 235ff).
77 Megan Holmes has observed that when Filippo 81 Brown and Seymour, Jr. (“Further
Lippi left the Carmelite order in the 1430s, he Observations”) have convincingly attributed a
had only one principal apprentice at a time small drawing in the Uffizi to Verrocchio and
in his workshop and “handled an increasing Leonardo working collaboratively.
volume of work by entering into contractual 82 See n. 54 earlier.
relationships with established shops and inde- 83 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 366 and 371.
pendent masters.” Megan Holmes, Fra Filippo 84 Vasari refers to Perugino as one of Verrocchio’s
Lippi. The Carmelite Painter (New Haven, 1999), associates (“discepolo”) and claims that
p. 151. Eleven assistants are recorded as having Perugino “studied under the guidance of
worked for Lorenzo Ghiberti on the bronze Verrocchio” (“[s]tudiò sotto la disciplina d’An-
doors for the Baptistery from 1403 until June 1, drea Verrocchio”) in his vita of Perugino.Vasari-
1407, probably for one year on average; it appears Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 371 and 568. In his life of
to have increased to twenty-one assistants for Lorenzo di Credi, Vasari mentions Perugino,
the period after 1407, probably up until 1415. along with Leonardo, as friends of Credi in
Wackernagel pointed out that the first contract Verrocchio’s workshop. Vasari-Milanesi, vol.
for Ghiberti’s bronze doors, dating from 1403, 4, p. 564. On Perugino in Verrocchio’s work-
indicates that there were eleven assistants; by the shop (it is often hypothesized that Perugino
date of the second contract, 1407, there were may have entered Verrocchio’s shop c. 1470),
as many as twenty (Wackernagel, The World see Fiorenzo Canuti, Il Perugino, 2 vols. (Siena,
1931), vol. 1, pp. 28–9; Zeri, “Il Maestro dell’ 92 Ghirlandaio is recorded as having bought
Annunzione Gardner;” Pietro Scarpellini, some items from Lorenzo di Credi in a court
Perugino (Milan, 1984), pp. 12–19; Serros, “The case relating to the liquidation of Verrocchio’s
Verrocchio Workshop,” pp. 232–5; Arnold property. Credi sold an item (“item che dipoi
Victor Coonin, “The Interaction of Painting decto Andrea fu ito a Venegia”) to Ghirlandaio
and Sculpture in the Art of Perugino,” for six barrels of wine and another item for 18
Artibus et historiae 24, no. 47 (2003): 103–20; lire worth of wine. The document was tran-
Antonio Natali, “Nel giro del Verrocchio,” scribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 287,
and Tommaso Mozzati, “Produzioni in serie, document V.27. On Ghirlandaio’s early career,
derivazioni e modelli: Perugino e la bottega see Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, “La giovin-
di Andrea del Verrocchio,” in Perugino: il divin ezza e lo svolgimento artistico di Domenico
pittore, eds. Vittoria Garibaldi and Francesco Ghirlandaio,” L’arte 38 (1935): 167–98, 341–73;
Federico Mancini, exh. cat., Galleria Nazionale Artur Rosenauer, “Zum Stil der frühen Werke
dell’ Umbria, Perugia and Centro Espositivo Domenico Ghirlandajos,” Wiener Jahrbuch für
della Rocca Paolina, Perugia, February 28– Kunstgeschichte 22 (1969), 59–85; Ronald Kecks,
July 18, 2004 (Milan, 2004), 81–7 and 95–103; “La formazione artistica del Ghirlandaio,” in
and Michael Kwakkelstein, “Perugino in Domenico Ghirlandaio: 1449–94, atti del convegno
Verrocchio’s Workshop: The Transmission of internazionale, Firenze,Ottobre 16–18, 1994,
an Antique Striding Stance,” Paragone Arte 55, eds. Wolfram Prinz and Max Seidel (Florence,
no. 55–6 (May–July, 2004): 45–61. According 1996), 43–60; and Jean K. Cadogan, Domenico
to Canuti, a manuscript by Raffaello Sozi dat- Ghirlandaio: Artist and Artisan (New Haven, CT,
ing from the middle of the sixteenth century, 2000), pp. 23–66.
today in the Comunale di Perugia, records that 93 On Botticini’s relationship to Verrocchio, see
Verrocchio was Perugino’s teacher (Canuti, Il Lisa Venturini, Francesco Botticini (Florence,
Perugino, vol. 1, p. 34). 1994), pp. 53 and 261 n. 155 in my introduction.
85 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 371. 94 An association with Verrocchio’s workshop
86 Ibid. is suggested by the convincing attribution to
87 Ibid., p. 372. Biagio’s hand entirely of the Madonna and Child
88 Ibid., pp. 373–4. Enthroned with Saints Peter Martyr, Catherine of
89 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 6, p. 599. Siena, Vincent Ferrer, James and a Bishop Saint, c.
90 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 370. 1472, Szepmüvészeti Múzeum, Budapest, one
91 Botticelli is not documented as having of two paintings that Vasari had attributed to
worked in Verocchio’s bottega, but Hermann Verrocchio (Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 365–6).
Ulmann hypothesized that the painter spent For Biagio d’Antonio’s early career, includ-
time in Verrocchio’s bottega before becoming ing a discussion of the Budapest altarpiece,
independent, a theory that was rejected by see Roberta Bartoli, Biagio d’Antonio (Milan,
Lightbown. Hermann Ulmann, Sandro Botticelli 1999), pp. 23–47.
(Munich, 1893), pp. 15, 20–1, 35–7; Ronald 95 Alan Phipps Darr, “Verrochio’s Legacy:
Lightbown, Sandro Botticelli, 2 vols. (Berkeley, Observations Regarding His Influence on
1978), vol. 1, p. 22. Nevertheless, several schol- Pietro Torrigiani and Other Florentine
ars have attributed one of the angels in the Sculptors,” in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento
Baptism of Christ to Botticelli: Ragghianti, Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps
“Inizio di Leonardo” (1954), pp. 303–4 and Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi (Florence,
Natali, “Lo sguardo degli angeli,” pp. 64–78. 1992), 125–39.
Cecchi rejected the attribution of the angel 96 Giovanni d’Andrea is referred to as a garzone in
in the Baptism of Christ to Botticelli on the documents relating to the palla. Covi, Andrea
grounds that he was unlikely to have accepted del Verrocchio, pp. 314, 316, 325, 329, docs VI.34.i,
such a minor role, given that he was already k, w, and bb. As Covi (Andrea del Verrocchio,
an independent painter at the time when the p. 68, n. 209) has noted, Giovanni d’Andrea
Baptism was executed. Cecchi, Botticelli, p. 44. is referred to as “ista cho’llui” (with him) in
Benedetto Dei records that Botticelli had an two other documents (transcribed in Covi,
independent workshop by 1470. Lightbown, Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 323 and 327, docu-
Sandro Botticelli, vol. 1, p. 21. ments VI.34.u and z), rather than as garzone.
A document dated September 1478 relating to payment records of the Compagnia di San Luca
work Verrocchio carried out for Santa Maria in Florence in 1472, marking the beginning of
Nuova refers to “Giovanni suo garzone,” per- his career as an independent painter, he would
haps this was Giovanni d’Andrea, though have had the usual six-year training period.
that would imply he had been a garzone for Other scholars have suggested that Leonardo
almost a decade (he is first referred to as a gar- went to Verrocchio’s studio in 1469, based on
zone for Verrocchio in 1469). ASF, Santa Maria the assumption that he accompanied his father
Nuova, 4514 (Entrata e uscita, 1477–79), fol. to Florence. We know from taxation records
137v, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, that by 1469 his father was residing in Florence.
p. 346, doc. VI.47.b. Francesco d’Antonio is His house was just behind the Palazzo della
recorded as a garzone in Verrocchio’s workshop Signoria in the Piazza di S. Firenze, where the
in 1469. He is probably the same goldsmith Palazzo Gondi now stands (Jens Thiis, Leonardo
referred to elsewhere in documents relating da Vinci. The Florentine Years (London, 1913), p.
to Verrocchio’s bottega as Francesco d’Anto- 29). However, Leonardo is listed along with
nio di Veneri, including a document of 1470 other family members as a “boca” (dependent)
when he is paid for silver for the soldering of in the tax records of Vinci in 1469 (for the doc-
the palla. AOF, VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, ument, see Luca Beltrami, Documenti e memorie
July–December, 1469), fol. 46 left side; AOF, rituardanti la vita e le opera di Leonardo da Vinci
VIII.I.50 (Quaderno di cassa, July–December, [Milan, 1919], no. 3, p. 2). As Brown has empha-
1460), fol. 62 left side; and AOF, VIII.I.52 sized (Leonardo da Vinci, p. 176, n. 22), this record
(Quaderno di cassa, July–December, 1470), does not necessarily mean that Leonard was still
fol. 6 left side, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del residing in Vinci. For a summary of the scholars
Verrocchio, pp. 316, 318, and 325, docs.VI.34.k, n, that hold the view that Leonardo was residing
and w. Matteo di Masso is recorded as a garzone in Florence by 1469, see Brown, Leonardo da
in Verrocchio’s workshop in a document relat- Vinci, p. 7, p. 176, n. 22. A note by Leonardo in
ing to the palla from 1471, according to Covi one of his manuscripts, alluding to Verrocchio’s
(Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 68, n. 209), though he method for constructing the copper palla for
did not transcribe the section of this docu- the top of the lantern of the Duomo, begun
ment. Giovanni di Bartolo Tonini is referred in 1468 and installed in 1471, suggests he was
to as a garzone in a document relating to the a member of Verrocchio’s workshop when the
palla (AOF, VIII.I.50 [Quaderno di cassa, July– master was making the copper sphere. See n. 15
December, 1469], fol. 65 left side, transcribed in in my introduction.
Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 319, doc.VI.34.o). 99 The deed is dated December 13, 1465. ASF,
A document relating to the shipping of an iron Notarile Antecosiminiano 16826, c. 87v,
bombard to Pisa made by Verrocchio in 1484 referred to by Alessandro Cecchi “New Light
mentions three unnamed garzoni. ASF, Dieci di on Leonardo’s Florentine Patrons,” in Leonardo
Balia, Deliberazioni condotte e stanziamenti, da Vinci. Master Draftsman, ed. Carmen C.
30, fol. 251v, transcribed in ibid., p. 349, doc. Bambach, exh. cat.,The Metropolitan Museum
VI.50.b. of Art, New York, January 22–March 30, 2003
97 Gauricus refers to Leonardo as Verrocchio’s (New Haven, CT, 2003), 120–39, pp. 124–5.
pupil in his De scultura (ed. Chastel and Klein, In his vita of Leonardo, Vasari states that the
pp. 260–1), and Vasari (Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, artist’s father, Piero, who was a good friend of
p. 371) mentions that Leonardo was a discepolo Verrocchio (“molto amico suo”), took some
(associate) of Verrocchio. of his son’s drawings to the master and that
98 The question of when Leonardo entered Verrocchio was suitably impressed by the
Verrocchio’s studio is a matter of debate. Some sketches, so Leonardo was apprenticed with
scholars have proposed that Leonardo did so him.Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 4, p. 19.
c. 1466, when he was thirteen or fourteen, a 100 ASF, Compagnia di San Luca, vol. 2, Debitori,
common age to begin an apprenticeship. For Creditori e Ricordi, fol. 93v, transcribed in
a summary of the scholarly consensus on this Beltrami, Documenti e memorie, p. 3, no. 5.
point, see Brown, Leonardo da Vinci, p. 7, and 101 Thomas, The Painter’s Practice, pp. 68–9.
p. 176, n. 21. This theory is plausible because 102 The first accusation lists “Lionardo di Ser Piero
when Leonardo’s name was inscribed in the da Vinci, sta con Andrea del Verrochio [sic]”
and the second “Leonardo ser Pieri de Vincio, so little in 1480 and his lack of participation in
manet cum Andrea del Verrochio [sic].” Both works such as the Uffizi Baptism). Serros, “The
documents were published by Nino Smiraglia- Verrocchio workshop,” p. 265.
Scognamiglio, Ricerche e documenti sulla giovin- 106 ASF, Castato, 997 (S. Spirito, Ferza, 1480), fols.
ezza di Leonardo da Vinci (1452–82) (Naples, 376r–v, transcribed in Dalli Regoli, Lorenzo di
1900), p. 145, documents XVI and XVII, and Credi, pp. 90–1.
transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 275, 107 ASF, Santa Maria Nuova, 5797 (Libro di posses-
docs. II.11.a and II.11.2. sioni dello Spedale di S. Maria Nuova segnato
103 See, for instance, Eugène Müntz, Leonardo da A), fol. 502 right side; and ibid., fol. 526 left
Vinci. Artist, Thinker, and Man of Science, 2 vols. side, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
(London, 1898), vol. 1, p. 36. The proposal has p. 276, doc. II.14.
been repeated by Bambach in Leonardo da 108 On the sketchbook, see Lermolieff (Morelli),
Vinci, ed. Bambach, pp. 9 and 228 (under 1476). Kunstkritische Studien über italienische Malerei, pp.
104 “Ma più di tutto fu amato da lui Lorenzo di 350–51; Georg Gronau, “Über das Sogenannte
Credi” (Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 372). On Skizzenbuch des Verrocchio,” Jahrbuch der
Credi’s early career in Verrocchio’s workshop, Preussischen Kunstsammlungen 17 (1896):
see Gigetta Dalli Regoli, Lorenzo di Credi 65–72; Sheldon Grossman, “An Anonymous
(Milan, 1966), pp. 11–32. Florentine Drawing and the ‘So-Called
105 The painting was made between November Verrocchio Sketchbook’,” Master Drawings 10
1473 and September 1474. ASF, Tribunale della (1972): 15–19; Caroline Lanfranc de Panthou,
Mercanzia, 1539 (Atti in cause ordinarie, July “Francesco di Simone Ferrucci,” in Autour de
23, 1490–March 3, 1490/91), fols. 301r–302v, Pérugin, Filippino Lippi e Michel-Ange, vol. 1
transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. of Dessins italiens du Musée Condé à Chantilly,
286, doc. V.27. It is not known whether this ed. Dominique Cordellier, exh. cat., Musée
painting was sold under the name of Credi or Condé, Chantilly, October 4, 1995–January
Verrocchio. The note is puzzling if we regard 8, 1996, 3 vols. (Paris, 1995), 48–73; Johannes
Credi’s age in 1473 as fourteen or fifteen (sug- Myssok, Bildhauerische Konzeption und plas-
gested by his mother’s catasto declaration of tisches Modell in der Renaissance (Münster, 1999),
1480–81 in which she gives his age as twen- pp. 113–32; Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio, Lorenzo di
ty-one) because it is unusually young for an Credi, Francesco di Simone Ferrucci; and Pisani,
artist to be identified with a specific work Francesco di Simone, pp. 82–7 and 142–67. The
of his master. Covi, however, has argued that sheet with the record about money owing for
the record of Credi’s age in the catasto dec- two putti is on Kunsthalle, Hamburg, inv. 21479.
laration is incorrect (as it has been shown to On this, see Walter Heil, “A Marble Putto by
be in other cases). Instead, Covi points to an Verrocchio,” Pantheon 27 (1969): 271–82, p. 277.
inscription on the back of Credi’s self-portrait 109 ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 1539 (Atti

in the National Gallery of Art, Washington, in cause ordinarie, July 23, 1490–March 3,
DC, which gives the artist’s age as thirty-two 1490/91), fols. 301r–302v, transcribed in Covi,
and is dated 1488, which would make Credi Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 285–7, doc.V.27.
seventeen or eighteen when he painted the 110 ASV, Notarile, Testamenti (Ser Francesco

altarpiece while employed in Verrocchio’s bot- Malipede), 718, fol. 5r, transcribed in Covi,
tega. Dario A. Covi, “Four New Documents Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 279, doc. IV.20. Credi
Concerning Andrea del Verrocchio,” Art is also referred to as the heir to Verrocchio
Bulletin 48, no. 1 (March 1966): 97–103, p. 99. in a claim filed in 1489/90 by Francesco di
Serros proposed that Credi was born in 1456 Giovanni, a woodworker, against Credi. ASF,
or 1457 and that he did not enter Verrocchio’s Tribunale della Mercanzia, 4513 (Atti in cause
workshop until at least 1475–76, at about straordinarie, January 22, 1489/90–April 30,
the age of eighteen or nineteen. His three- 1490), unnumbered folios, transcribed in Covi,
year apprenticeship would have concluded Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 284–5, doc.V.25.
in 1478–79, and by 1479–80 he would have 111 ASF, Notarile ante-cosimiano, 11633 (formerly
begun his first year as an assistant. The next L 123) (Se Matteo Lenzi da Empoli, 1486–89),
three years he would have worked as a jour- fols. 96r–97v, transcribed in ibid., pp. 281–2, doc.
neyman (this would explain why he was paid V.22; and ASF, Notarile ante-cosimiano, 20614
(Ser Antonio Ubaldini da Firenze, 1486–93), of the declaration is less specific, stating only
fols. 33r–v, transcribed in ibid., pp. 283–4, doc. that Domenico “has no fixed abode” (“Non
V.23. On Credi in Verrocchio’s workshop, see ha luogo fermo”) ASF, Catasto 1017, II parte,
also Dalli Regoli, Lorenzo di Credi, pp. 11–32; 1480 (San Giovanni, Lion d’Oro), c. 573 recto,
Gigetta Dalli Regoli,“La Madonna di Piazza:‘. . . published in part by Giovanni Gaye, Carteggio
Ce n’è d’assai più bella, nessuna più perfetta,’” inedito d’artisti dei secoli XIV, XV, XVI, 3 vols.
in Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Federico Zeri, (Florence, 1839), vol. 1, pp. 266–7 (p. 266); and
ed. Mauro Natale, 2 vols. (Milan, 1984), vol. 1, Jacques Mesnil, “Portata al catasto del padre
213–32; and Anna Padoa Rizzo, Franca Falletti e dell’avo del Ghirlandaio,” Rivista d’arte
and Luisella Pennucci, “Madonna di piazza,” in 4 (1906): 64–9, p. 69. For a discussion, see
Medici, il Verrocchio e Pistoia: Storia e restauro di Cadogan, Domenico Ghirlandaio, p. 155.
due capolavori nella cattedrale di S Zeno: Il monu- 116 It was common for assistants to move

mento al cardinale Niccolò Forteguerri, la Madonna di between workshops. On this see Annamaria
piazza, ed. Franca Falletti (Livorno, 1996), 65–85. Bernacchioni, “Le botteghe di pittura: luoghi,
112 Although Vasari refers to Francesco di Simone strutture e attività,” in Maestri e botteghe: pit-
as “discepolo del...Andrea [del Verrocchio]” tura a Firenze alla fine del Quattrocento, eds.
(Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 371), one must be Mina Gregori, Antonio Paolucci, and Cristina
cautious in giving too much weight to the Acidini Luchinat, exh. cat., Palazzo Strozzi,
terms used by Vasari. Zanobi Machiavelli, who Florence, , October 16, 1992–January 10,
was called allievo (another term for associate) 1993 (Milan, 1992), 23–34, p. 25; and Harriet
to Benozzo Gozzoli by Vasari, was several McNeal Caplow, “La bottega di Michelozzo
years older than his apparent master. In that e i suoi assistenti,” in Michelozzo. Scultore e
case, Nicholas Penny has argued that the term Architetto (1396–1472), ed. Gabrile Morolli
allievo appears to have been used for collabo- (Florence, 1996), 231–6. The sculptor Pagno di
rators (“Pittori e botteghe nell’Italia del rinas- Lapo, for example, moved between the work-
cimento,” in La bottega dell’artista tra medioevo shops of Jacopo della Quercia and Donatello
e rinascimento, ed. Roberto Cassanelli [Milan, and Michelozzo. Numerous accounts in Neri
1998], 31–55, p. 43). di Bicci’s Ricordanze record painters moving
113 In her 2007 monograph on Ferrucci, Linda between workshops. There is evidence too
Pisani has noted that although it is impossi- of assistants moving between painting and
ble that Francesco di Simone could have been sculpture workshops: two of Neri di Bicci’s
a pupil of Verrocchio’s, given they were so assistants, Giovanni d’Antonio and Antonio
close in age, nevertheless it cannot be denied di Benedetto, were employed on a part-time
that Francesco was strongly influenced by basis by Giuliano da Maiano to carry out some
Verrocchio. She has proposed that before work on festival decorations for the festa di
Verrocchio’s death, Francesco was merely San Giovanni in 1461. Thomas, The Painter’s
influenced by Verrocchio. After 1488 it is clear Practice, pp. 67, 86–7, and 332 n. 231, with fur-
that Ferrucci was connected to Verrocchio’s ther bibliography.
workshop via Lorenzo di Credi, as indicated 117 Such as his David (Cabinet des Dessins, Musée
by a reference to the painter in a sheet from du Louvre, inv. RF 451rº. On this drawing,
the so-called Verrocchio sketchbook now in see Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio, Lorenzo di Credi,
Hamburg that Pisani attributes to Ferrucci. Francesco di Simone Ferrucci, p. 81); Putto with a
Linda Pisani, Francesco di Simone Ferrucci: itiner- Dolphin (see Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio, Lorenzo di
ari di uno scultore fiorentino fra Toscana, Romagna e Credi, Francesco di Simone Ferrucci, p. 12); Putto
Montefeltro (Florence, 2007), pp. 37–40. on a Globe (R.F. 1870–446 and 447, Cabinet des
114 “[E]sercito l’arte dello scharpello quando
Dessins, Musée du Louvre).
truovo da fare.” Quoted in Covi, Andrea del 118 Cabinet des Dessins, Musée du Louvre, inv.
Verrocchio, p. 87, n. 72. RF 446v; and Cabinet des Dessins, Musée
115 “[È] dipintore qua e llà, non tien bottegha.” du Louvre, inv. 2241v. Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio,
ASF, Monte comune, Copie del catasto, 84 Lorenzo di Credi, Francesco di Simone Ferrucci,
(1480, San Giovanni, Lion d’Oro), c. 592 pp. 78–9.
verso, transcribed in Cadogan, Domenico 119 Musée Condé, Chantilly, inv. 20. See Pisani,
Ghirlandaio, doc. 14, p. 344. Another version Francesco di Simone, pp. 83 and 144. Gronau,
“Das sogenannte Skizzenbuch des Verrocchio,” and with whom Francesco’s three sons rented
pp. 68–9, discusses some other examples. a workshop in via del Castellaccio after their
120 Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio, Lorenzo di Credi, father’s death, recorded in their catasto declara-
Francesco di Simone Ferrucci, p. 12. tion of 1498. ASF, Catasto del 1498, Quartiere
121 Inv. RF 450vº, Cabinet des Dessins, Musée du di San Giovanni, Gonfalone Vaio, Campione
Louvre; inv. 1975-6-12-16r, British Museum; del Monte, filza 131 (no. verde), a c. 620. The
and inv. 21 (15)v, Chantilly. The same figure document was transcribed in Cornelis von
is shown on a sheet in the British Museum Fabriczy, ““Die Bildahuerfamilie Ferrucci
(inv. 1952-4-5-1). See Dalli Regoli, Verrocchio, aus Fiesole,” Jahrbuch der königlich preussischen
Lorenzo di Credi, Francesco di Simone Ferrucci, p. Kunstsammlungen 29 (1908): 1–28, pp. 19–20.
81, cat. 22. The connection between the sons of Francesco
122 On the sketchbook, see Lermolieff (Morelli), di Simone and Orsino Benintendi has been
Kunstkritische Studien über italienische Malerei, noted by Pisani, Francesco di Simone Ferrucci, p.
pp. 350–1; Gronau, “Das Sogenannte 73. And Giovanbattista Bigordi, the younger
Skizzenbuch des Verrocchio”; Grossman, “An brother of Domenico Ghirlandaio, who was
Anonymous Florentine Drawing and the also a painter, is mentioned in the so-called
‘So-Called Verrocchio Sketchbook’”; Panthou, Verrocchio sketchbook as having purchased
“Francesco di Simone Ferrucci”; Myssok, two terracruda putti from the workshop of
Bildhauerische Konzeption und plastisches Modell Francesco di Simone and as having sold a knife
in der Renaissance, pp. 113–32; Dalli Regoli, to a member of the bottega. Pisani, “Exchange
Verrocchio, Lorenzo di Credi, Francesco di Simone of Models in Florentine Workshops,” p. 271.
Ferrucci; and Pisani, Francesco di Simone, pp. 82–7 128 The location of Verrocchio’s house is recorded
and 142–67. in his 1457 catasto declaration, published by
123 Musée Condé, Chantilly, inv. 21, 22, and 23. Covi, “Four New Documents,” p. 101. Brown
124 École des Beaux Arts, Paris, inv. 374. (“Leonardo apprendista,” p. 13) has pointed to
125 One of the sheets, preserved in Hamburg
a chapbook in the Biblioteca Ricciardiana of
(Kunsthalle, inv. 21479), is inscribed with the Florence (ms. 1591) fol. 175 recto, dated February
names Sandro and Gabriello, the brother and 12, 1463 (1462 Florentine calendar), which
son of Francesco di Simone. This has been refers to an artist called “Verrocchino,” whose
discussed by Linda Pisani, “The Exchange bottega was located at the head of via Ghibellina.
of Models in Florentine Workshops of the The document reads: “Tutto chuesto è paghato,
Quattrocento: A Sheet from the ‘Verrocchio chostò lire dieci. Chostò lire tre e mezo la dip-
Sketchbook’,” Journal of the Warburg and intura a’ndre’ del verrocchino esta a cchapo a
Courtauld Institutes 67 (2006): 269–74, pp. via ghibellina, lire sette e mmezzo chostò la
269–71. scrittura, a paghare piero dei rici. Paghossi detti
126 Heil, “A Marble Putto by Verrocchio,” p. 277. danari a dì 12 di febraio 1462.”
127 Matteo di Jacopo da Settignano, who was
129 The document of August 4, 1471, is a con-
paid in 1489 for his work on the Forteguerri tract between Verrocchio and Domenico di
cenotaph, is mentioned in the so-called Giovanni di Ottaviano, weaver of cloth, and
Verrocchio sketchbook as having gone to Francesco and Matteo, his sons, for the rental of
Volterra in 1487. Gronau, “Das soggenannte the property at the corner of via dell’Agnolo,
Skizzenbuch des Verrocchio,” pp. 69–70. For notarized by Ser Piero da Vinci, Leonardo’s
the payment to Matteo di Jacopo for work father. ASF, Notarile Antecosimiano 16828, c.
on the Forteguerri monument, see Clarence 176r, referred to by Cecchi “New Light on
Kennedy, Elizabeth Wilder, and Pèleo Bacci, Leonardo’s Florentine Patrons,” p. 125.
The Unfinished Monument by Andrea del 130 Cecchi “New Light on Leonardo’s Florentine
Verrocchio to the Cardinal Niccolò Fortueguerri at Patrons.”
Pistoia, Studies in the history and criticism of 131 Iodoco Del Badia, “Le botteghe di Donatello,”
sculpture, 7 (Northhampton, MA, 1932), p. 84, Miscellanea fiorentina 4 (1902): 60–2.
doc. 26. Benintendi, whose name was altered 132 The contract with Donatello is dated 1454.

from “Benintendi” to “Intendi bene” and was Del Badia, “Le botteghe di Donatello,” p. 60.
probably Orsino Benintendi, with whom The architect of the early seventeenth-century
Verrocchio collaborated to make wax effigies, palazzo Guadagni incorporated part of the old
Bischeri buildings into the new design: the “una spera,” has been tentatively connected to
rounded arch at the far left of the palace belongs the palla by Covi, who suggests it should read
to the Bischeri residence, as is confirmed in a as “sfera” (Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 65).
drawing of 1611 that records the wishes of the 138 Creighton E. Gilbert, L’arte del Quattrocento nelle
new owner, Alessandro Guadagni, to remove testimonianze coeve (Florence, 1988), pp. 71–6; and
the coats of arms of the Bischeri family and of Margaret Haines, “Giuliano da Maiano capo-
the Comune, and to construct a new doorway famiglia e imprenditore,” in Giuliano e la bot-
and window. Leonardo Ginori Lisci, I palazzi tega dei da Maiano. Atti del convegno internazionale
di Firenze nella storia e nell’arte, 2 vols. (Florence, di studi, Fiesole, 1991, eds. Daniela Lamberini,
1972), vol. 1, p. 467; for the drawing see p. 464, Marcello Lotti, and Roberto Lunardi (Florence,
figure 373. 1994), 131–42, p. 138. The document was tran-
133 Camesasca, Artisti in Bottega, p. 215; and Harriet scribed in Doris Carl, Benedetto da Maiano.
McNeal Caplow, “Sculptors’ Partnerships A Florentine Sculptor at the Threshold of the
in Michelozzo’s Florence,” Studies in the High Renaissance (Regensburg, 2006), vol. 1,
Renaissance 21 (1974): 145–75, p. 148. Appendix of Documents, A, p. 446, doc. 8.
134 See Thomas, The Painter’s Practice, p. 18. 139 Caplow, “La bottega di Michelozzo,” p. 232.
135 Filippino Lippi, Giusto d’Andrea, and Scolai
The Sienese sculptor Jacopo della Quercia
di Giovanni all lived above their workshops. appears to have worked in different materi-
Bernacchioni, “Le Botteghe di Pittura,” p. 23. als in a single workshop, though not painting.
In the catasto declaration of 1481 Botticelli is For an inventory of his bottega, see James Beck,
recorded as “dipintore e lavora in chasa,” Cosimo Jacopo dell Quercia, 2 vols. (New York, 1991),
Rosselli is referred to as “anni quaranta dipin- vol. 2, pp. 518–20, doc. 439.
tore in chasa,” Botticini as “in una chamera nello 140 See n. 32 in my introduction. For a discussion
studio,” and the painters Pietro and Polito Del of the content of artists’ workshops based on
Donzello are referred to as living and working inventory records, see Roberto Cassanelli,
in a “cameretta nella studio” (Bernacchioni, “Le “Artisti in Bottega. Luoghi e prassi dell’arte
Botteghe di Pittura,” p. 23). Botticelli did not alle soglie della modernità,” in La bottega dell’ar-
keep a separate bottega; he worked in his place tista tra medioevo e rinascimento, ed. Roberto
of residence on via Nuovo near the church of Cassanelli (Milan, 1998), 7–29, pp. 16–27. On
Ognissanti, as recorded in documents from 1473 other artists who moved between media, see
and 1480. See Cecchi, Botticelli, p. 60. Filippino Nicoletta Pons, “L’unità delle arti in bottega,”
Lippi lived and worked in the same building, in Maestri e botteghe: Pittura a Firenze alla fine
a casa corte, which consisted of several levels. del Quattrocento, eds. Mina Gregori, Antonio
See the inventory drawn up in 1504, published Paolucci, and Cristina Acidini Luchinat, exh.
by Doris Carl, “Das Inventar von Filippino cat., Palazzo Strozzi, Florence, October 16,
Lippi aus dem Jahre 1504,” Mitteilungen des 1992–January 10, 1993 (Milan, 1992), 251–70;
Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 31 (1987): and Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt, “Leonardo e
373–91, pp. 384–9. Filippino Lippi’s bottega has la scultura,” Lettura vinciana 38 (April 18, 1998):
been discussed by Thomas, The Painter’s Practice, 9–39.
p. 19. See also Padoa Rizzo, “Introduzione,” in 141 Bernacchioni, “Le Botteghe di Pittura,” p. 24.
Maestri e botteghe, p. 20. 142 See n. 35 in my introduction.
136 This is implied by the contents of the Florentine 143 Interestingly, this situation did not always trans-
workshop, which includes paintings and marble late into creativity. See, for instance, the case of
sculptures. ASF, Tribunale della Mercanzia, 1539 Neri di Bicci on which, see Megan Holmes,
(Atti in cause ordinarie, July 23, 1490–March 3, “Neri di Bicci and the Commodification
1490/91), fols. 301r–302v, transcribed in Covi, of Artistic Values,” in The Art Market in Italy
Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 285–7, doc.V.27. (15th–17th Centuries), eds. Marcello Fantoni,
137 “[U]no modello della cupola.” ASF, Tribunale Louisa C. Matthew, and Sara Matthews Grieco
della Mercanzia, 1539 (Atti in cause ordi- (Ferrara, 2003), 213–23.
narie, July 23, 1490–March 3, 1490/91), fols. 144 Luciano Bellosi, “Ipotesi sull’origine delle ter-
301r–302v, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del recotte quattrocentesche,” in Jacopo della Quercia
Verrocchio, p. 286, doc.V.27. Another item men- fra gottico e rinascimento. Atti del convegno di
tioned in the same document, referred to as studi, Siena, 1975 (Florence, 1977), 163–79;
280 NOTES TO PAGE 56
Laura Martini, “La rinascità della terracotta” in “The Materials of a Group of Late Fifteenth-
Lorenzo di Ghiberti: Materia e ragionamenti, ed. Century Florentine Panel Paintings,” National
Mina Bacci, exh. cat., Museo dell’Accademia Gallery Technical Bulletin 17 (1996): 20–31; Sally
and Museo di San Marco, Florence, October Korman, “A St Francis by Botticelli in the
18, 1978–January 31, 1979 (Florence, 1978), National Gallery,” Apollo (2003): 42–9 (with
208–24; Giancarlo Gentilini, “Nella rinascita an appendix by Jill Dunkerton, “A Note on
dell’antichità,” in La civiltà del cotto: arte della the Restoration of the St Francis”); Roy,
terracotta nell’area fiorentina dal XV al XX secolo, “Perugino’s Certosa di Pavia Altarpiece,” p. 17;
ed. Antonio Paolucci, exh. cat., Impruneta, and Catherine Higgit and Raymond White,
May–December 1980. (Florence, 1980), 67–99; “Analyses of Paint Media: New Studies of
Luciano Bellosi, “Donatello e il recupero della Italian Paintings of the Fifteenth and Sixteenth
scultura in terracotta,” in Donatello-Studien Centuries,” National Gallery Technical Bulletin
(Italienische Forsungen, 3.f., XVI), ed. Monika 26 (2005): 88–97 (with further references).
Cämmerer (Munich, 1989), 130–45; and Bruce 148 Alessandro Cecchi, Sandra Freschi, and Nicola
Boucher, “Italian Renaissance Terracotta: MacGregor, “The Conservation of Antonio
Artistic Revival or Technological Innovation?” and Piero Pollaiuolo’s Altarpiece for the
in Earth and Fire. Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Cardinal of Portugal’s Chapel,” The Burlington
Donatello to Canova, ed. Bruce Boucher, exh. cat., Magazine 141, no. 1151 (February, 1999): 81–8,
The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, November pp. 82–3; M. Matteini and A. Moles,“Recupero
18, 2001–February 3, 2002, and The Victoria di un pigmento modificato, la biacca di
and Albert Museum, London, March 14–July 7, piombo, mediante un trattamento chimico,”
2002 (New Haven, CT, 2001), 1–31, pp. 1–5. in Metodo e Scienza. Operatività e ricerca nel res-
145 Broad manner engraving appears to have been tauro, ed. Umberto Baldini, exh. cat., Palazzo
introduced in Florence at the end of the fif- Vecchio, Florence, June 23, 1982–January 6,
teenth century by Francesco Rosselli, who 1983 (Florence, 1982), 253–6.
may have become acquainted with its necessary 149 Cecchi et al., “The Conservation of Antonio
tool – a burin with a lozenge-shaped section – and Piero Pollaiuolo’s Altarpiece,” p. 82;
while in Buda in the 1470s. David Landau and and Nicola MacGregor and Sandra Freschi,
Peter Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470–1550 “Introduzione al restauro delle opera di
(New Haven, 1994), p. 73; and Sean Roberts, Antonio e Piero Pollaiuolo agli Uffizi,” in
“Tricks of the Trade. The Technical Secrets La stanza dei Pollaiuolo. I restauri, una mostra,
of Early Engraving,” in Visual Cultures of un nuovo ordinamento, eds. Antonio Natale
Secrecy in Early Modern Europe, eds. Timothy and Angelo Tartuferi, exh. cat., Galleria degli
McCall, Sean Roberts, and Giancarlo Fiorenza Uffizi, Florence, December 4, 2007–January 6,
(Kirksville, MI, 2013), 182–207, pp. 187–90. 2008 (Florence, 2007), 73–85. Aldo Galli (“The
146 Giancarlo Gentilini, I Della Robbia. La scultura Fortune of the Pollaiuolo Brothers,” in Antonio
invetriata nel Rinascimento, 2 vols. (Florence, and Piero del Pollaiuolo. “Silver and Gold, Painting
1992), vol. 1, pp. 93–106. and Bronze . . .” , eds. Andrea Di Lorenzo and
147 As early as the 1420s, painters such as Masolino Aldo Galli, exh. cat., Museo Poldi Pezzoli,
began experimenting with oil on panel, a Milan, November 7, 2014– February 16, 2015
new technique that eventually replaced the (Milan, 2014), 25–77, pp. 37 and 49) has attrib-
older method of tempera painting. Ashok uted the paintings in the chapel to Piero.
Roy, “Perugino’s Certosa di Pavia Altarpiece: 150 Sonja Brink, “Die Berliner ‘Verkündigung’ und
New Technical Perspectives,” in The Painting der ‘David’ von Pollaiuolo,” Jahrbuch der Berliner
Technique of Pietro Vannucci Called Il Perugino. Museen 32 (1990): 153–71; Alison Wright, The
Proceedings of the LabS Tech, eds. Brunetto Pollaiuolo Brothers: The Arts of Florence and Rome
Giovanni Brunetti, Claudio Seccaroni, and (New Haven, 2005), p. 71. On the attribution
Antonio Sgamellotti (Florence, 2004), 13–20, of this painting, see the recent discussion by
pp. 14–16. But oil did not immediately supplant Galli, “The Fortune of the Pollaiuolo Brothers,”
tempera; painters at the end of the fifteenth pp. 49–50, and cat. 15, 206–9. Piero also used
century (such as Botticelli and Domenico linseed oil for his Coronation of the Virgin (1483,
Ghirlandaio) continued experimenting by Sant’Agostino, San Gimignano), for which see
using both. Jill Dunkerton and Ashok Roy, Daniele Rossi, “Restoring the Coronation of
the Virgin in San Gimignano (including some bronze casting. Artur Rosenauer, Studien zum
observations on Piero del Pollaiuolo’s painting frühen Donatello: Skulptur im projectiven Raum
technique),” in Antonio and Piero del Pollaiuolo. der Neuzeit (Vienna, 1975), pp. 34–5; and Artur
“Silver and Gold, Painting and Bronze . . .,” eds. Rosenauer, “Orsanmichele: The Birthplace
Andrea Di Lorenzo and Aldo Galli, exh. cat., of Modern Sculpture,” in Orsanmichele and the
Museo Poldi Pezzoli, Milan, November 7, 2014– History and Preservation of the Civic Monument, ed.
February 16, 2015 (Milan, 2014), 131–7. Carl Brandon Strehlke, vol. 76 of Studies in the
151 Ruth Wedgwood Kennedy, Alesso Baldovinetti: History of Art (New Haven, 2012), 167–78, p. 176.
A Critical and Historical Study (New Haven, CT, 155 Giovanna Agosti and Rosanna Moradei, “Note
1938), pp. 138–50 (esp. 146–7); Matteini and preliminari sulla tecnica di esecuzione del San
Moles,“Recupero di un pigmento modificato.” Giovanni Battista di Michelozzo,” in La scultura
152 Cristina Acidini Luchinat, ed., The Chapel
in terracotta. Tecniche e Conservazione, ed. Maria
of the Magi: Benozzo Gozzoli’s Frescoes in the Grazia Vaccari (Florence, 1996), 217–24, p. 223.
Palazzo Medici-Riccardi, Florence (London, 156 Alan P. Darr, Peter Barnet, and Antonio

1994), pp. 375–7; and Cristina Acidini Luchinat, Boström, Catalogue of Italian Sculpture in the
“Benozzo Gozzoli’s Chapel of the Magi Detroit Institute of Arts, 2 vols. (London, 2002),
Restored and Rediscovered,” in The Early vol. 1, p. 96.
Medici and Their Artists, ed. Francis Ames-Lewis 157 Stiberc, “La scultura lignea policroma del

(London, 1995), 125–52, pp. 127–8. Rinascimento fiorentino,” pp. 199–202.
153 Luciano Berti, Alessandro Cecchi, and Antonio 158
An anonymous sixteenth-century Crucifix
Natali, Donatello (Florence, 1986), p. 26. For (Badia a Passignano), despite its diminutive
another example of Donatello’s experimen- size (just 83 cm high), was made from more
tal approach – polychroming terracotta, see than twenty pieces. Maria Donata Mazzoni,
Roberto Manni, Andreina Andreoni, and “Il Cristo di Badia a Passignano,” p. 317. Baccio
Francesca Kumar, “Annunciazione Cavalcanti,” da Montelupo’s San Sebastiano (c. 1506, San
OPD Restauro 7 (1995): 185–92, p. 187; Andreina Godenzo in Val di Sieve) was made from four-
Andreoni, Fabio Burrini, Francesca Kumar, and teen pieces of wood. Baccio’s Crucifix (San
Maria Grazia Vaccari, “I putti dell’‘Annunci- Marco, Florence) was constructed in a sim-
azione’ di Donatello in Santa Croce. Vicende, ilar manner to his San Sebastiano. An anony-
ipotesi e intervento,” in La scultura in terracotta, mous San Sebastiano (Santa Maria Maddalena
techniche e conservazione, ed. Maria Grazia Vaccari dei Pazzi, Florence) consists of ten assembled
(Florence, 1996), 246–54, p. 250; and Maria elements. Leonardo del Tasso’s San Sebastiano
Grazia Vaccari, “The Cavalcanti Annunciation,” (1500, Sant’Ambrogio, Florence) was con-
Sculpture Journal 9 (2003): 19–37, pp. 21–7. structed from thirty pieces. See Stiberc, “La
154 On this, see Bruno Bearzi, “Considerazioni
scultura lignea policroma del Rinascimento
di tecnica sul S. Ludovico e la Giuditta di fiorentino,” pp. 208–9.
Donatello,” Bolletino d’arte 36 (1951): 119–23; 159 An early fifteenth-century equestrian sculp-

Bruno Bearzi, “La tecnica fusoria di Donatello,” ture (San Cassiano di Controne, Lucca), some-
in Donatello e il suo tempo: Atti dell’VIII con- times attributed to Jacopo della Quercia, dealt
vegno internazionale di studi sul Rinascimento, with this in a particularly ingenious manner:
Florence-Padua, September 25–October 1, the body of the figure down to the waist
1966 (Florence, 1968), 97–105; Bruno Bearzi, was made with a large peg at its base so that
“Un itinerario tra i bronzi di Donatello,” in it could fit within a hollow carved into the
Atti del convegno sul restauro delle opera dell’arte, top of the horse, which itself consisted of two
ed. Annamaria Giusti (Florence, 1981), 95–100; hollow pieces joined longitudinally. Giovanna
and Brunella Teodori and Ludovica Nicolai, Rasario and Luigi Canocchi, “Sculture lignee
“Donatello, San Ludovico di Tolosa, 1422–25,” policrome: modelli operativi di restauro (parte
Kermes 25, no. 87 (June–September 2012): 7–17. II),” in Laura Sperenza, ed., La Scultura Lignea
As Artur Rosenauer has noted, the problems Policroma. Ricerche e modelli operative di restauro
of gilding cannot explain the statue’s partially (Florence, 2007), 57–70, p. 59 and 61, and figure
absent back or its hand that consists of an empty 6. See also Giovanna Rasario, ed., Il Cavaliered a
glove fixed to an iron rod.Together the evidence San Cassiano. Opificio delle Pietre Dure di Firenze,
suggests that Donatello was inexperienced in exh. cat., Museo Nazionale del Bargello,
Florence, March 31–June 30, 1995 (Florence, 167

Roberts, “Inventing Engraving in Vasari’s
1995). Florence,” p. 13.
160 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 2, pp. 333–4 and 398–9. 168 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek Clm 197,
161
Stiberc, “Donatello, Brunelleschi and the fols 107–108v. Brunelleschi did share secrets
Others,” pp. 18–19. with Taccola and suggested holding meetings
162 Edilberto Formigli, “Ghiberti’s Saint Matthew where knowledgeable artists could exchange
and Roman Bronze Statuary: Technical information (but the ignorant – namely peo-
Investigations during Restoration,” in ple like Brunelleschi’s nemesis, the humanist
Orsanmichele and the History and Preservation of Acquettino – could be left out). F. Prager, “A
the Civic Monument, ed. Carl Brandon Strehlke, Manuscript of Taccola, Quoting Brunelleschi
vol. 76 of Studies in the History of Art (New on Problems of Inventors and Builders,”
Haven, 2012), 244–56, p. 251. For the ingenuity Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society
of Renaissance bronze casters, see Richard E. 112 (1968): 131–49, pp. 132 and 141–2.
Stone,“Antico and the Development of Bronze 169 “E collo ingegno suo e con la pruova e spe-
Casting in Italy at the End of the Quattrocento,” rienza di quelle, segretamente e con grandissime
Metropolitan Museum of Art Journal 16 (1981): fatiche e tempo e con pensarle diligentemente,
87–116; and Richard E. Stone, “Severo Calzetto sotto colore di fare altro che quello che faceva,
da Ravenna and the Indirectly Cast Bronze,” ne venne maestro perfettissimo . .
.” Antonio
The Burlington Magazine 148 (December, 2006): Manetti, Vita di Filippo Brunelleschi preceduta da
810–19. For an unusually well-documented La Novella del Grasso, ed. Domenico di Robertis
case of bronze casting, see Alfred Doren, “Das (Milan, 1976), p. 67.
Aktenbuch für Ghibertis Matthäus-Statue 170 “[E] Filippo non gli [Donatello] comunicò

an Or San Michele zu Florenz,” Italienische mai tale pensiero . . .” Manetti, Vita di Filippo
Forschungen 1 (1906): 1–48. Brunelleschi, p. 67.
163 This argument has been made by Richard E. 171 Margaret Haines, “Artisan Family Strategies,”
Stone, “A New Interpretation of the Casting of in Art, Memory and the Family in Renaissance
Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes,” Small Bronzes Florence, eds. Giovanni Ciapelli and Patricia
of the Renaissance, ed. Debra Pincus, vol. 62 of Rubin (Cambridge, 2000), 163–75, p. 168.
Studies in the History of Art ( 2001): 55–69, p. 59. Francesco di Giorgio struggled over whether
164 Stone, “A New Interpretation of the Casting to reveal the workings of machines and
of Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes,” pp. 61–7. mechanical devices in his Trattati di architettura
165 Deborah Strom, “Studies in Quattrocento
ingegneria e arte militare (Treatises on architec-
Tuscan Wooden Sculpture” (Ph.D. diss. ture, engineering and the military arts). He
Princeton University, 1979), pp. 2–3.The hands notes that his own acquisition of this knowl-
of Christ in Donatello’s crucifix at Santa Croce edge was labored, and his reward for sharing a
were attached to the arms with iron cuffs before design or instrument was too often ingratitude
the layer of gesso was applied. Stiberc, “La for the work that had gone into the inventions,
scultura lignea policroma del Rinascimento especially among ignorant architects. Francesco
fiorentino,” p. 205. The body and limbs of the di Giorgio, Trattati di architettura ingegneria e arte
crucifix in San Lorenzo, which Vasari attrib- militaria, ed. Corrado Maltese, 2 vols. (Milan,
uted to “Simone,” a follower of Donatello but 1967), vol. 2, pp. 492–3. This has been discussed
which Alison Wright has more recently attrib- by Pamela O. Long, Openness, Secrecy, Authorship.
uted to Antonio Pollaiuolo, were made sepa- Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from
rately and attached to each other with wooden Antiquity to the Renaissance (Baltimore, 2001),
pegs and tow. Wright, The Pollaiuolo Brothers, pp. 134–6. At the heart of the tension between
pp. 90–1; and Umberto Baldini and Barbara concealing and revealing precious information
Schleicher, “Antonio del Pollajolo Crocifisso,” was artists’ dependence upon visitors for the
in Metodo e Scienza: operatività e ricerca nel res- recognition of their ingenuity. To keep their
tauro, exh. cat., Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, June patrons – and other visitors – interested, artists
23, 1982–January 6, 1983 (Florence, 1983), 50–3. often withheld information to add to the mys-
166 Sean Roberts, “Inventing Engraving in Vasari’s tique of their work. On this topic, see Christina
Florence,” Intellectual History Review (2014): Neilson, “Demonstrating Ingenuity: The
1–22, p. 13. Display and Concealment of Knowledge in
Renaissance Artists’ Workshops,” I Tatti Studies of bronze casting among them [Brunelleshi,
in the Italian Renaissance 19, no. 1 (spring, 2016): Donatello, and Ghiberti].”)
63–91. 182 Licia Vlad Borrelli, “Considerazioni su tre

172 Howard Saalman, ed., The Life of Brunelleschi problematiche teste di cavallo,” Bollettino d’arte
by Antonio di Tuccio Manetti, trans. Catherine 87, no. 71 (1992): 67–82; and Edilberto Formigli,
Enggass (University Park, 1970), p. 129, n. 4. “La grande testa di cavallo in bronzo detta
173 Giovanni Poggi, ed., Il Duomo di Firenze: docu- ‘Carafa’: Un’indagine tecnologia,” Bollettino
menti sulla decorazione della chiesa e del campanile, d’arte 87, no. 71 (1992): 83–90.
tratti dall’archivio dell’opera, ed. Margaret Haines, 183 This was first noted by Bearzi (“Considerazioni
2 vols. (Berlin, 1909, repr. 1988), docs. 415 and di tecnica sul S. Ludovico e la Giuditta di
421. See further Daniel Zolli, “Donatello’s Donatello,” pp. 119–20).
Visions: The Sculptor at Florence Cathedral,” 184
Nannelli, “Orsanmichele: Some Recent
in Sculpture in the Age of Donatello. Renaissance History,” pp. 325–7.
Masterpieces from Florence Cathedral, ed. Timothy 185 Butters, The Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 144 and
Verdon, Daniel M. Zolli, and Amy R. Bloch, vol. 2, p. 398.
exh. cat., Museum of Biblical Art, New York, 186
Roberts, “Inventing Engraving in Vasari’s
February 20–June 14, 2015 (London, 2015), Florence,” pp. 9–12.
45–74, p. 52. 187 It has also been suggested that Masaccio made
174
Doren, “Das Aktenbuch für Ghibertis terracotta reliefs before joining the guild of
Matthäus-Statue,” pp. 26–7. doctors and apothecaries, which was associ-
175 This point has been made by Eleonora Luciano, ated with painters (James Beck, “Masaccio’s
“A More ‘Modern’ Ghiberti:The Saint Matthew Early Career as a Sculptor,” Art Bulletin 2
for Orsanmichele,” in Orsanmichele and the (1971): 177–95; and Paul Joannides, “Masaccio,
History and Preservation of the Civic Monument, Masolino and ‘Minor’ Sculpture,” Paragone 38,
ed. Carl Brandon Strehlke, vol. 76 of Studies no. 451 (1987): 3–24).
in the History of Art (New Haven, CT, 2012), 188 According to the Anonimo Magliabechiano,
213–42, p. 234. Donatello was a painter (Carl Frey, ed., Il
176 Stefania Agnoletti, Annalena Brini, Edilberto Codice Maglibechiano, contente notizie sopra
Formigli, et al., “Il restauro della statua l’arte degli antichi e quella ed’ fiorentinida
bronzea del San Matteo di Lorenzo Ghiberti Cimabue a Michelangelo Buonarroti scritte da
da Orsanmichele in Firenze,” OPD restauro 17 Anonimo Fiorentino [Berlin, 1892], p. 77). See
(2005): 47–70, pp. 59–65. also Benvenuto Cellini, Opere di Baldassare
177 Formigli, “Ghiberti’s Saint Matthew and Castiglione, Giovanni della Casa, Benvenuto Cellini,
Roman Bronze Statuary,” p. 245. On this see ed. Carlo Cordiè (Milan, 1960), p. 795, where
Agnoletti et al., “Il restauro della statua bronzea he describes Donatello as a painter. Referred
del S. Matteo,” 47–70, esp. 59–65. to by David Summers, Michelangelo and the
178 Luciano, “A More ‘Modern’ Ghiberti,” p. 221. Language of Art (Princeton, 1981), p. 145 and p.
179
Francesca Nannelli, “Orsanmichele: Some 499, n. 9. Donatello is recorded as a member
Recent History,” in Orsanmichele and the of the Florentine Compagnia di San Luca (to
History and Preservation of the Civic Monument, which painters belonged) in 1412 in a payment
ed. Carl Brandon Strehlke, vol. 76 of Studies for his Joshua, perhaps because he polychromed
in the History of Art (New Haven, CT, 2012), some of his sculptures. See Poggi, ed., Il Duomo
314–38, p. 327. di Firenze, vol. 2, p. 77, no. 420; and Cheryl
180 Luca Boschetto, “Ghiberti e i tre compare. Un Korte, “Polychromed Quattrocento Sculpture
nuovo documento sulla fusione dei telai della in Florence,” (Ph.D. diss., New York University,
seconda porta del Battistero,” Mitteilungen des 2011), pp. 132–8. Actually, it was Bernaba di
Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 53, no. 1 Michele who painted the Joshua, but Machtelt
(2009): 145–9. Israëls points out that although Donatello did
181 Indeed,Vasari celebrated him as a bronze caster not carry out the polychromy, he would have
(better even than Brunelleschi and Donatello) supervised Bernaba’s work (Machtelt Israëls,
in his vita: “Lorenzo era migliore maestro di “‘Sculptured Painting’ in Early Renaissance
loro nel getto.” Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 101. Florence,” in The Springtime of the Renaissance.
(“Lorenzo [Ghiberti] was the best master Sculpture and the Arts in Florence 1400–60, eds.
Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi and Marc Bormand, Museo Nazionale di Villa Guinigi, Lucca, April
exh. cat., Florence, Palazzo Strozzi, March 23– 2–July 11, 2004 (Milan, 2004), 78–93.
August 18, 2013 and Paris, Musée du Louvre, 192 Arnold Victor Coonin, “New Documents

September 26, 2013–January 6, 2014 [Florence, Concerning Desiderio da Settignano and
2013], 150–7, p. 157, n. 19). And Donatello made Annalena Malatesta,” Burlington Magazine
a cartoon for one of the stained glass windows 137, no. 113 (December, 1995): 792–9, p. 799;
of the Florentine Duomo. Louis Waldman, “The Mary Magdalen in
189 Luca joined the sculptors’ guild in 1432 and Santa Trinita by Desiderio da Settignano
the painters’ confraternity in 1442. Earlier, and Giovanni d’Andrea,” Pantheon 58 (2000):
in 1427, he had enrolled in the wool dyers’ 13–18, p. 17; and Marc Bormand, Beatrice
guild (see Korte, “Polychromed Quattrocento Paolozzi Strozzi, and Nicholas Penny, Desiderio
Sculpture,” pp. 45–64). da Settignano. Sculptor of Renaissance Florence,
190 Ghiberti was called pittore by Vasari in the first exh. cat., Musée du Louvre, Paris, October 26,
edition of the Vite (This point has been dis- 2006–January 22, 2007, Museo Nazionale del
cussed by Lorenzo Bartoli,“Rewriting History: Bargello, Florence, February 22–June 3, 2007,
Vasari’s Life of Lorenzo Ghiberti,” Word and Image National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, July
13, no. 3 [July–September, 1997]: 245–52). And 1–October 8, 2007 (Milan, 2007).
Ghiberti and Vasari both mention fresco work 193 Ellen Callman, “Apollonio di Giovanni and

that Ghiberti was involved in at Pesaro before Painting for the Early Renaissance Room,”
making the bronze doors of the Baptistery Antichità Viva 27, no. 3–4 (1988): 5–18.
(Lorenzo Ghiberti, “Commentario Secondo,” 194 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 286–90; and Wright,
in I Commentari, ed. Ottavio Morisani [Naples, The Pollaiuolo Brothers.
1947], p. 42; and Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 2, p. 223). 195 Enrica Neri Lusanna, “Madonna in trono col
Ghiberti joined the compagnia di San Luca in Bambino,” in Arnolfo: alle origini del Rinascimento
1423. He also registered as a member of the Fiorentino, ed. Enrica Neri Lusanna, exh. cat.,
Florentine goldsmiths’ guild in 1409 and 1446, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Florence,
and in the sculptors’ guild in 1432 (see Korte, December 21, 2005–April 21, 2006 (Florence,
“Polychromed Quattrocento Sculpture,” pp. 2005), cat. 2.9, 242–5, p. 242.
45–64). And Ghiberti made designs for other 196
Christopher Weeks, “The Restoration of
artists, for which, see Gary M. Radke,“Lorenzo Desiderio da Settignano’s Tomb of Carlo
Ghiberti: Master Collaborator,” in The Gates Marsuppini in S. Croce,” The Burlington
of Paradise. Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Renaissance Magazine 141 (1999): 732–8, p. 735. See Roberto
Masterpiece, ed. Gary M. Radke, exh. cat., High Manni, Andreina Andreoni and Francesca
Museum of Art, Atlanta, April 28–July 15, 2007, Kumar, “L’Annunciazione Cavalcanti:
The Art Institute of Chicago, July 28–October Donatello, Firenze, Chiesa Santa Croce,” OPD
13, 2007, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Restauro 7 (1995): 185–92; Annamaria Giusti,
New York, October 30, 2007–January 30, 2008, Case Studies in the Restoration of Medieval and
Seattle Art Museum, January 26–April 6, 2008 Renaissance Painted Sculpture, forthcoming;
(New Haven, CT, 2007), 50–71, pp. 63–6. and Anne Markham Schulz, The Sculpture
191 Matteo Civitali, best known as a sculptor, is of Bernardo Rossellino and His Workshop,
documented as a painter. Graziono Concioni, (Princeton, 1977), p. 100.
Claudio Ferri, and Giuseppe Ghirladucci, 197 John Pope-Hennessy, “The Madonna Reliefs
Matteo Civitali nei documenti d’archivio (Lucca, of Donatello,” in his The Study and Criticism
2001), Appendix. This has been discussed by of Italian Sculpture (Princeton, 1980), 71–105,
Steven Bule, “A Unique Partnership: Matteo p. 105; John Pope-Hennessy, “The Forging
Civitali and Domenico Orsolino,” in Verrocchio of Italian Renaissance Sculpture,” Apollo
and Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven 99, no. 146 (1974): 242–67; John T. Paoletti,
Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi “Familiar Objects: Sculptural Types in the
Gioffredi (Florence, 1992), 363; and Maria Collections of the Early Medici,” in Looking
Teresa Filieri, “Matteo Civitali e Baldassare at Italian Renaissance Sculpture, ed. Sarah Blake
di Biagio ‘Pictores,’” in Matteo Civitali e il suo McHam (Cambridge, 1998), 79–110, pp. 81–5;
tempo. Pittori, scultori e orafi a Lucca nel tardo Ronald Kecks, Madonna und Kind: Das häusli-
Quattrocento, ed. Maria Teresa Filieri, exh. cat., che Andachtsbild im Florenz des 15. Jahrhunderts
(Berlin, 1988); and Anthony Radcliffe, work in bronze (Ronald Lightbown, Donatello
“Multiple Production in the Fifteenth and Michelozzo: An Artistic Partnership and Its
Century: Florentine Stucco Madonnas and Patrons in the Early Renaissance, 2 vols. [London,
the della Robbia Workshop,” in Renaissance 1980], vol. 1, pp. 47–8); Lorenzo Ghiberti, who
and Later Sculpture in the Thyssen-Bornemisza hired three bronze casters from Burgundy for
Collection (London, 1992), 16–23. help with the casting of his North Doors of
198 Giovanni Chellini, Le ricordanze di Giovanni the Baptistery, and possibly his Saint Matthew
Chellini da San Miniato, ed. Maria Teresa too (Boschetto, “Ghiberti e i tre compare”).
Sillano (Milan, 1984), p. 218. On the relief, Adriano Fiorentino was employed as a founder
see Pope-Hennessy, “The Madonna Reliefs for Bertoldo di Giovanni’s Bellerophon and
of Donatello”; and Charles Avery and Pegasus, now inVienna; and Andrea Guaccialotti
Anthony Radcliffe, “The ‘Chellini Madonna’ in Prato cast the first version of the Pazzi
by Donatello,” The Burlington Magazine 118, conspiracy medal from the cast provided by
no. 879 (1976): 377–87. Bertoldo (Luke Syson, “Bertoldo di Giovanni,
199 Giannelli, “Il restauro del Cristo Ligneo”; and republican court artist,” in Artistic Exchange
Stiberc, “Donatello, Brunelleschi and the oth- and Cultural Translation in the Italian Renaissance
ers,” pp. 20–1. City, eds. Stephen J. Campbell and Stephen J.
200 On cases of this, see, for instance, Margaret Milner [Cambridge, 2004], 96–133, p. 108. See
Haines, The Sacrestia delle Messe of the Wilhelm von Bode, Bertoldo und Lorenzo dei
Florentine Cathedral (Florence, 1983); and Medici: Die Kunstpolitik des Lorenzo il Magnifico
Wallace, “Michelangelo at Work.” Two of Neri im Spiegel der Werke seines Lieblingkünstlers
di Bicci’s assistants, for example, Giovanni Bertoldo di Giovanni [Frieburg im Breisgau,
d’Antonio and Antonio di Benedetto, were 1925], pp. 88–91; James David Draper, Bertoldo
employed on a part-time basis by Guiliano di Giovanni: Sculptor of the Medici Household
da Maiano to carry out some work on festi- [Columbia, MO, 1992], 176–85, cat. 18.
val decorations for the Feast of Saint John in Signed EXPRESSIT. ME. BERTHOLDVS.
1461. Thomas, The Painter’s Practice, pp. 86–7. CONFLAVIT.HADRIANVS; and Draper,
Close to Verrocchio’s circle, see the so-called Bertoldo di Giovanni, p. 271, doc. 4). And Maso
Verrocchio sketchbook, whose contents di Bartolomeo, who records in his Libro di
suggest an artist moving between different Ricordi several references to casting works in
workshops (for instance, making copies after bronze for other artists in the mid-Quattro-
Antonio del Pollaiuolo’s Battle of the Nudes and cento (Flaten, “Portrait Medals and Assembly-
ancient cameos from the Medici collection, as Line Art,” p. 133). According to Syson, there are
well as Verrocchio’s David), for which, see, Dalli numerous cases where Bertoldo di Giovanni
Regoli, Verrocchio, Lorenzo di Credi, Francesco di designed works that were executed by other
Simone Ferrucci. artists, e.g., the terracotta frieze for the villa
201 Neri di Bicci collaborated with Giuliano da of Poggio a Caiano, designed by Bertoldo
Maiano, Desiderio da Settignano, il legnaiolo but executed by the workshop of Andrea
Luca Mannucci, and the draper Mariotto della Robbia, probably after wax models by
Mazzi. Franco Franceschi, “La bottega come Bertoldo (some of it was done after Bertoldo’s
spazio di sociabilità,” in Il Quattrocento, eds. death) (Syson, “Bertoldo di Giovanni,
Franco Franceschi and Gloria Fossi, vol. 2 of Republican Court Artist,” p. 108). Ghiberti
La grande storia dell’artigianato (Florence, 1999), makes reference in his Commentaries to hav-
65–83, p. 70. On the relationships between ing made and offered drawings and models as
goldsmiths, spice merchants, and artists, see working guidelines to fellow artists (Thomas,
Alessandro Guidotti, “Battiloro e dipintori The Painter’s Practice, p. 157. See Lorenzo
a Firenze fra Tre e Quattrocento: Bastiano di Ghiberti, Lorenzo Ghibertis Denkwürdigkeiten,
Giovanni e la sua clientela (dal Catasto del ed. Julius von Schlosser, 2 vols. [Berlin, 1912],
1427),” in Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di vol. 1, p. 51). On the use made by other artists
Roberto Salvini (Florence, 1984), 239–49. It was of Ghiberti’s designs, see Krautheimer, Lorenzo
common for sculptors to have their bronzes Ghiberti, p. 207. When Guariente di Giovanni
cast by others. See, for instance, Donatello, Guariento was commissioned in 1418 by the
who subcontracted for the casting of his Opera of Orsanmichele in Florence to make
two silver and enameled candelabra for the altar della Robbia’s frame for the bronze doors of
of Saint Anne, he was requested to conform the north sacristy of the cathedral (though
to a design by Lorenzo Ghiberti (ASF, Arch. Luca did not complete the task). Marco
Or S. Michele, vol. 25, Libro delli Atti e Emanati Collareta, “‘Aes Corinthium’: fortuna letteraris
dai Capitani di Or S. Michele, March 3, 1416–July di un materiale antico,” in L’industria artistica del
10, 1417, c. 42, July 30, 1418, and c. 44v, August bronzo Rinascimento a Venezia e nell’Italia setten-
6, 1418; see Krautheimer, Lorenzo Ghiberti, pp. trionale, proceedings of the symposium (Venice,
390–91, docs. 118 and 119). Mantegna pro- October 23–4, 2007), eds. Matteo Ceriana and
vided drawings for goldsmiths and designed Victoria Avery (Verona, 2008), 297–301; Marco
sculptural models (Alison Wright, “Mantegna Collareta, “L’ultima età dell’oro,” in Bagliori
and Pollaiuolo: Artistic Personality and the dorati. Il Gotico Internazionale a Firenze 1375–
Marketing of Invention,” in Drawing 1400- 1440, eds. Antonio Natale, Enrica Neri Lusanna,
1600. Invention and Innovation, ed. Stuart Currie and Angelo Tartuferi, exh. cat., Galleria
[Aldershot, 1998], 72–90, p. 74). Artists some- degli Uffizi, Florence, June 19–November
times provided drawings for medalists, such as 4, 2012 (Florence, 2012), 62–9; and Formigli,
Ambrogio dei Predis, and possibly Pisanello “Ghiberti’s Saint Matthew and Roman Bronze
(Flaten, “Portrait Medals and Assembly-Line Statuary,” p. 248.
Art,” p. 129). Neri di Bicci gilded and painted 206 Rosenauer, “Orsanmichele: The Birthplace
sculptures by Desiderio (Weeks, “Desiderio of Modern Sculpture,” p. 176. See Bearzi,
da Settignano’s Marsuppini Tomb,” p. 737, n. “Considerazioni di tecnica sul S. Ludovico e la
15. See Neri di Bicci, Le Ricordanze (Marzo Giuditta di Donatello,” pp. 121–2; and Bearzi,
10, 1453–Aprile 24 1475), ed. and annotated by “La tecnica fusoria di Donatello.”
Bruno Santi [Pisa, 1976], docs. 306 and 369). 207 Stone, “A New Interpretation of the Casting
And Brunetti notes that the practice of paint- of Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes,” pp. 64–7
ers using materials such as glass, metals, or min- and n. 29.
erals in their paintings and the fact that these 208 For example, the Madonna and Child attributed
materials were used by several Florentine easel to a follower of Donatello (Národni galerie,
painters c. 1500 emphasizes the circulation of Prague), though not all the replicas were
ideas about properties and use of materials made in Donatello’s workshop; some were
among painters, glass manufacturers, ceram- made years later. Charles Avery, “Donatello’s
icists, and foundrymen (Brunetto Giovanni Madonnas Reconsidered” Apollo 124, no. 295
Brunetti, “The Workshop,” in The Painting (1986): 174–82, p. 178; Anna Jolly, Madonnas by
Technique of Pietro Vannucci Called Il Perugino. Donatello and His Circle (Frankfurt am Main,
Proceedings of the LabS TECH Workshop, 1998), pp. 100–3; Marc Bormand, Donatello: La
eds. Brunetto Giovanni Brunetti, Claudio Vierge e l’Enfant; deux reliefs en terre cuite (Paris,
Seccaroni, Antonio Sgamellotti, Kermes quad- 2008), pp. 9–11; discussed by Tommaso Mozzati
erni, 17 [Florence, 2004], 9–11, p. 10). in The Springtime of the Renaissance. Sculpture
202 Cadogan, Domenico Ghirlandaio, pp. 27–8. and the Arts in Florence 1400–60, eds. Beatrice
See Richard Goldthwaite, The Building of Paolozzi Strozzi and Marc Bormand, exh. cat.,
Renaissance Florence (Baltimore, 1980), p. 413. Florence, Palazzo Strozzi, March 23–August 18,
On the guilds in Florence, see Alfred Doren, 2013, and Paris, Musée du Louvre, September
Le arti fiorentine, trans. G. B. Klein, 2 vols. 26, 2013–January 6, 2014 (Florence, 2013), p.
(Florence, 1930). 183.
203 The work also features orange wax in the arms 209 See n. 198 earlier.
of the cross for the halo of Christ. Jennifer 210 Giancarlo Gentilini, “A New, Useful and

Vatelot,“La Vierge adorant l’Enfant de Donatello, Beautiful Art. Considerations on the ‘Invention’
dite Madone Piot: étude et restauration,” Techne of Glazed Sculpture,” in The Springtime of the
36 (2012): 54–61, pp. 55–7. Renaissance. Sculpture and the Arts in Florence
204 This has been suggested by Vatelot, “La Vierge 1400–60, eds. Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi and
adorant l’Enfant de Donatello,” pp. 55–7. Marc Bormand, exh. cat., Florence, Palazzo
205
Examples include Donatello’s Crucifixion Strozzi, March 23–August 18, 2013 and Paris,
(Museo del Bargello, Florence), Ghiberti’s St Musée du Louvre, September 26, 2013–January
Matthew (Orsanmichele, Florence), and Luca 6, 2014 (Florence, 2013), 188–95, pp. 192–3.
211 Simona Cristanetti, “The Kress Madonna: “non-finito,” see also Valentino Martinelli, “Il
Revelations of an Extraordinary Sculpture,” non-finito di Donatello,” in Umberto Baldini
Techne. Centre de Recherches des Musées de France et al., eds., Donatello e il suo tempo,VIII Convegno
36 (2012): 47–53. Internazionale di studi sul rinascimento, 1966
212
Nicholas Penny, “Non-finito in Italian (Florence, 1968), 179–94.
Fifteenth-Century Bronze Sculpture,” 214 Peter Dent, “Chellini’s Ears and the Diagnosis
Antologia di belle arti n.s. 48/51 (1994): 11–15. of Technique,” in Una insalata più erbe. A
On other artists who moved between media Festschrift for Patricia Lee Rubin, eds. Jim Harris,
see Pons, “L’unità delle arti”; Weil-Garris Scott Nethersole, and Per Rumberg (London,
Brandt, “Leonardo e la scultura.” 2011), 138–50, p. 144.
213 These include his Flagellation relief in Perugia, 215 Jeanette Kohl, “Vollkommen ähnlich. Der

his Jerome in the Wilderness in the Kress collec- Index als Grundlage des Renaissanceporträts,”
tion at the NGA, and much of the Deposition in Similtudo. Konzepte der Ähnlichkeit in
(1470s) for Santa Maria del Carmine. Penny Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit, eds. Martin Gaier,
notes that Francesco di Giorgio went as far Jeanette Kohl, and Alberto Saviello (Munich
as to use tools to create a more unfinished and Paderborn, 2012), 181–207.
appearance in the Deposition where a punch 216 Jeanette Kohl, “Casting Renaissance Florence:
has been used to decrease the legibility of The Bust of Giovanni de’Medici and Indexical
the angels flying around the cross. According Portraiture,” in Carvings, Casts & Collectors. The
to Penny, Francesco did this “to enhance an Art of Renaissance Sculpture, eds. Peta Motture,
effect which the process of casting itself often Emma Jones, and Dimitrios Zikos (London,
produced.” Penny has also pointed to the 2013), 58–71, p. 69.
traces of a claw chisel in the background of 217 Charles Avery, “La cera sempre aspetta. Wax
Desiderio’s St Jerome in the Wilderness (NGA, Sketch Models for Sculpture.” Apollo 119
WA) as an equivalent of this in marble. Penny, (1984): 166–76.
“Non-Finito,” pp. 13–14. On Donatello’s
2: VERROCCHIO’S MEDICI TOMB: ART AS TREATISE
1 Leonardo Bruni, Leonardi Bruni arretini episto- Paintings and Drawings, trans. Katherine Watson
larum libri VIII, eds. Lorenzo Mehus, Bernardo (London, 1969), pp. 12–14; Charles Seymour,
Paperini, and Giuseppe Rigacci, 2 vols. Jr., The Sculpture of Verrocchio (Greenwich, CT,
(Florence, 1741), vol. 2, Book 6, letter 5, p. 46, 1971), pp. 51–55, 161–62; Piero Adorno, Il
trans. Patricia Lee Rubin, Images and Identity Verrocchio. Nuove proposte nella civilità artistica del
in Fifteenth-Century Florence (New Haven, tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico (Florence 1991), pp.
CT, 2007), p. 36. For a discussion of the quo- 65–70; Pietro Ruschi,“Lorenzo a San Lorenzo,”
tation (from a letter to Poggio Bracciolini in L’Architettura di Lorenzo il Magnifico, eds.
about Donatello and Michelozzo’s Aragazzi Gabriele Morolli and Cristina Acidini Luchinat,
tomb), see Ronald W. Lightbown, Donatello & exh. cat., Ospedale degli Innocenti, Florence,
Michelozzo. An Artistic Partnership and Its Patrons April 8–July 26, 1992 (Florence, 1992), pp.
in the Early Renaissance, 2 vols. (London, 1980), 117–18; Wendy Stedman Sheard, “Verrocchio’s
vol. 1, pp. 128–33. Medici tomb and the language of materials:
2 Most scholars attribute the tomb to Verrocchio, With a postscript on his legacy in Venice,” in
but some have attributed it in part (or entirely) Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture,
to Leonardo. For this latter view, see David eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella
Alan Brown, Leonardo da Vinci. Origins of a Superbi Gioffredi (Florence, 1992), 63–90;
Genius (New Haven, CT, 1998), pp. 65–67; and Christine M. Sperling, “Verrocchio’s Medici
Adolfo Venturi, La Scultura del Cinquecento, vol. Tombs,” in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento
10 of Storia dell’arte italiana, 11 vols. (Milan, Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps
1901–75), Part I, p. 19. Darr, and Fiorella Superbi Giofreddi (Florence,
3 The most important interpretations of the tomb 1992), 51–61; Carlo Del Bravo, “Lorenzo e il
are Günther Passavant, Verrocchio. Sculptures, monumento ‘patri patruoque,’” Artista (1993):
128–37; and Andrew Butterfield, The Sculptures ANLIIIMVDXV / IOHAN / ANXLIIMIIII /

of Andrea del Verrocchio (New Haven, 1997), pp. DXXVIII.” Christine Sperling established that
33–55 and 207–09. For complete bibliogra- the inscription “HMHNS” is an abbreviation
phy on the tomb up to 1997, see Butterfield, for “Hoc monumentum heredes non sequitur,”
Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 209 (the only a common feature of classical Roman tombs.
significant publication on the tomb post-1997 Given the peculiar classicism of the forms of
is Dario A. Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio. Life and the inscriptions and their content, Sperling has
Work [Florence, 2005], pp. 89–98). proposed that they were composed by Donato
4 In 1465, King Louis XI of France granted Piero Acciaiuoli. Sperling, “Verrocchio’s Medici
de’ Medici the right to include a blue palla Tombs,” p. 56–57; on Acciaiuoli, see n. 26.
with the royal lily in the Medici coat of arms 7 Howard Saalman (“San Lorenzo: The 1434
(ASF, Diplomatico Mediceo, May 1465; and Chapel Project,” Burlington Magazine 120
Ricordi del Magnifico, trans.William Roscoe, The (1978): 358–61, p. 363) made this suggestion.
Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Called the Magnificent, Dale Kent (The Rise of the Medici [Oxford,
rev. Thomas Roscoe (London, 1985), Appendix 1978], pp. 70–71) points out that the Medici
X, p. 425). Below the lower two conch shells were careful to give the impression, at least, of
is a flattened space cut in a V-shape with an working with others and not alone, though
irregular arched top into which a now-miss- most, if not all, of the eight other families
ing element was placed. Serros has suggested involved in the project were Medici allies.
a three-dimensional lily, possibly made of cast 8 On the history of the construction of San
bronze, was originally placed there (noting the Lorenzo (including the chapel of SS. Cosmas
staining of the stone). Richard David Serros, and Damian) and Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici’s
“The Verrocchio workshop: Techniques, pro- involvement, see Walter Paatz and Elisabeth
duction and influences,” Ph.D. diss., University Paatz, Die Kirchen von Florenz ein kunstgeschicht-
of California, Santa Barbara, 1999, p. 55. esliches Handbuch, 6 vols. (Frankfurt am Main,
5 Verrocchio’s brother Tommaso identifies the 1952–55), vol. 2, p. 465–66; Eugenio Battisti,
green stone as “serpentino” in his inventory of Filippo Brunelleschi. The Complete Works, trans.
1496 (modern style) (Florence, Biblioteca della Robert Erich Wolf (New York, 1981; Milan,
Galleria degli Uffizi, Miscellanee Manoscritte, 2002), pp. 179–86 and p. 353, n. 5; Pietro Ruschi,
vol. 1, fol. 43r, transcribed by Covi, Andrea del “La sagrestia vecchia,” in San Lorenzo 393–
Verrocchio, p. 287, doc.VI.28 ); and Giorgio Vasari 1993. L’architettura. Le vicende della fabbrica, eds.
(Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori ed architet- Gabriele Morolli and Pietro Ruschi (Florence,
tori. 1550; revised 1568, ed. Gaetano Milanesi, 1993), 41–46, p. 41; and Howard Saalman,
9 vols. (Florence, 1878), vol. 3, p. 362) simply Filippo Brunelleschi. The Buildings (London,
says the sarcophagus is made from porphyry 1993), p. 116. On the construction of the
(“una cassa di porfido”). According to Suzanne chapel, see Domenico Moreni, Continuazione
Butters (The Triumph of Vulcan. Sculptors’ Tools, delle memorie istoriche dell’Ambrosiana R. Basilica
Porphyry, and the Prince in Ducal Florence, 2 vols. di S. Lorenzo di Firenze, 2 vols. (Florence,
(Florence, 1996), vol. 1, p. 122, n. 12), “serpen- 1816–17), vol. 2, p. 361f, doc. VII. Piero Roselli
tino” is sometimes used to refer to green por- (“Brunelleschi in San Lorenzo. Contributi alla
phyry that came from Lacedaemonian quarries cronologia dell’edificazione,” Antichità viva 18,
in Greece and is, geologically speaking, por- no. 2 [1979]: 36–43, p. 38; and L’edificazione della
phyry. Peter Cannon-Brookes (“Verrocchio basilica di S. Lorenzo. Una vicenda di importanza
Problems,” Apollo 99 (January 1974): 8–19, urbanistica [Florence, 1980], pp. 17–18) proposes
pp. 8–9) thought it surprising that such a cheap that construction of the chapel of Cosmas and
material (serpentine) would be used and pro- Damian was probably begun at the same time
posed that it was “green porphyry.” John Pope- as that of the Old Sacristy (1419/20), and both
Hennessy (Italian Renaissance Sculpture (London, were probably completed in 1428/29. Caroline
1971), p. 42) also called it “green porphyry.” Elam (“Cosimo de’ Medici and San Lorenzo,”
6 In the disk on the chapel side, the inscrip- in Cosimo ‘il Vecchio’ de’ Medici, 1389–1464.
tion reads: “PETRO / ETIOHANNIDE / Essays in Commemoration of the 600th anniversary
MEDICIS / COSMIPPF / HMHNS.” On the of Cosimo de’ Medici’s birth, ed. Francis Ames-
sacristy side, the inscription reads: “PET VIX / Lewis [Oxford, 1992], 157–80, p. 169) claims
that the chapel and Old Sacristy were finished Lorenzo.” (Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria
before Giovanni di Bicci’s death in 1429, citing degli Uffizi, Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. 1, fol.
the date on the lantern’s baldacchino on the Old 43r, transcribed by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
Sacristy as proof. p. 287, doc. VI.28). On the attribution to
9 Francesco Caglioti, “La tomba verrocchiesca Verrocchio, see Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea
dei ‘cosmiadi’ e la basilica di San Lorenzo: ante- del Verrocchio, p. 35.
fatti e primi successi,” Annali della scuola normale 15 “[A]vesse tutta una chiesa per larghissimo
superiore di Pisa series 4, 1 (1996): 127–54, p. 129 sepolcro.” Paolo Giovio, quoted in Moreni,
and pp. 138–39, ns. 9 and 10. Continuazione, vol. 1, p. 113.
10 John Pope-Hennessy, Günther Passavant, and 16 Moreni, Continuazione, vol. 2, pp. 345–49;
Andrew Butterfield all proposed that the Piero Ginori-Conti, La Basilica di San Lorenzo
choice of materials was in part dictated by its (Florence, 1940), pp. 240–45 (esp. 243); Sperling,
location within an arch leading to the Old “Verrocchio’s Medici Tombs,” pp. 54–55; Janis
Sacristy. Pope-Hennessy, Italian Renaissance Clearfield, “The Tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici
Sculpture, p. 42; Passavant, Verrocchio, p. 14; and in San Lorenzo,” Rutgers Art Review 2 (1981):
Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 13–30, p. 25; and Elam, “Cosimo de’ Medici
54–55. Adorno (Il Verrocchio, p. 67) emphasized and San Lorenzo,” pp. 157–80.
the tomb’s placement between two distinct 17 Ida Cardellini, Desiderio da Settignano (Milan,
spaces as one its most novel features. 1962), p. 222.
11 “Della qual opera [the tomb of Giovanni and 18 Andrew Butterfield and Caroline Elam, with a
Piero] non si può, nè di bronzo nè di getto, contribution from Victor Coonin, “Desiderio
far meglio; massimamente avendo egli in un da Settignano’s Tabernacle of the Sacrament,”
medesimo tempo mostrato l’ingegno suo Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in
nell’architettura, per aver la detta sepoltura col- Florenz 43, no.s 2/3 (1999): 333–57, pp. 335 and
locata nell’apertura d’una finestra larga brac- 337.
cia cinque e alta dieci in circa, e posta sopra 19 Seymour, Sculpture of Verrocchio, pp. 53–54.
un basamento che divide la detta cappella del Maud Cruttwell (Verrocchio [London, 1904],
Sagramento dalla sagrestia vecchia.” Vasari- p. 79) recognized that the chapel side was the
Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 362. view from which the tomb was seen “to best
12 Caglioti, “La tomba verrocchiesca dei ‘cos- advantage.”
miadi’,” p. 127. Caglioti (p. 132) argues that 20 Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, p.
probably after the construction of Verrocchio’s 49; and Butterfield and Elam, “Desiderio da
tomb, Lorenzo’s remains were transferred to Settignano’s Tabernacle of the Sacrament,” p.
the crypt. This puts to rest the proposal by 337.
some scholars that the arch was the original 21 In fact, this part of the tabernacle has been con-
doorway by Brunelleschi into the Old Sacristy, vincingly attributed toVerrocchio by Francesco
and the adjacent door, which now serves as the Caglioti (“Da una costola di Desiderio: Due
entrance, was a blind door opened up after the Marmi Giovanili del Verrocchio,” in Desiderio
construction of Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni da Settignano. Atti del convegno internazionale
and Piero. See, for, instance, Peter Cannon- di studi, Kunsthistorisches Institut, Firenze and
Brookes, “Verrocchio Problems,” Apollo 99 Villa I Tatti,The Harvard University Center for
(January 1974): 8–19, p. 11; and Battisti, Filippo Italian Renaissance Studies, Settignano, 9–12
Brunelleschi, p. 84. maggio 2007, eds. Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi,
13 In its evocation of reliquaries, Verrocchio’s Joseph Connors, Alessandro Nova and Gerhard
monument also points to the reliquary treasury Wolf [Venice, 2011], 123–150, pp. 126–27).
donated by the Medici and kept in the altar 22 Luisa Becherucci, Donatello. I pergami di San
decorated with Brunelleschi’s Sacrifice of Isaac Lorenzo (Florence, 1979), p. 3; Irving Lavin,
competition panel in the Old Sacristy. Vasari- “Donatellos Kanzeln in San Lorenzo und das
Milanesi, vol. 2, p. 336. Wiederaufleben frühchristlicher Gebrauche:
14 Verrocchio’s brother, Tommaso, mentions the ein Nachwort,” in Donatello-Studien, ed.
tomb of Cosimo in a 1496 (modern style) Monika Cämmerer (Munich, 1989), 155–69;
inventory of works by the artist: “Per la sepol- Saalman, Filippo Brunelleschi, pp. 167–75. See
tura di Chosimo appiè del’altare magiore in San also Volker Herzner, “Die Kanzeln Donatellos
in San Lorenzo,” Münchner Jahrbuch 23 (1972): in Renaissance Florence, 1350–1500,” Ph.D.

101–64, pp. 101–03. diss. (University of California, Berkeley, 1981),
23 Andrew Butterfield, “Documents for the p. 271. Giovanni de’ Medici, on the other hand,
Pulpits of San Lorenzo, Florence,” Mitteilungen was given a funeral, paid for in 1463 by his
des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 38 heirs. Andrea Alamanno gave the eulogy for
(1994): 147–53. Giovanni’s funeral (John M. McManamon, S. J.,
24 Moreni, Continuazione, vol. 1, p. 19 n. 1. Funeral Oratory and the Cultural Ideals of Italian
25 The source for this sum is given in Alison Humanism [Chapel Hill NC, 1989], p. 250).
M. Brown, “Pierfrancesco de’ Medici, 1430– 33 “Fu portato a seppellire secondo io ritrovo
1476: A radical alternative to elder Medicean senz’altra onoranza, forse perchè cosi egli in
supremacy?” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld sua vita avesse disposto, o perchè con le appar-
Institutes 42 (1979): 81–103, p. 85, n. 23. enze non s’accrescesse a’ successori l’invidia; a

26 Francis W. Kent, “‘Un paradiso habitato da quali d’essere e non d’apparir grandi impor-
diavoli’: Ties of loyalty and patronage in the tava.” Scipione Ammirato, Istorie Fiorentine di
society of Medicean Florence,” in Le radici cris- Scipione Ammirato, ed. Ferdinando Ranalli, 2
tiane di Firenze, eds. Anna Benvenuti, Franco parts in 6 vols. (Florence, 1848), 2nd part, vol. 5,
Cardini, and Elena Giannarelli (Florence, p. 185, trans. Roscoe, Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici,
1994), 183–210, pp. 207–08. p. 107. In a letter to the Duke of Milan, the
27 Robert Gaston, “Liturgy and Patronage in San Milanese envoy, Sagramoro de’ Mengozzi,
Lorenzo, Florence, 1350–1650,” in Patronage, notes the connections between Piero’s modest
Art, and Society in Renaissance Art, eds. Francis burial and that of his father, Cosimo (Giovanni
W. Kent and Patricia Simons (Oxford, 1987), Soranzo, “Lorenzo il Magnifico alla morte del
111–33, pp. 123–27; and Kent, “Un paradiso padre e il suo primo balzo verso la Signoria,”
habitato da diavoli’,” pp. 208–09. Archivio Storico Italiano 5, 111 (1953): 42–77,
28 Kent, “Un paradiso habitato da diavoli’,” p. 208. p. 45).
Butterfield (Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, 34 Nicolai Rubinstein, The Government of Florence
p. 51) also notes that the Medici provided the under the Medici, 1434–94, (Oxford, 1966; 2nd
olive and palm fronds for Palm Sunday cele- edn, 1997), pp. 197–200.
brations, which were kept in the Old Sacristy 35 Strocchia, Death and Ritual, p. 188.
and which he has connected to the decoration 36 Ricordi del Magnifico Lorenzo di Piero di Cosimo
of the marble frame of Verrocchio’s tomb. de’ Medici Cavati da due fogli scritti di sua propria
29 Sharon T. Strocchia, Death and Ritual in mano, estratti da un codice della publica Liberia
Renaissance Florence (Baltimore, 1992), p. 188. Magliabechiana e stampati nel nuovo Lunario
30 “[Q]uasi che fosse chiamato a vedere una della Toscana dell’anno 1775, transcribed in
maraviglia del Mondo, vi concorse tutto Roscoe, Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Appendix
Firenze.” Quoted by Ferdinando Leopoldo X, p. 426, trans. Francis W. Kent, “The Young
Del Migliore, Firenze città nobilissima illustrata Lorenzo, 1449–69,” in Lorenzo the Magnificent.
(Florence, 1684), p. 170; and Domenico Moreni Culture and Politics (London, 1996), 1–22, p. 2.
(Descrizione della Gran Cappella delle Pietre Dure On assassination attempts against Lorenzo, see
e della Sagrestia Vecchia eretta da Filippo di Ser Kent, “The Young Lorenzo,” pp. 7 and 15.
Brunellesco situate ambedue nell’Imp. Basilica 37 This point has been made by Kent, who argues
di San Lorenzo di Firenze [Florence, 1813], that it was Cosimo’s death in 1464 that marked
p. 65). Unfortunately, neither Migliore nor the beginning of Lorenzo’s apprenticeship,
Moreni identify the manuscript source. not Piero’s demise in 1469. Kent, “The Young
31 Naldo Naldi, Epigrammaton Liber (Budapest, Lorenzo,” p. 10ff.
1943), p. 3. Butterfield (Sculptures of Andrea del 38 On the political situation in Florence in the
Verrocchio, p. 47) was the first to cite this poem 1470s, see Rubinstein, Government of Florence,
in relation to the tomb. pp. 199–230.
32 The funeral is described by Marco Parenti in 39 In this, the tomb is in keeping with the pub-
a letter (Alessandra Macinghi Strozzi, Lettere di lic face of the early Medici, including Piero,
una gentildonna fiorentina del secolo xv ai figliu- which, as Alison Brown has argued, was kept
oli esuli, ed. Cesare Guasti [Florence, 1877], pp. deliberately enigmatic because of the need to
607–10). See also Sharon T. Strocchia, “Burials conceal their power. Alison M. Brown, The
Medici in Florence: The Exercise and Language of must have known the tomb of Santa Costanza
Power (Florence, 1992), pp. vii–xiii. as it was returned to its original mausoleum
40 Fritz Burger (Geschichte des Florentinischen setting in Rome from the Piazza San Marco in
Grabmals von der altesten Zeiten bis Michelangelo the same year (1471) that Lorenzo was studying
[Strasbourg, 1904], p. 56) and Roberto Paolo antiquities with Alberti in Rome. Butterfield,
Novello (“Giovanni di Balduccio da Pisa,” Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 51.
Ph.D. diss., Università degli Studi Pisa, 1990, 47 There were six examples in Florence: the lost
p. 74) noted the similarities between the mon- tomb of Count Hugo of Tuscany (d. 1001) in
uments and Verrocchio’s tomb in San Lorenzo. the Badia; the burial chapel of the cardinal of
(Note that the grilles in Santa Croce are in Portugal in San Miniato al Monte; above the
a quatrefoil pattern and made from iron, not tomb of Piccarda and Giovanni di Bicci de’
bronze.) Medici in the Old Sacristy in San Lorenzo;
41 Andrew Butterfield, “Monument and memory the tomb slab of Cosimo de’ Medici also by
in early Renaissance Florence,” in Art, Memory, Verrocchio, which was positioned directly in
and Family in Renaissance Florence (Cambridge, front of the high altar and below the cupola
UK, 2000), 135–62, pp. 143–45 and pp. 153–4. of San Lorenzo (this has been noted by
42 On the latter tomb, see Anne Markham Butterfield, Sculptures of Verrocchio, p. 43); and
Schulz, The Sculpture of Bernardo Rossellino on the back walls of Antonio and Bernardo
and His Workshop (Princeton, 1977), p. 64–66; Rossellino’s monument of Leonardo Bruni
and Howard Saalman, “Strozzi Tombs in the and of Desiderio da Settignano’s tomb of Carlo
Sacristy of Santa Trinita,” Münchner Jahrbuch der Marsuppini, both in Santa Croce. (For these
bildenden Kunst 38 (1987): 149–60. last examples, see Hellmut Wohl, The Aesthetics
43 Debra Pincus, The Tombs of the Doges of Venice of Italian Renaissance Art. A Reconsideration of
(Cambridge, UK, 2000), p. 21. Style (Cambridge, UK, 1999), p. 182.) Both of
44 See chapter 1, n. 13 earlier. Julian Gardner these last structures would have been famil-
attributes the medieval practice to the superi- iar to Verrocchio, and he may have worked
ority of ancient carvers over that of later sculp- as an assistant on the Marsuppini tomb. The
tors. Julian Gardner, The Tomb and the Tiara: thirteenth-century Venetian tombs of Doge
Curial Tomb Sculpture in Rome and Avignon in Giovanni Dandolo (1280–89) and his successor,
the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1992), pp. 28–29 Pietro Gradenigo (1289–311), the latter known
and 31. only via an eighteenth-century watercolor
45 Josef Deér (The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the and wash drawing by Jan Grevembroch, were
Norman Period in Sicily, trans. Gerd Aage Gillhoff made from porphyry. And porphyry slabs were
[Cambridge, MA, 1959], pp. 149–50) notes that attached to the top of the tomb, of c. 1280, of
the earliest papal sepulcher made from por- Henry III in Westminster Abbey. Pincus, Tombs
phyry dates from 1143. Before that it had been of the Doges, pp. 83–86.
used for saints and martyrs, and earlier still it had 48 ASF, Carte Strozziane, ser. III, filza 178, c. 48,
been used for imperial tombs. See also Richard published in Strozzi, Lettere di una gentildonna,
Delbrueck, Antike Porphyrywerke (Berlin, 1932), pp. 327-8, trans. Butterfield, Sculptures of
pp. 212–27; Raniero Gnoli, Marmora Romana Verrocchio, p. 43.
(Rome, 1971), pp. 66–71; McKillop, “Dante 49 This has been noted by Butterfield, Sculptures of
and Lumen Christi”; and Sheard, “Verrocchio’s Verrocchio, p. 51.
Medici Tomb,” pp. 71–76. For a corpus of 50 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 362: “E sopra la cassa,
tombs made from porphyry, see Dario Del per ripieno dell’apertura insino alla volta, fece
Bufalo, Porphyry. Red Imperial Porphyry. Power una grata a mandorle di cordoni di bronzo nat-
and Religion (Turin, 2012), pp. 161–73. uralissimi, con ornamenti in certi luoghi d’al-
46 The idea of using porphyry for the sarcopha- cuni festoni, ed altre belle fantasie tutte notabili,
gus may have come from Lorenzo, who would e con molta pratica, giudizio ed invenzione
have known early Christian examples, such condotte.” [And above the sarcophagus, filling
as that of Santa Costanza – the daughter of the opening all the way to the vault, made as a
Constantine – in Rome. Like Verrocchio’s, that grille consisting of mandorlas formed by bronze
tomb is set within an arch (though a niche, not cords, very naturalistically done, ornamented in
an aperture). Butterfield notes that Lorenzo places with festoons and other beautiful and
notable fantasies, made with great practical 59 Sperling, “Verrocchio’s Medici Tombs,”
knowledge, judgment, and imagination]. pp. 58–59.
51 John Pope-Hennessy (Italian Renaissance 60 Serros,“The Verrocchio workshop,” p. 56, n. 101.
Sculpture [London, 1971; rev. 1996], p. 168). The 61 On the attribution of this work, see Annamaria
grille for Bernardo Rossellino’s tomb of Neri Giusti, “8. Reliquary casket,” in Art of the Royal
Capponi (Santo Spirito, Florence) postdates Court. Treasures in Pietre Dure from the Palaces
Verrocchio’s tomb: a document records that of Europe, ed. Wolfram Koeppe, exh. cat., The
permission was granted to Capponi’s grand- Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, July
sons in 1488 to break the chapel wall to con- 1–September 21, 2008 (New Haven, CT, 2008),
struct it. Schulz, Sculpture of Bernardo Rossellino, 116, cat. 8.
p. 116. 62 Richard C. Trexler, “Lorenzo de’ Medici and
52 Adorno, Il Verrocchio, pp. 66–67. Serros noted Savonarola, Martyrs for Florence,” Renaissance
a connection with the grille at Prato. Serros, Quarterly 31 (1978): 293–308; Francis W. Kent,
“The Verrocchio workshop,” p. 53. “‘Lorenzo . . . Amico degli uomini da bene’:
53 On Verrocchio’s trip to Prato, see Alberto Lorenzo de’ Medici and Oligarchy,” in Lorenzo
Busignani, “Maso di Bartolommeo, Pasquino il Magnifico e il suo mondo, Convegno, 1992, ed.
da Montepulciano e gli inizi di A.Verrocchio,” Gian Carlo Garfagnini (Florence, 1994): 43–60,
Antichità Viva 1, no. 1 (1962): 35–39, pp. 33–39. pp. 55–58; Francis W. Kent, “Sainted mother,
John Pope-Hennessy attributed the base of magnificent son: Lucrezia Tornabuoni and
the Prato pulpit to Verrocchio. John Pope- Lorenzo de’ Medici,” Italian History and Culture
Hennessy, “Deux-Madones en marbre de 3 (1997): 3–34, pp. 25–33; Kent, “‘Un paradiso
Verrocchio,” Revue de l’art 80 (1988): 17–25. habitato da diavoli’,” pp. 208–10.
54 If this is the case, then it is possible to inter- 63 Trexler, “Lorenzo de’ Medici and Savonarola,”
pret the knotted design of the bronze netting p. 294. On the Medici and the Magi, see Rab
as an allusion to Dante’s use of the knot in Hatfield, “The Compagnia de’ Magi,” Journal
Canto 33, where it figures the beatific vision, of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33 (1970):
as McKillop proposed. McKillop, “Dante and 107–61.
Lumen Christi,” p. 285 n. 188. On the other 64 Kent, “Sainted Mother, Magnificent Son,”
hand, bronze netting was employed for spaces p. 26.
with nonmiraculous connotations: the win- 65 Giovanni de’ Medici, who died unexpect-
dow of the door to the Piccolimini library in edly in 1463, did not leave a will. Lorenzo il
Siena Duomo; the window of the Chapel of Magnifico recorded in 1473 (modern style)
the Priors in the Palazzo della Signoria; and that Giovanni did not compose a will because
in the gates to the cloister at il Santo, Padua. he was not yet emancipated from his father
Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. (“era in potestà paterna”) and that Piero did
54. not leave a will either. Apparently Piero did
55 Butterfield and Elam, “Desiderio da give verbal instructions to Lorenzo about what
Settignano’s Tabernacle,” pp. 335 and 337. he wanted for his tomb: “Piero our father
56 This is the interpretation put forward by passed from this life on December 2, 1469 . . .
Seymour, Sculpture of Verrocchio, pp. 53–54. Much afflicted by gout for many years, he did
57 Passavant, Verrocchio, p. 13 and figure 6. not want to make a will . . . He was buried in
58 Although Patrizia Castelli (“‘Marmi policromi San Lorenzo, and his tomb (and of Giovanni
e bianchi screziati’: In margine alle valutazioni his brother), construction of which continues,
estetiche del Traversari,” in Ambrogio Traversari is more worthy than we know for putting their
nel centenario della nascita, convegno interna- bones.” (“Piero nostro padre passò da questa
zionale di studi, Camaldoli-Firenze, 15–18 vita alli 2 di Dicembre, 1469 . . . molto afflitto
settembre 1986, ed. Gian Carlo Garfagnini dalle gotte, non volle far testamento . . . Fu sep-
[Florence, 1988], 211–24) has proposed that ellito in S. Lorenzo, e di continuo si fa la sua
Traversari chose Ghiberti for the commis- sepoltura, e di Gio. suo fratello, più degna che
sion, there is no evidence for this, according to sappiamo per mettervi le loro ossa.”) Ricordi
Georgia Clarke (“Ambrogio Traversari: Artistic del Magnifico Lorenzo, transcribed by Roscoe,
adviser in early fifteenth-century Florence?” Life of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Appendix no. X,
Renaissance Studies 11 [1997]: 161–78, p. 163). pp. 425–26.
66 This has been noted by Butterfield (Sculptures 70 Sheard (“Verrocchio’s Medici Tomb,” pp.
of Verrocchio, p. 47). 64–65, n. 8) has noted that by 1459, red, white
67 On the diamond as a device of the Medici (and and green had become the Medici family
their allies), see Francis Ames-Lewis, “Early colors. The colors reference poems describing
Medician Devices,” Journal of the Warburg and the Medici family, for which see my ns. 106
Courtauld Institutes 42 (1979): 122–43, pp. 129 and 107 later in this chapter.
and 132; Francis Ames-Lewis, The Library and 71 Butterfield, Sculptures of Verrocchio, pp. 51, 53–54.
Manuscripts of Piero de’ Medici (New York, 1984); See Gerhart B. Ladner, “Vegetation Symbolism
Francis Ames-Lewis, “Matteo de’ Pasti and and the Concept of the Renaissance,” in De
the Use of Powdered Gold,” Mitteilungen des artibus Opscula XL. Essays in Honor of Erwin
Kunsthistorischen Instituts in Florenz 29 (1984): Panofsky, ed. Millard Meiss (New York, 1961),
351–62; Brenda Preyer, “The Rucellai Palace,” 303–22.
in Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, vol. 72 Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, pp. 105–06.
2 of A Florentine Patrician and his Palace, ed. 73 Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 106.
Francis W. Kent, 2 vols. (London, 1960–81), 74 John Shearman, Only Connect . . . Art and the
153ff, esp. 198–201; Howard Saalman, Review Spectator in the Italian Renaissance (Princeton,
of Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone II. A NJ, 1992), p. 49. Butters (Triumph of Vulcan,
Florentine Patrician and His Palace, Journal of vol. 1, p. 106) has called for a revision of the
the Society of Architectural Historians 47 (1988): assumption that punning allusions only post-
82–90, p. 89; Lorenz Böninger, “Diplomatie date Lorenzo il Magnifico’s era, and she has
im Dienst der Kontinuität. Piero de’ Medici argued that Verrocchio’s tomb specifically
zwischen Rom und Mailand (1447–1454),” in should be read as materially punning on Piero’s
Piero de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’ (1416–1469). Kunst name.
im Dienste der Mediceer. Art in the Service of the 75 Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Ital. 1471,
Medici, eds. Andreas Beyer and Bruce Boucher on which see Ames-Lewis, “The Library and
(Berlin, 1993), 39–54, pp. 42 and 43; and Adrian Manuscripts of Piero di Cosimo de’ Medici,”
W. B. Randolph, Engaging Symbols: Gender, pp. 336–37, cat. 88.
Politics and Public Art in Fifteenth-Century 76 Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, pp. 44–45
Florence (New Haven, CT, 2002), chapter 3. (with further bibliography).
68 The pyramidal shape of Verrocchio’s diamonds 77 Andreas Beyer and Bruce Boucher,
may refer to a specific type favored by Piero: “Introduction,” in Piero de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’
there are twenty-seven pointed diamonds listed (1416–1469). Kunst im Dienste der Mediceer. Art
among his possessions in the inventory made in the Service of the Medici, eds. Andreas Beyer
of the Medici palace in 1465. Inventory of 1465 and Bruce Boucher (Berlin, 1993), xv–xx,
quoted by Maria Sframeli, “I gioielli nell’età di p. xviii; and Andreas Beyer, “Funktion und
Lorenzo il Magnifico,” in I gioielli dei Medici dal Representation. Die Porphyr-Rotae der
vero e in ritratto, ed. Maria Sframeli, exh. cat., Medici” in Piero de’ Medici il Gottoso’, eds.
Museo degli Argenti, Palazzo Pitti, September Andreas Beyer and Bruce Boucher (Berlin,
12, 2003–February 2, 2004 (Florence, 2004), 1993), 151–67.
10–23, p. 12; and Eugène Müntz, Les Collections 78 “[I]l bronzo propagava la memoria.” Lorenzo
des Médicis au XVe Siècle (Paris, 1888), p. 36, on de’ Medici, “Stanza I” in Stanze, ed. Raffaella
“diamante punta” see also pp. 17 and 80. See Castagnola (Florence, 1986), verse 98, p. 42.
also Sheard, “Verrocchio’s Medici Tomb,” pp. This has been noted by Butterfield (Sculptures
76–77, n. 50. However, one must be cautious in of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 51). The date of
drawing conclusions about actual shapes based Lorenzo’s Stanze is disputed. Some scholars
on inventory descriptions when the terminol- place it (or part of it) in the mid-1470s; oth-
ogy on diamonds was so vague (and new) at ers date it after 1486. On this, see Lorenzo de’
this moment. I thank Timothy McCall for this Medici, Stanze, pp. lxxxviii–xcviii.
observation. 79 Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 105.
69 As well as this, the turtles may refer to Piero’s 80 Ibid., p. 106. See Francesco Colonna,
gout, as the shells of turtles were used for medic- Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, eds. Giovanni Pozzi
inal purposes in healing gout, according to Pliny. and Lucia A. Ciapponi, 2 vols. (Padua, 1980),
Sheard, “Verrocchio’s Medici Tomb,” p. 89. vol. 1, p. 125: “Quella dunque patientia è
commendata, che di ira facile non s’accende futurum at posteros regii splendoris monu-
né in le adversitate si flecte: il porphyrico saxo mentum.” Bernardo Rucellai, De Bello Italico
exta cum mysterio notabile al tale expresso, Commentarius, after 1495, quoted in Fusco
imperoché di tale natura essere affirmarsi, che and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 363, doc. 247.
non solamente nella fornace non si coque, (“Witness the letters inscribed on the gems
ma etiam gli altri saxi propinqui astanti rende themselves, displaying the name of Lorenzo,
incoctibili. Tale se dimonstra la vera patien- whose carving he charged to be done for his
tia che non tanto se accende, ma gli accensi own sake and that of his family, as a future
extincti gli rende.” And Leon Battista Alberti, memorial for posterity of his royal splendor.”
L’architettura [De Re Aedificatoria], eds. Giovanni Trans. Kent, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 148.)
Orlandi and Paolo Portoghesi, 2 vols. (Milan, 88 Marsilio Ficino, The Book of Life, trans. Charles
1966), vol. 1, p. 153, book. 2: “At nos de por- Boer (Dallas, TX, 1980), pp. 127 and 132–41.
phirite lapide compertum habemus non modo Pietro Barbo’s collection of gemstones were
flammis non excoqui, verum et contigua believed to have talismanic powers, for which
quaeque circumhereant saxa intra fornacem see Eugène Müntz, Les arts à la cour des papes
reddere, ut ignibus nequicquam satis exco- pendant le XVe et le XVIe siècle, 3 parts (Paris,
quantur. Atqui et terricosum quoque lapidem, 1878–82), part 2, pp. 149–51.
quod calcem impuram reddat, respuunt.” 89 On inscribed talismans, see Joan Evans, Magical
81 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 8, p. 39. Jewels of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance
82 Marbodo di Rennes, Lapidari. La magia delle Particularly in England (Oxford, 1922), pp. 121–32.
pietre preziose, ed. Bruno Basile (Rome, 2006), On the Magi, see pp. 125–26; on Christ, see pp.
pp. 40–41. 127–32. On Lorenzo and Christ, see my n. 62
83 Mentioned by Martha McCrory, “The sym- earlier.
bolism of stones: Engraved gems at the Medici 90 Bartolomeo Masi, Ricordanze di Bartolomeo Masi
Grand-Ducal Court (1537–1609),” in Engraved Calderaio Fiorentino dal 1478 al 1526 (Florence,
Gems: Survivals and Revivals, ed. Clifford 1906), pp. 16–17.
Malcolm Brown, vol. 54 of Studies in the History 91 This taste in objects made from precious
of Art (New Haven, CT, 1997), 158–79, p. 165. stones appears to have begun with Cosimo de’
84 Agostino del Riccio, Istoria delle pietre, ed. Medici, who owned a small number of hard-
Raniero Gnoli e Attilia Sironi (Turin, 1996), stone vessels. On this, see the contemporary
p. 139. testimony recorded by Angelo Fabroni, Magni
85 “[I]l diamante importa indomita fortezza con- Cosmi Medicei Vita (Pisa, 1789), p. 153. It was
tra fuoco e martello, come miraculosamente il part of a growing interest in such objects from
prefato Magnifico fu saldo contra le congiure his circle, especially Niccolò Niccoli, much of
e insidie di messer Luca Pitti.” Paolo Giovio, whose collection was probably absorbed into
Dialogo dell’imprese militari e amorose, ed. Maria the Medici collection after Niccoli’s death in
Luisa Doglio (Rome, 1978), p. 64, trans. Butters, 1437. Müntz, Collections des Médicis, pp. 6–8.
Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 104 and n. 45. 92 Antonio Averlino detto il Filarete, Trattato di
86 The poem, “In Morte del Magnifico Lorenzo Architettura, eds. Anna Maria Finoli and Liliana
de’ Medici,” has been attributed to Poliziano Grassi, 2 vols. (Milan, 1972), vol. 2, libro ven-
and to Lorenzo il Magnifico’s son Giuliano, but ticinquesimo, p. 692. On Giovanni’s taste for
both of these suggestions have been disputed antique objects, see Giovanni Gaye, Carteggio
and the author remains unknown. Giosuè inedito d’artisti, 3 vols. (Florence, 1839), vol. 1,
Carducci, ed., L’Orfeo e le Rime di Messer Angelo p. 158, doc. LVII; Vittorio Rossi, “L’indole e
Ambrogini Poliziano (Florence, 1863), pp. 382– gli studi di Giovanni di Cosimo de’ Medici,”
92 (on the poem’s author, see p. 382 n. 1; for the Rendiconti dell’Accademia dei Lincei, classe di
specific line quoted, see p. 387). scienze morali, storiche e Filologiche series 5, 2
87 Laurie Fusco and Gino Corti, Lorenzo de’ (1893): 38–60 and 129–50; and Francesco
Medici: Collector and Antiquarian (Cambridge, Caglioti, “Bernardo Rossellino a Roma: I
UK, 2006), p. 155. Bernardo Rucellai, Lorenzo’s stralci del carteggio mediceo (con qualche
brother-in-law, explained the practice: briciola sul Filarete),” Prospettiva 64 (October
“Testimonio sunt litterae gemmis ipsis inci- 1991): 49–59.
sae Laurentii nomen praeferentes, quas ille sibi 93 This is recorded in a letter of 1455, transcribed
familiaeque suae prospiciens scalpendas curavit, in Gaye, Carteggio, vol. 1, p. 163, doc. LXI.
94 Gino Corti and Frederick Hartt, “New docu- Bruce Boucher (Berlin, 1993), 251–90. Against
ments concerning Donatello, Luca and Andrea the picture of Piero’s taste as “decorative” see
della Robbia, Desiderio, Mino, Uccello, Pollaiu- Wohl, The Aesthetics of Italian Renaissance Art,
olo, Filippo Lippi, Baldovinetti and others,” Art pp. 35–36 and 244–48; and Fulton, An Earthly
Bulletin 44 (1962): 155–67, p. 157, n. 12. This has Paradise, p. 37.
been noted by Christopher B. Fulton, An Earthly 100
“[A]veva a presso di sé raccolta se alcuna
Paradise.The Medici,Their Collection and the Founda- cosa preziosa o rara si trovava.” Niccolò
tions of Modern Art (Florence, 2006), p. 47. Valori, Vita di Lorenzo de’ Medici, ed. Enrico
95 Marilena Mosco,“Lorenzo il Magnifico. I vasi,” Niccolini (Vicenza, 1991), p. 104. On
in Il museo degli Argenti. Collezioni e collezion- Lorenzo as a collector see Melissa M. Bullard
isti, eds. Marilena Mosco and Ornella Casazza “Possessing antiquity: Agency and sociability
(Florence, 2004), 31–45, p. 31. See Detlef in building Lorenzo de’ Medici’s gem col-
Heikamp and Andreas Grote, I Vasi, vol. 2 of Il lection” in Humanism and Creativity in the
Tesoro di Lorenzo il Magnifico, exh. cat., Palazzo Renaissance. Essays in Honor of Ronald G. Witt,
Medici Riccardi, Florence, 1972 (Florence, eds. Christopher S. Celenza and Kenneth
1974), pp. 165–66. Gouwens (Leiden, 2006), 85–111.
96 Filarete, Trattato, vol. 2, libro venticinquesimo, 101 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 5.
pp. 687–88. 102 Bernardo Rucellai “De erbe Roma” in Codice
97 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, pp. 70, topografico della città di Roma, eds. Roberto
73–74, 375–77, and 379, and docs. 289, 292, and Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, Fonti per la
293. Storia d’Italia, no. 91 (Rome, 1940–53), vol. 4, p.
98 Francis Ames-Lewis, “Art in the service of 445, lines 17–21.
the family,” in Piero de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’ 103 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 6. On
(1416–1469). Kunst im Dienste der Mediceer. Art Lorenzo’s record, see Ricordi del Magnifico
in the Service of the Medici, eds. Andreas Beyer Lorenzo, 1–2v; on the transaction with Sixtus IV,
and Bruce Boucher (Berlin, 1993), 207–20, p. see Raymond De Roover, The Rise and Decline
209; Ernst H. Gombrich, “The Early Medici as of the Medici Bank 1397–1494 (Cambridge, MA,
Patrons of Art,” Italian Renaissance Studies, ed. E. 1963), pp. 198–99.
F. Jacobs (London, 1960), 279–311. 104 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, pp. 67–68,
99 For a recent consideration of Piero’s collection 70–71, 92, 96, 106, 189–91, and doc. 97, p. 305;
of hardstone vessels and its links with practices doc. 109, pp. 307–08; doc. 293, pp. 378–79.
at other European courts, see Eva Helfenstein, 105 Lorenzo de’ Medici, Stanze, I, pp. 3–58, for
“Lorenzo de’ Medici’s Magnificent Cups: instance, canto 37, pp. 17–18: “Non colonne
Precious Vessels as Status Symbols in Fifteenth- marmoree in altezza/ reggon le picciolette e
Century Europe,” I Tatti Studies in the Italian basse mura/ dello edifizio; non li dà bellezza/
Renaissance 16, no. 1/2 (Fall, 2013): 415–44. petra di gran saldezza, chiara e dura;/ non opra
Piero’s patronage extended far beyond the di scultor che ’l vulgo prezza,/ non musaico
decorative arts to architecture, for which, see, alcun, non v’è pittura,/ non gemme orien-
for instance, Beverley Louise Brown, “The tali, argento od oro,/ ma molto più gentile e
patronage and building history of the tribuna bel lavoro.” (“[There are] no tall marble col-
of SS. Annunziata in Florence: A reappraisal umns [to] hold the small and low walls/ of
in light of new documents,” Mitteilungen des the building; beauty is not provided by a solid,
Kunsthistorisches Institutes in Florenz 25 (1981): bright and hard stone/ [there is] no work by
59–142; Diane Finiello Zervas, “‘Quos volent a popular sculptor,/ [there are no] mosaics or
et eo modo quo volent’: Piero de’ Medici and a painting,/ [there are no] oriental gems of
the Operai of SS. Annunziata, 1445–55,” in silver or gold/ but a much more gracious and
Florence and Italy: Renaissance Studies in Honour noble work.”) On the dating of the poem, see
of Nicolai Rubinstein, eds. Peter Denley and n. 78 earlier. The connection between mate-
Caroline Elam (London, 1988), 465–79; and rials and the beloved in the Selve d’amore has
Wolfgang Liebenwein,“Die ‘Privatisierung’ des been noted by Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’
Wunders: Piero de’ Medici in SS. Annunziata Medici, p. 150.
und San Miniato,” in Piero de’ Medici ‘il Gottoso’ 106 Alberti Advogdrii Vercellensis, “De Religione
(1416–1469). Kunst im Dienste der Mediceer. Art in et Magnificentia Illustris Cosmi Medices
the Service of the Medici, eds. Andreas Beyer and Florentini,” Book 2, transcribed in Giovanni
Lami, Deliciae Eruditorum, 18 vols. (Florence, 119 Louis Green, “Galvanno Fiamma, Azzone
1742), vol. 12, p. 142, trans. Gombrich, “The Visconti and the revival of the classical the-
early Medici as patrons of art,” p. 294. ory of magnificence,” Journal of the Warburg
107 “Figure e ’ntagli v’è di serpentini/ e d’ala- and Courtauld Institutes 53 (1990): 98–113.
bastri e di porfidi e marmi . . .” Anonymous, Although it has been claimed that the first
Le Onoranze Fiorentine del 1459 published in appearance of magnificence was in the 1450s
Nerida Newbigin, “Le Onoranze Fiorentine (Gombrich, “The early Medici as patrons of
del 1459. Poemi anonimo,” Letteratura italiana art,” pp. 285–87), Peter Howard (“Preaching
antica 12 (2011): 17–135, p. 45, lines 1171–72. magnificence in Renaissance Florence,”
108 Rab Hatfield, “Some unknown descriptions of Renaissance Quarterly vol. 61, no. 2 [Summer,
the Medici palace in 1459,” The Art Bulletin 52, 2008]: 325–69), has drawn attention to its cur-
no. 3 (September 1970): 232–49, p. 234. rency in sermons by preachers in Florence as
109
Mario Scalini (“The formation of the fif- early as the 1420s.
teenth-century collection, its dispersion and 120
“Puossi colle ricchezze conseguire fama e
the return to Florence of the Medici treasures,” autorità adoperandole in cose amplissime e
in Treasures of Florence. The Medici Collection nobilissime con molta larghezza e magnifi-
1400–1700, ed. Cristina Acidini Luchinat cenza.” Leon Battista Alberti, Opere Volgari, ed.
[Munich and New York, 1997], 29–50, p. 29) Cecil Grayson, 3 vols. (Bari, 1960), vol. 1: Libri
has noted the connection between tomb della Famiglia Cena Familiaris–Villa, p. 141. It was
marker and poem. expressed also in Francesco Filelfo’s Convivia
110 Helfenstein, “Lorenzo de’ Medici’s magnificent Mediolanensia (composed in 1443 and dedicated
cups.” to Filippo Maria Visconti). See Anthony David
111 Anna Lenzuni, ed., All’ombra del Lauro: Fraser Jenkins, “Cosimo de’ Medici’s patronage
Documenti librari della cultura in età laurenziana of architecture and the theory of magnificence,”
(Milan, 1992), pp. 103–04. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes vol.
112
Cosimo de’ Medici quoted in Nicolai 33 (1970): 162–70, p.166.
Rubinstein, “The De optime cive and the De 121 Galvano Fiamma, Opusculum de rebus gestis ab
principe by Bartolomeo Platina,” in Tradizione Azone, Luchino et Johanne, vicecomitibus, ab anno
classica e letteratura umanistica: Per Alessandro MCCCXXVIII usque ad annum MCCCXLII,
Perosa, ed. Roberto Cardini, 2 vols. (Rome, ed. Carlo Castiglioni, Rerum Italicarum
1985), vol. 1, 375–89, p. 385. At the same time, Scriptores, vol. 12, pt. 4 (Bologna, 1938), xii, 4,
Kent has emphasized how Lorenzo did not p. 20, trans. Green, “Galvanno Fiamma,” p. 104.
adhere to this advice, at least in so far as com- 122 This was expressed also by Timoteo Maffei,
pleting works begun by his ancestors, preferring rector general of the Augustinian Canons, in
to patronize other institutions (though often his mid-fifteenth-century praise for Cosimo
anonymously), most notably, the Benedictine de’ Medici’s expenditure, In magnificentiae
convent of Le Murate. Kent, Lorenzo de’ Medici, Cosmi Medicei Florentini detractors (c. 1454–56).
pp. 64–67. (Jenkins, “Cosimo de Medici’s patronage of
113 Paula Findlen, Possessing Nature. Museums, architecture,” p. 166). Howard (“Preaching
Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern magnificence,” pp. 358 and 360) has argued
Italy (Berkeley, CA, 1994), p. 293. that the idea of magnificence gained cur-
114 “Bestattung” and “Totenkult” in Der Kleine rency among some early fifteenth-century
Pauly, Lexicon der Antike, eds. Konrat Ziegler, Florentine preachers who used magnificence
Walther Sontheimer, Hans Gärtner, 5 vols. to express the virtue of the city’s citizens as
(Munich, 1975), vol. 1, cols. 873–76; v, 891–901. a whole. By the 1480s, however, the positive
115 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 135. See attitude towards magnificence had changed in
doc. 163, pp. 322–23. Florence and expenditure by individuals was
116
Trans. Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, no longer regarded as an expression of the
p. 147 and doc. 217, p. 342, see also discussion populace, but only as vanity.
on p. 132. 123
The treatise is on fols. 22–47 in Ms. 1591,
117 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 133. Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence. On the trans-
118 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 147. lation, see Claudio Donati, L’idea di nobilità in
See doc. 217, 52–54, p. 342 and n. 1, pp. 342–43. Italia, secoli XIV–XVIII (Rome, 1988), p. 10.
124 “[Q]uesta nobilità della generazione è ador- 131 Kent, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 47.
nata dalla abondanza delle ricchezze le 132 “[È] or colombo e dopo il gozo pieno/ diven-
famiglie, e’ domestichi in apparenza più terà falcon marino e soro.” Burchiello, I son-
floridamente appaiono: e l’amicizie di fuori netti di Burchiello, ed. Michelangelo Zaccarello
con salutevole sollecitudine si conservano . . . (Turin, 2004), CXL, p. 197. See Polcri, “Teoria
Conviensi addunque chi vuole essere liber- e prassi della magnificenza,” esp. pp. 122–23 for
ale; abbia abondanzia di beni della fortuna a discussion of Burchiello’s sonnet. The son-
. . . Sicchè l’abbondanza de’ beni presta gran- net appears on fol. 166r in ms. Magliabechiano
dissimo aiuto allo adornamento della nobilità.” XXI.87, Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, which
Ms. 1591, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence, fols. seems to have been made in Verrocchio’s
27v and 28r. workshop.
125 Richard A. Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand 133 Stephen J. Campbell, Cabinet of Eros. Renais-
for Art (Baltimore, 1993), p. 243. sance Mythological Painting and the Studiolo
126 Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art, pp. of Isabella d`Este (New Haven, CT, 2006),
246–49. For Lisa Jardine (Worldly Goods. A New p. 50ff. On the “dark” side of spending, see
History of the Renaissance [New York, 1996], p. also Patricia Fumerton, Cultural Aesthetics.
34), too, the Renaissance represents the birth Renaissance Literature and the Practice of Social
of “bravura consumerism,” and the period can Ornament (Chicago, 1991); Rebecca Zorach,
be characterized as a “celebration of the urge “Everything swims with excess: Gold and
to own.” its fashioning in sixteenth-century France”
127 Alessandro Polcri, “Teoria e prassi della mag- Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics (spring, 2000):
nificenza tra Marsilio Ficino, Timoteo Maffei 125–37; Rebecca Zorach, “Desiring things,”
e Cosimo de’ Medici,” Italian History and Art History 24, no. 2 (April, 2001): 195–212;
Culture 13 (2008): 111–34, especially p. 123. My and Luke Syson and Dora Thornton, Objects of
thanks to Michael W. Cole for alerting me to Virtue. Art in Renaissance Italy (London, 2001).
this essay. And on Florence specifically, see the important
128 Filippo Luigi Polidori, ed., Istorie fiorentine essay by Polcri, “Teoria e prassi della magnifi-
scritte da Giovanni Cavalcanti, 2 vols. (Florence, cenza.”
1838–39), vol. 2, p. 210, referred to in Dale 134 Pincus, Tombs of the Doges.
Kent, “The importance of being eccen- 135 See the discussion earlier in this chapter,

tric: Giovanni Cavalcanti’s view of Cosimo including ns. 32–38.
de’ Medici’s Florence,” Journal of Medieval 136
According to Evelyn S. Welch (Shopping in
and Renaissance Studies 9 (1979): 101–32, pp. the Renaissance. Consumer Cultures in Italy
130–31. 1400–1600 [New Haven, CT, 2005], p. 303), the
129 Giovanni Cavalcanti, Nuova opera, ed. Antoine acquisition of goods during the Renaissance
Monti (Paris, 1990), p. 120, cited in Kent, was a complex affair that depended upon social
Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 46. relations and networks (and served to articu-
130
“[p]orre l’arme sua in nessun luogo, non late those relationships and networks) and
curando che tanta sua liberale e generosa carità personal issues, rather than on price, produc-
restasi nelli occhi humani, ma che solo per- tion, and demand. On the close relationship
manessi viva nella divina mente.” Archivio between culture and politics in Florence under
Peruzzi de’ Medici, 239, quoted in Francis Lorenzo il Magnifico, see Melissa M. Bullard,
W. Kent, “Lorenzo de’ Medici, Madonna “Lorenzo de’ Medici: Anxiety, image mak-
Scolastica Rondinelli, e la politica di mece- ing, and political reality in the Renaissance,”
natismo architettonico nel convento delle in Lorenzo de’ Medici. Studi, ed. Gian Carlo
Murate a Firenze (1471–72),” in Arte, com- Garfagnini (Florence, 1992), 3–40; Mario
mittenza ed economia a Roma e nelle corti del Martelli, “Firenze,” in Letteratura italiana. Storia
Rinascimento: 1420–1530. Atti del convegno e geografica, II. L’Èta moderna, ed. Alberto Asor
internazionale, Roma, Ottobre 24–27, 1990, Rosa (Torino, 1988), 25–201; Mario Martelli,
eds. Arnold Esch and Christoph Luitpold Angelo Poliziano. Storia e metastoria (Lecce,
Frommel (Turin, 1995), 353–83, pp. 356–59.The 1995); and Mario Martelli, Letteratura fioren-
chronicle is kept in the Biblioteca Nazionale in tina del Quattrocento. Il filtro degli anni Sessanta
Florence (II II 509). (Florence, 1996).
137 “Fu sepellito el di seguente nella chiesa di San 151 Welch, “Public magnificence and private dis-
Lorenzo in terra e nella sepulture innanzj per lui play,” p. 217.
ordinate sanza alchuna honoranza o pompa fune- 152 Filarete, Trattato, vol. 2, libro venticinquesimo,
bre.” MAP, filza 163, cc, 2r–2v, quoted in Polcri, pp. 687–88.
“Teoria e prassi della magnificenza,” p. 114. 153 Nofri Tornabuoni to Lorenzo de’ Medici, June
138 Polcri, “Teoria e prassi della magnificenza,” pp. 4, 1491, MAP 42.85, in Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo
114–15. de’ Medici, doc. 151, p. 318, trans. on p. 117.
139 Campbell, Cabinet of Eros, p. 52. See also 154 “A me pareva cosa artificiosissima, ma poi che
Zorach, “Everything swims with excess.” questo la haveva . . . mostro singularum particu-
140
Patricia Lee Rubin, “Magnificence and the lar[i]um artificium et difficultatem, mi pare
Medici,” in The Early Medici and Their Artists, ancora più mirabile. Bisogna considerare sin-
ed. Francis Ames-Lewis (London, 1995), 37–50, gulariter omnia, et si vedrà che mana et che
pp. 38–39. ochio et ragione hebbe lo artifice . . . sia tante
141 Filarete, Trattato, vol. 2, libro venticinquesimo, cose e così perfectamente finite.” February 2,
pp. 686 and 688. 1487 (1496 s.f.), formerly Pistoia, Private Col-
142 “Clarissimi viri Cosmas et Laurentius fratres lection, discussed by Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo
neglectas diu Sanctorum reliquias Martyrum de’ Medici, p. 118 (my translation is indebted to
religioso studio ac fidelissima pietate suis theirs but with minor changes).
sumptibus aereis loculis condendas colen- 155
Trans. Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici,
dasque curarunt.” Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 2, p. p. 128.
234. This has been discussed by John Paoletti, 156 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 5, p. 368.
“Fraternal piety and family power: The artistic 157 Ernst Kris, Meister und Meisterwerke der
patronage of Cosimo and Lorenzo de’ Medici,” Steinschneidekunst in der italienischen Renaissance,
in Cosimo ‘il Vecchio’ de’ Medici, 1389–1464, ed. 2 vols. (Vienna, 1929), vol. 1, p. 35.
Francis Ames-Lewis (Oxford, 1992), 195–219, 158 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, pp. 136–40.
p. 200. 159 See discussion in Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’
143 John T. Paoletti, “Strategies and structures of Medici, pp. 141–45.
Medici artistic patronage in the 15th century,” 160 Reported by Francesco Malatesta in a letter to
in The Early Medici and Their Artists, ed. Francis Isabella d’Este, May 12, 1502, AG, 1104, referred
Ames-Lewis (London, 1995), 19–36, pp. 28–29. to by Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p.
144
Rubin, “Magnificence and the Medici,” 119.
pp. 39–40. 161 On this, see Charles Dempsey, The Portrayal of
145 Ricordi del Magnifico, transcribed in Roscoe, Life Love. Botticelli’s ‘Primavera’ and Humanist Culture
of Lorenzo de’ Medici, Appendix X, p. 426, trans. at the Time of Lorenzo the Magnificent (Princeton,
Gombrich, “Early Medici,” p. 284–85. 1992); Paola Ventrone, ‘Les tems revient – ’l
146 Fusco and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 179. tempo si rinuova.’ Feste e spettacoli nella Firenze di
147 Green, “Galvanno Fiamma,” pp. 102–03. Lorenzo il Magnifico, exh. cat., Palazzo Medici-
148 Giovanni Pontano, Liber Prior: De Fortitudine Riccardi, Florence, April 8–June 30, 1992
bellica et heroica . . . De Fortitudine domestica. Liber (Florence, 1992). On Florence and signorial
posterior, in Opera omnia, f. 73v–86r, quoted in dynasties, see Timothy McCall’s forthcoming
Evelyn S. Welch, “Public magnificence and book, Brilliant Bodies.
private display. Giovanni Pontano’s De splendore 162 Billi’s vita is known in two manuscripts. Only
(1498) and the domestic arts,” Journal of Design one (the Petrei) includes the specific detail
History 15, no. 4 (2002): 211–21, p. 215. Welch about the portals. Antonio Billi, Il Libro di
also discusses the dating of Pontano’s treatises Antonio Billi esistente in due copie nella Biblioteca
in her essay (p. 213). nazionale di Firenze, ed. Carl Frey (Berlin,
149 Francesco Tateo, “Le virtù sociali e l’immanità 1892), p. 35, trans. Saalman, Filippo Brunelleschi,
nella trattatistica Pontaniana,” Rinascimento n.s., p. 156. The plan for linking palace and church
no. 5 (1965): 119–64, p. 228, quoted in Welch, is also mentioned in the later (also six-
“Public Magnificence and Private Display,” p. teenth-century) Codice Magliabechiano. (Carl
215. Frey, ed., Il Codice Magliabechiano [Berlin, 1892],
150 On the distinction between magnificence and p. 89).
splendor, see Welch, “Public magnificence and 163 On this plan, see Isabelle Hyman, “Fifteenth-
private display,” p. 214. century Florentine studies: The Palazzo
Medici and a ledger for the church of San Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic
Lorenzo,” Ph.D. diss., New York University, Analysis (London, 1954), p. 105; and Langholm,
1968, Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Aristotelian Analysis of Usury, pp. 103–04.
Arts (New York, 1977), pp. 113–21; Isabelle Antoninus’s works circulated widely in fif-
Hyman, “Notes and speculations on S. teenth-century Florence, both in written and
Lorenzo, Palazzo Medici, and an urban pro- oral form, for which, see Peter Francis Howard,
ject by Brunelleschi,” Journal of the Society of Beyond the Written Word. Preaching and Theology
Architectural Historians 34, no. 2 (1975): 98–120; in the Florence of Archbishop Antoninus 1427–1459
and Dale Kent, The Rise of the Medici (Oxford, (Florence, 1995), pp. 22–29.
1978), p. 69. 173 “[I]llud quod in firmo proposito domini sui est
164 Hyman, “Notes and speculations,” pp. 102–06, ordinatum ad aliquod probabile lucrum, non
109–20. solum rationem simplicis pecuniae sive rei, sed
165 Filarete, Trattato, vol. 2, libro venticinquesimo, etiam ultra hoc quamdam seminalem rationem
p. 687. lucrosi, quam communiter capitale vocamus.”
166
On this point, see the sources discussed by [Saint] Bernardino da Siena, De Evangelio
Anne Derbes and Mark Sandona, The Usurer’s aeterno in Opera Omnia, 8 vols. (Florence,
Heart. Giotto, Enrico Scrovegni, and the Arena 1950–65), vol. 4, sermon 34, art. 1, cap. 3,
Chapel in Padua (University Park, PA, 2008), p. 170. ([T]hat which in the firm intention of
pp. 59–61. its owner is set aside for the purpose of earn-
167 On the origins of this idea in medieval thought ing a certain probable profit has not only the
(which is doubtless a misunderstanding of simple nature of money or of a thing, but
Aristotle), see Odd Langholm, Economics in the beyond that the purpose of seeding profit –
Medieval Schools. Wealth, Exchange, Value, Money and we commonly call it capital.) This has
and Usury According to the Paris Theological been discussed by Raymond De Roover, San
Tradition 1200–1350 (Leiden, 1992), p. 57ff; and Bernardino of Siena and Sant’Antonino of Florence.
Odd Langholm, The Aristotelian Analysis of The Two Great Economic Thinkers of the Middle
Usury (Bergen, 1984), p. 58ff. Ages (Boston, MA, 1967), p. 29.
168 Langholm, Economics in the Medieval Schools, 174 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend.
pp. 237 and 339. On early modern critics of Readings on the Saints, trans. William Granger
scholastic usury theory, especially the idea Ryan (Princeton, NJ, 1993; repr. 2012), pp.
that human industry can fructify money, 51–52. The story and its implications for mate-
see Langholm, Aristotelian Analysis of Usury, riality have been discussed by Brigitte Buettner,
Chapter 5. “From bones to stones: Reflections on jeweled
169 Langholm, Economics in the Medieval Schools, pp. reliquaries,” in Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds.
64, 87 and 140. Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint (Berlin,
170 “Nullum fructum habet pecunia ex sua nat- 2005), 43–59, p. 51. The tale finds echoes with
ura, sed tantum ex utentis industria” (Astesani the writings of some defenders of Medici
da Asta, Summa Astensis, 2 vols. [Rome, 1728], wealth in the mid-fifteenth century (such as
vol. 1, Third Book, Article 3, p. 325). Translated Timoteo Maffei and Marsilio Ficino), for
in and discussed by Langholm, Aristotelian which see Polcri, “Teoria e prassi della magnif-
Analysis of Usury, pp. 102–05 and n. 43. icenza,” pp. 125–34.
171 On the popularity of Astesanus’s writings, see 175 Michael Wayne Cole, Cellini and the Principles
Pierre Michaud-Quantin, Somme de casuistique of Sculpture (Cambridge, UK, 2002), p. 51;
et manuels de confession au moyen âge (XII–XVI and Frits Scholten, “Bronze, The mythology
siècles) (Louvain, 1962), pp. 59–60; and Thomas of a metal,” in Bronze. The Power of Life and
N. Tentler, Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Death, eds. Martina Droth, Frits Scholten,
Reformation (Princeton, 1977), p. 35. and Michael Cole, exh. cat., Henry Moore
172
“[P]ecunia ex se sola minime est lucrosa, Institute, Leeds, September 13, 2005–January
nec valet se ipsam multiplicare: sed ex indus- 7, 2006 (Leeds, 2005), 20–35, p. 26. On metals
tria mercantium fit per eorum negotiationes as living and the role of artist as discerner of
lucrosa” (Sant Antonino [Sancti Antonini], life in metal, see Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter.
Summa Theologica, 4 parts [Verona, 1740; repr. A Political Ecology of Things (Durham, 2010), pp.
Graz, 1959], part 2, title 1, chapter 7, sec- 52–61. Given that many Renaissance bronzes
tion 16, col. 99). This has been discussed by were made from melted medieval bronzes
(themselves made from melted-down ancient 178 Scholten, “Bronze, the mythology of a metal,”
bronzes), these sculptures imply a process of p. 26.
resurrection within their very material. Ittai 179
For the transcription, see Covi, Andrea del
Weinryb, The Bronze Object in the Middle Ages Verrocchio, p. 226.
(Cambridge, UK, 2016), p. 3. 180 Seymour, Sculpture of Verrocchio, p. 173, n. 8.
176 Quoted in Cole, Cellini, p. 51. 181 Bernard Palissy, for instance, describes the gen-
177 The wreath on the chapel side of the tomb eration of minerals (including metals) in the
shows (clockwise from top to bottom): straw- matrice (womb) of the earth. Bernard Palissy,
berries, chestnuts, poppies, grapes, pinecones, Les oeuvres de maistre Bernard Palissy, ed. Bernard
broad beans, Alder, pear, Medler, and oak with Fillon, 2 vols. (Niort, France, 1888), vol. 2, p.
acorns. (The plants on the sacristy side are 84. This terminology has been discussed by
the same but appear in different order.) The Scholten, “Bronze, the mythology of a metal,”
fruits and plants were identified by Professor p. 26.
Lucia Tongiorgio Tomasi (Brown, Leonardo da 182
“Propter quod etiam dicit Hermes, quod
Vinci, p. 192 n. 80). The shells on the lid spill genitrix metallic est terra quae portat ipsum
forth nuts, plums, figs, pinecones, pin nee- in ventro suo.” [Saint] Albertus Magnus,
dles, beans or peas, chestnuts, and fruit, pos- Mineralium in B. Alberti Magni, Opera Omnia,
sibly grapes. These have been identified by ed. Augusti Borgnet, 38 vols. (Paris, 1890),
Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, vol. 5, Liber III, Tractus II, Caput 1, p. 75; trans.
pp. 207–08, cat. 7. Philipp Fehl (“Verrocchio’s in [Saint] Albertus Magnus, Book of Minerals,
Tomb of Piero and Giovanni de’ Medici: trans. Dorothy Wyckoff (Oxford, 1967), Book
Ornament and the language of meaning,” Three, Tractate 2, chapter 1, p. 186. Works by
in Italian Echoes in the Rocky Mountains, eds. Albert were in the possession of the library at
Sante Matteo, Cinzia Donatelli Noble, and Santa Croce. See Curzio Mazzi, “L’inventario
Madison V. Sowell (Provo, UT, 1990), 47–60, p. quattrocentistico della Biblioteca di S. Croce
52) and Serros (“The Verrocchio workshop,” in Firenze,” Rivista delle biblioteche e degli archivi
p. 53) has proposed that the turtles were cast 8 (1897): 16–31, 99–113, 129–47, p. 22. Proof
from nature, indicated by their scale (life size) of the popularity of his works can be assessed
and specific surface details. Johannes Nathan by a humorous fable told by Archbishop
suggested that Verrocchio used plaster casts Antoninus in his Summa, in which the devil,
for the extraordinarily accurate plant forms, disguised as a preacher, goes to a convent
proposals made also by Butterfield. (Johannes library to prepare a sermon and among the
Nathan, “The working methods of Leonardo works the devil requests are “the works of
da Vinci and their relation to previous artis- Albert the Great.” See Howard, Beyond the
tic practice,” Ph.D. diss, Courtauld Institute Written Word, pp. 90–93 and n. 55. On the
of Art, University of London, 1995, p. 126; popularity of Albert’s works in Renaissance
Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. Italy, see Martin Grabmann, Mittelalterliches
207, cat. 7). Verrocchio may have learned the Geistesleben (Munich, 1936), pp. 290, 395–400,
technique of life casting in Ghiberti’s work- and 407–08; Bruno Nardi, Dante e la cultura
shop, in which casting natural forms directly medievale (Bari, 1942); Bruno Nardi, Nel mondo
in bronze was practiced. On life casting, see di Dante (Rome, 1944); Bruno Nardi, Studi di
Noberto Gramaccini, “Das genaue Abbild filosofia medievale (Rome, 1960); and Edward
der Natur – Riccios Tiere und die Theorie P. Mahoney, “Albert the Great and the Studio
des Naturabgusses seit Cennini,” in Natur und Patavino in the late fifteenth and early six-
Antike in der Renaissance, eds. Herbert Beck teenth centuries,” in Albertus Magnus and the
und Peter C. Bol, exh. cat., Liebieghaus, Sciences, ed. James A. Weisheipl (Toronto, 1980),
Frankfurt, December 5, 1985–March 2, 1986 537–63, pp. 541–42.
(Frankfurt, 1985), 198–225; and Pamela H. 183 “[C]on la mia solita animosità, accompagnata
Smith and Tonny Beentjes. “Nature and dal fondamento dell’arte, subito dètti modi
art, making and knowing: Reconstructing a riscitare un morto.” Benvenuto Cellini,
sixteenth-century life casting techniques,” “Della scultura,” in Opere di Benvenuto Cellini,
Renaissance Quarterly 63, no. 1 (Spring 2010): ed. Giuseppe Guido Ferrero (Turin, 1971), p.
128–79. 773. From a later era (but reflecting earlier
attitudes), Franz Matthias Ellmayr (1722– the Making of Renaissance Culture (New Haven,
801), superintendent of the brass foundry in CT, 1999), p. 373, n. 70.
Rossenheim, Germany, compared brass pro- 188 “Et est ex lapide porphiro, quo colore mire
duction to resurrection. Claus Priesner, “Die refertur ipsius excoriati Marsiae forma.”
Vorrede,” in Bayerisches Messing. Franz Matthias Fichard, Italia, vol. 3, p. 102. This has been
Ellmayrs “Mössing-Werkh AO. 1780”: Studien noted by Butters, The Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1,
zur Geschichte, Technologie und zum sozialen p. 51.
Umfeld der messingerzeugung im vorindustriellen 189 Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, pp. 274–75.
Bayern (Stuttgart, 1997), 98–102. This has been See Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 2, Appendix
noted by Pamela H. Smith, “Alchemy as the XVIII, 2 (g), p. 492 and Appendix XIX, 2 (a),
imitator of nature,” in Glass of the Alchemists: p. 494. Butters (Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 275,
Lead Crystal-Gold Ruby, 1650–1750, ed. Dedo n. 50) notes that “piantorsina” is probably a
von Kerssenbrock-Krosigk (Corning, 2008), local variation on the term “branchorsina,”
22–33, p. 29. which can be identified as “acanthus mollis.”
184 Cole, Cellini, p. 51. See Gaetano Moroni, For one other recipe that includes acanthus,
Dizionario di erudizione storico ecclesiastica da see Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 2, Appendix
S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni, 103 vols. (Venice, XIX, 4, p. 495.
1840–79), vol. 54, p. 138; and Lodovico Dolce, 190 The blood of a fox is an ingredient mentioned
Dialogo [. .
.] nel quale si ragiona della qual- in a recipe for cutting stone in a Quattro-
ità, diversità, e proprietà dei colori, Venice, 1565 cento recipe book. See Bianca Silvia Tosatti,
(Bologna, 1985), p. 18rv. Red substances in Il Manoscritto Veneziano. Un manuale di pittura
general were associated with blood and regen- e altre arti – miniature, incisione, vetri, vetrate e
eration (Pamela H. Smith discusses the case of ceramiche – di medicina, farmacopea e alchimia del
coral in ““Vermilion, mercury, blood, and liz- quattrocento (Milan, 1991), p. 194, fol. 98r, no.
ards: Matter and meaning in metalworking,” in 521. The Mappae Clavicula suggests placing a
Materials and Expertise in Early Modern Europe: gemstone in the blood of a “he-goat that has
Between Market and Laboratory, eds. Ursula never copulated,” mixed with its urine, for
Klein and Emma Spary (Chicago, IL, 2010), a night. Mappae Clavicula. A Little Key to the
29–49, pp. 41–42). World of Medieval Techniques, eds. Cyril Stanley
185 Butters, Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, pp. 45, 49–51, Smith and John G. Hawthorne (Philadelphia,
and further bibliography in ns. 71–76. 1974), p. 76, no. 290.The blood of a goat is sug-
186 The statue is mentioned by Johann Fichard, gested as an ingredient in which the diamond
Italia, 3 vols., Frankfurtisches Archiv für can be heated and then worked in Marbodo di
altere deutschen Litteratur und Geschichte Rennes, Lapidari. La magia delle pietre preziose,
(Frankfurt am Main, 1815), vol. 3, 1–130, p. ed. Bruno Basile (Rome, 2006), pp. 40–41. And
102. This has been noted by Butters, The the Pseudo-Savonarola recommends the blood
Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 51. Note that of a fox, or of a “becho,” for cutting precious
Caglioti dated this sculpture to 1477–78, stones and glass. Pseudo-Savonarola, A far littere
which would date the Marsyas to a mere four de oro. Alchimia e tecnica della miniatura in un ric-
to five years after the San Lorenzo tomb was ettario rinascimentale, ed. Antonio P.Torresi (Fer-
completed. Caglioti, “Due ‘restauratori’ per rara, 1992), p. 95, c. 102r. According to Albertus
le antichità dei primi Medici.” Prospettiva 72 Magnus, metals are often produced in stones.
(1993) and 73/74 (1994): 17–42 and 74–96, p. Magnus, Book of Minerals, Book III, Tractate I,
92 n. 19. chapter 1, p. 153.
187 “Che alcune vene bianche e sottili, che erano 191 Marsilio Ficino, The Letters of Marsilio Ficino,
nella pietra rossa, vennero intagliate dall’arte- trans. members of the Language Department
fice in luogo appunto che paiono alcuni pic- of the School of Economic Sciences, London
colo nerbicini che nelle figure naturali, quando (London, 1975), pp. 52–53, quoted in Butters,
sono scorticate, si veggiono. Il che doveva far vol. 1, pp. 106–07.
parere quell’opera, quando aveva il suo prim- 192 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 358. Jill Dunkerton
iero pulimento, cosa vivissima.”Vasari-Milanesi, has suggested that some of Verrocchio’s work
vol. 3, p. 367, translated in Leonard Barkan, as a jeweler may be represented in paintings
Unearthing the Past: Archaeology and Aesthetics in attributed to Verrocchio and/or his workshop
(Jill Dunkerton, Susan Foister, Dillian Gordon, in His Treatises,” in Marks of Identity, ed.
and Nicholas Penny, Giotto to Dürer. Early Dimitrios Zikos (Pittsburgh, PA, 2012), 42–61,
Renaissance Painting in the National Gallery pp. 50, 52–53, and 60.
[New Haven, CT, 1991], pp. 148 and 151). 197 Michael Baxandall, Giotto and the Orators.
193
Dora Liscia Bemporad, “Per Andrea del Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the
Verrocchio orafo,” Medioevo e Rinascimento 16, Discovery of Pictorial Composition 1350–1450
n. 13 (2002): 189–206, pp. 196–97. The attribu- (Oxford, 1971), pp. 81–82.
tion was repeated with some reservation by 198 Verrocchio’s transformation of brute matter
Scalini (“The formation of the fifteenth-cen- into something noble might be usefully con-
tury collection,” pp. 37–38); and by Almut sidered too alongside Leon Battista Alberti’s
von Gladiss (in Giovanna Damiani and Mario Profugiorum ab aerumna, libri III (also known
Scalini, eds., Islam specchio di Oriente. Rarità e as Della Tranquillità dell’animo), composed in
preziosi nelle collezioni statali fiorentine, exh. cat., the vernacular in 1441 or 1442. In this text,
Palazzo Pitti, Florence, April 23–September 1, Alberti argues that the artist (an architect)
2002 [Livorno, 2002], p. 79). For a recent con- could be elevated as moral exemplar. Alber-
sideration of the ewer (with bibliography), see ti’s claim finds parallels with ideas expressed
Paola Venturelli, Il Tesoro dei Medici al Museo by Boccaccio and Lorenzo Valla. On this, see
degli Argenti: Oggetti preziosi in cristallo e pietre Christine Smith, Architecture in the Culture of
dure nelle collezioni di Palazzo Pitti (Florence, Early Humanism. Ethics, Aesthetics, and Eloquence
2009), pp. 40–41. 1400–1470 (New York, 1992), pp. 3–18. The
194
See, for instance, those illustrated in Fusco argument that Verrocchio’s inventiveness on
and Corti, Lorenzo de’ Medici, p. 95. On the the tomb serves as an ornament to the Med-
vases from the Medici collection, with further ici may find further support in Naldo Nal-
bibliography, see Heikamp and Grote, eds., I di’s poem cited earlier, which compares the
vasi, vol. 2 of Il Tesoro di Lorenzo il Magnifico; monument to the “labor of Caria” – an allu-
and Venturelli, Il Tesoro dei Medici al Museo degli sion to the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, one
Argenti, pp. 23–47. of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.
195 Bernardo Bellincioni, Le Rime di Bernardo As Christine Smith has explored (Architecture
Bellincioni, ed. Pietro Fanfani (Bologna, 1876), in the Culture of Early Humanism, pp. 46–49),
p. 106, sonnet 127, trans. Evelyn S. Welch, humanist celebrations of the Seven Wonders
Art and Authority in Renaissance Milan (New of the World rested on the human intellect
Haven, CT, 1995), pp. 242–43. and imagination of their creators.
196 Denise Allen, “Crafting a Profession: Cellini’s
Discussion of Precious Stones and Jewelry
3: BRIDGING DIMENSIONS: VERROCCHIO’S CHRIST AND SAINT THOMAS AS

ABSENT PRESENCE
1 On the relevance of this quotation for tactility, and the reception of sculpture,” in A
another Quattrocento sculpture – Donatello’s Companion to Art Theory, eds. Paul Smith and
Habakkuk for the Florentine Duomo – see Carolyn Wilde (Oxford, 2002), 61–74.
Kenneth Gross, The Dream of the Moving Statue 3 On the sculpture’s position at Orsanmichele,
(Ithaca, NY, 1992), pp. 179–81. see Diane Finiello Zervas, The Parte Guelfa,
2 The interpretation put forward in this chapter Brunelleschi and Donatello (Locust Valley, NY,
greatly extends and refines a proposal made 1987), p. 99.
by Geraldine Johnson that Verrocchio’s Christ 4 Zervas, The Parte Guelfa, pp. 99–151, esp. p. 112.
and Saint Thomas should be understood as a There is some dispute about the date of the
meditation on the art of sculpture, thematized niche, whether it is original or a 1460s replace-
through the emphasis on touching. Geraldine ment, but a technical examination of the site
A. Johnson, Review of The Sculptures of Andrea made possible by the removal of Verrocchio’s
del Verrocchio, by Andrew Butterfield, Art sculptures during World War II established that
Bulletin 84, no. 3 (September, 2002): 526–28, the niche must have been made for Donatello’s
p. 527. See also Geraldine A. Johnson, “Touch, Saint Louis of Toulouse: a small socket was
discovered at the base of the niche (filled in, 1467–68), fols. 101r–v; ASF, Mercanzia, 307
apparently, when the Christ and Saint Thomas (Deliberazioni, 1470), fol. 30r; ASF, Mercanzia,
was installed) into which the base of Saint 316 (Deliberazioni, 1475–76), fols. 51r and 52r;
Louis’ crozier fitted precisely. Nevertheless, all transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
some controversy about the date, and about pp. 289–92, docs. IV.31.a–i). It is only in ASF,
the niche’s author, remains, for which see Mercanzia, 316 (Deliberazioni, 1475–76), fols.
Horst W. Janson, The Sculpture of Donatello, 2 109v and 110v (transcribed in Covi, Andrea del
vols. (Princeton, NJ, 1957; repr. 1963), vol. 2, Verrocchio, p. 293, doc. iv.31.j) that there is a pre-
pp. 45–56; and Zervas, The Parte Guelfa, pp. cise reference to two figures.
109–17 and 138–53 (Zervas concludes the 10 ASF, Mercanzia, 296 (Deliberazioni, 1463–64),
tabernacle was finished in 1422 – supported fols. 140v–141r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del
by a document of 1460 – and proposes that Verrocchio, p. 290, doc. IV.31.b.
it may have been made by Andrea Fruschetta 11 See n. 9 earlier in this chapter.
of Settignano, who is mentioned in a docu- 12 ASF, Mercanzia, 300 (Deliberazioni, 1466–
ment of 1422 as working for the Parte Guelfa, 67), c. 104r, transcribed by Covi, Andrea del
though possibly after a design by Donatello or Verrocchio, pp. 291–92, doc. IV.31.f.
Brunelleschi). 13 ASF, Mercanzia, 299 (Deliberazioni, 1465–66),
5 The last record of Donatello’s Saint Louis of fols. 104v–105r, transcribed by Covi, Andrea del
Toulouse in place at Orsanmichele dates from Verrocchio, p. 291, doc. IV.31. c.
1451, and no mention is made of offerings to 14 Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori,
the statue in 1452, suggesting the sculpture was scultori ed architettori, 1550, rev. 1568, ed. Gae-
removed sometime between 1451 and 1452. tano Milanesi, 9 vols. (Florence, 1878), vol. 3,
Diane Finiello Zervas, Orsanmichele a Firenze, pp. 362–63; and vol. 2, p. 404. This has been
2 vols. (Modena, 1996), vol. 1, pp. 211–12. noted by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 73, n. 11.
6 ASF, Mercanzia, 295 (Deliberazioni, 1462–63), 15 Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 73.
cc. 120r–v, transcribed in Dario A. Covi, Andrea 16 Paul Schubring, Luca della Robbia und seine
del Verrocchio. Life and Work (Florence, 2005), pp. Familie (Bielefield, 1905), pp. 68–70. Allan
289–90, doc.VI.31.a. Marquand (Luca della Robbia [Princeton,
7 According to a document of September, 1463 1914], pp. 201–02, no. 55); Walter Bombe (“Die
(ASF, Mercanzia, 254 [Deliberazioni]), Luca Sammlung Adolph v. Beckerath,” Der Cicerone 8
della Robbia had been commissioned to make (1916): 167–86, p. 171); and Jolán Balogh (Katalog
the stemma in January or February of that year. der ausländischen Bildwerke des Museums der bilde-
(Allan Marquand, “Some unpublished monu- nen Künste in Budapest, 2 vols. [Budapest, 1975],
ments by Luca della Robbia,” American Journal vol. 1, pp. 61–62, no. 54) accepted Schubring’s
of Archaeology 8, no. 2 (1893): 153–70, p. 154). suggestion. Pope-Hennessy rejected it, on
8 ASF, Mercanzia, 296 (Deliberazioni, 1463–64), the grounds that the work was “either a fif-
fols. 140v–141r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del teenth-century pastiche derived from the
Verrocchio, p. 290, doc.VI.31.b. On the purchas- bronze door [by Luca in the Florentine cathe-
ing of metal for Renaissance bronze sculpture dral] or that it is a nineteenth-century for-
in general, see Francesca Bewer, “The De La gery” (John Pope-Hennessy, Luca della Robbia
Pirotechnia ofVannoccio Biringuccio (1480–537) [Oxford,1980], p. 274, cat. 86). Gentilini left
and bronze sculpture,” M. Phil thesis, The open the possibility of Schubring’s proposal
Warburg Institute, July, 1985, pp. 79–81. (Giancarlo Gentilini, I Della Robbia: La scultura
9 The documents oscillate between men- invetriata del Rinascimento [Florence, 1992], vol.
tioning one or two statues (ASF, Mercanzia, 1, p. 166 n. 48). Bruce Boucher agreed with
295 (Deliberazioni, 1462–63), fols. 120r–v; Schubring and Gentilini, noting that the ter-
ASF, Mercanzia, 296 (Deliberazioni, 1463– racotta group “consequently documents a for-
64), fols. 140v–141r; ASF, Mercanzia, 299 gotten episode in the Mercanzia commission, a
(Deliberazioni, 1465–66), fols. 104v–105r; period between 1463–65 in which Luca was a
ASF, Mercanzia, 299 (Deliberazioni, 1465–66), serious contender for the bronze group” (Earth
fol. 120r [actually fol. 220r]; ASF, Mercanzia, and Fire. Italian Terracotta Sculpture from Donatello
300 (Deliberazioni, 1466–67), fol. 77v; ASF, to Canova, ed. Bruce Boucher, exh. cat., The
Mercanzia, 300 (Deliberazioni, 1466–67), Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, November 18,
fol. 104r; ASF, Mercanzia, 302 (Deliberazioni, 2001–February 3, 2002, and The Victoria and
Albert Museum, London, March 14–July 7, Thomas is ready to be cast (“è a ordine di
2002 [New Haven, 2001], p. 120, cat. 9). gittarlla”).
17 Andrew Butterfield, “The Christ and St. 20 ASF, Provvisioni, Registri, 174 (1483), fols.
Thomas of Andrea del Verrocchio,” in 7v–8v, transcribed by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
Verrocchio’s Christ and St. Thomas. A Masterpiece pp. 301–03, doc. iv.31.y.
of Sculpture from Renaissance Florence, ed. Loretta 21 Luca Landucci, Diario fiorentino dal 1450 al 1516,
Dolcini, exh. cat., Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, continuato da un anonimo fino al 1542, ed. Iodoco
and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New del Badia (Florence, 1883), p. 45.
York, December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993 [New 22 The document was first published by Butter-
York, 1992], 25–35, p. 57. field, “Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas,”
18 Andrew Butterfield (“Verrocchio’s Christ and p. 233, doc. 5. Possibly the inscription was to
Saint Thomas: Chronology, Iconography, and be the same as that included in an illumination
Political Context,” The Burlington Magazine of 1479 depicting Christ and Saint Thomas
134, no. 1069 [April, 1992], 225–33, p. 226; and in the frontispiece for the book of statutes
“The Christ and St. Thomas of Andrea del of the Otto di Guardia, a principal organ of
Verrocchio,” p. 57) has pointed out that the justice in Florence, that was commissioned by
bronze for one figure is mentioned in a doc- Lorenzo de’ Medici, who was keen to control
ument of 1470 (ASF, Mercanzia, 305, fol. 30r, the group. The inscription, which appears on
transcribed by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 292, the base of the tabernacle, is from Ecclesias-
doc. iv.31.h), implying that it was cast some- tics 19:4: “He who is quick to believe is light
time between then and 1476, when another at heart.” Butterfield has convincingly argued
document (ASF, Mercanzia, 316 [Deliberazioni, that here the inscription should be understood
1475–76], fols. 51r and 52r, transcribed by in terms of Lorenzo’s attempt to control the
Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 292, doc. iv.31.i) group, a proposal supported by the presence
mentions a bronze figure. A later document of the Medici coat of arms with a crown in
(ASF, Mercanzia, Libro di Debitori e Creditori, the frontispiece (Butterfield, “The Christ and
filza 14103, Libro B rosso, fols. 131–13r, tran- St. Thomas of Andrea del Verrocchio,” pp.
scribed by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 65–66). An alternative possibility is that the
294–96, doc. iv.31.n) makes clear that this fig- intended inscription may have repeated that
ure must be Christ. This chronology was laid which appeared beneath the now-lost fresco
out by Butterfield (“Verrocchio’s Christ and by Paolo Uccello of Doubting Thomas over
Saint Thomas,” p. 226; and “The Christ and St. the entrance to the Medici family church of
Thomas of Andrea del Verrocchio,” p. 57). Covi San Tommaso (‘INDIA TIBI CESSIT’), which
(Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 75) proposed that the John Paoletti has interpreted as a reference to
figure of Christ was modeled between 1472 the Medici, arguing that it refers to Thomas’
and 1476 and cast by the beginning of 1477. travels to India when he baptized the Magi,
A document of 1479 (ASF, Mercanzia, filza with whom the Medici connected themselves
14103, cc. 13v–13r, transcribed by Covi, Andrea (John Paoletti, “. . .Ha fatto Piero con volunta
del Verrocchio, p. 294, doc. iv.31.n) refers to the del padre. . .: Piero de’ Medici and Corporate
figure of Christ as “è presso e ffornita,” which Commissions of Art,” in Piero de’Medici ‘il Got-
Covi (Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 75) translates as toso’ (1416–1469). Kunst im Dieste der Mediceer/
“is at hand.” Butterfield, on the other hand, Art in the Service of the Medici, eds. Andreas Beyer
transcribed it as “è presso affornita,” which he and Bruce Boucher [Berlin, 1993], 221–50, pp.
translates as “almost finished” (“Verrocchio’s 234–35). Erin Benay and Lisa Rafanelli, on the
Christ and Saint Thomas, p. 233, doc. 5). other hand, propose that the inscription below
19 Butterfield, “Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Uccello fresco’s highlights how India yielded
Thomas,” pp. 226–27. Covi (Andrea del Verrocchio, to Thomas (referring to the saint’s life after
p. 75) suggests it was modeled c. 1479 or just Christ’s Resurrection) because he doubted and
before, and cast that year, and that was almost then came to believe. They argue that the lost
certainly cast by 1481. A document of 1479 fresco, which showed a group of Apostles, as
(ASF, Mercanzia, filza 14103, cc. 13v–13r, tran- well as Thomas, around Christ, emphasizes how
scribed by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 294, it was a collection of believers who pursued the
doc. iv.31.n) records that the figure of Saint truth and that it was as a group that they came
to believe (Erin Benay, “The pursuit of truth Cristo.” Francesco Bocchi (Le bellezze della
and the Doubting Thomas in the art of early citta di Fiorenza [Florence, 1591], p. 31) made
modern Italy,” Ph.D. diss., Rutgers University, the same error. A page earlier, Vasari (Vasari-
2009, pp. 162–63; and Erin E. Benay and Lisa M. Milanesi vol. 3, p. 362) described the action as
Rafanelli, Faith, Gender and the Senses in Italian “un San Tommaso di bronzo, che cercasse la
Renaissance and Baroque Art [Farnham, Surrey, piaga di Cristo.” ([A] Saint Thomas in bronze,
2015], pp. 133–34). that searches for the wound of Christ.)
23 The subject appears in courtrooms and assem- 29 See, for instance, the examples by Duccio di
bly halls in Siena, Scarperia, Certaldo, and Buoninsegna;Tino da Camaino;Taddeo Gaddi;
Pistoia. On this, see Butterfield, Sculptures of Zanino di Pietro; Luca della Robbia; Cima da
Andrea del Verrocchio, pp. 61–62; Edna Carter Conegliano; anonymous late fourteenth-cen-
Southard, The Frescoes in Siena Palazzo Pubblico, tury artist working at the Palazzo Pretorio,
1289–1539. Studies in Imagery and Relations Scarperia; Giovanni di Bartolomeo Cristiani;
to Other Communal Palaces in Tuscany (New Giovanni Toscani; Paolo Uccello (accord-
York, 1979), pp. 100–01, 460–61; Benay, “The ing to the Codex Rustici); Bicci di Lorenzo;
pursuit of truth,” pp. 129–41, 156–57, and 176– Mariano del Buono; and Pier Francesco
80; and Benay and Rafanelli, Faith, Gender and Fiorentino. These are illustrated in Sabine
the Senses, pp. 126–31. Schunk-Heller, Die Darstellung des ungläubigen
24 Butterfield, “The Christ and St. Thomas of Thomas in der italienischen Kunst bis um 1500
Andrea del Verrocchio,” p. 64. unter Berücksichtigung der lukanischen Ostentatio
25 The 1463 operai consisted of Piero de’ Cosimo Vulnerum, Beiträge zur Kunstwissenschaft, band
de’ Medici, Leonardo di Bartolomeo Bartolini, 59 (Munich, 1995), Figures 69, 75, 85, 88, 93,
Dietisalvi Neroni, Pandolfo Pandolfini, and and 116; and in Benay, “The pursuit of truth,”
Matteo Palmieri. In 1466 the group changed to Figures 40, 56, 59, 60, 61, 65, and 66.
include Girolamo di Matteo Morelli (replacing 30 Examples of Christ shown giving the sign of
the deceased Pandolfo Pandolfini) and Lorenzo benediction include Tino da Camaino’s rep-
de’ Medici (who replaced his father Piero); resentation of the Doubting Thomas scene
Dietisalvi Neroni was exiled that year. In 1483 on the Tomb of Gastone della Torre (Museo
Bongiano Gianfigliazzi took over Girolamo dell’Opera di Santa Croce, Florence) and
di Matteo Morelli’s duties at the Mercanzia, Taddeo Gaddi’s Incredulity of Saint Thomas
presumably including his role as operaio, and (Galleria Nazionale dell’Accademia, Florence),
Antonio Pucci was introduced to the operai, both illustrated in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio,
probably replacing Matteo Palmieri, who died Figures 52 and 54.
in 1475. This has been discussed by Butterfield, 31 “Toccate il vero com’io, e crederete/. .
.La
“Verrocchio’s Christ and St. Thomas,” pp. 228– mano al vero e gli occhi al sommo cielo. . .”
30; and Butterfield, “The Christ and St. Thomas Franco Sacchetti, Il Libro delle Rime, ed. Franca
of Andrea del Verrocchio,” p. 60. Brambilla Ageno (Florence, 1990), poem no.
26 Butterfield, “The Christ and St. Thomas of 243, p. 374; trans. and discussed by Butterfield,
Andrea delVerrocchio,” pp. 53–79. Diane Zervas Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 62.
(Orsanmichele a Firenze, vol. 1, pp. 218–19) has 32 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend.
challenged the theory of Medici influence on Readings on the Saints, trans. William Granger
the Christ and Saint Thomas, pointing out that Ryan, 2 vols. (Princeton, NJ, 1993), vol. 1, pp.
judicial reforms were enacted in the 1470s (and 29–30. On excerpts from The Golden Legend in
thus years after the sculpture’s subject had been Florentine zibaldoni, see Salomone Morpurgo,
decided) and that the guild’s financial difficul- I manoscritti della R. Biblioteca Riccardiana di
ties in paying for the statue would surely have Firenze: manoscritti italiani, vol. 1 (Rome, 1893),
been overcome had the sculpture’s completion index (under “Varagine Jacopo”), p. 712.
been a Medici priority. 33 Ms. 1591, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Florence con-
27 This has been noted by Covi, Andrea del tains the “Evangel of Saint John” translated by
Verrocchio, p. 85. Francesco d’Altobianco degli Alberti, but the
28 This has been noted by Covi, Andrea del text does not include the interaction between
Verrocchio, p. 85 and n. 60. See Vasari-Milanesi, Christ and Thomas. On the “Evangel of Saint
vol. 3, p. 363: “metter la mano al costato di John,” see Francesco d’Altobianco Alberti,
Rime, ed. Alessio Decaria (Bologna, 2008), Women, Family, and Ritual in Renaissance Italy,
pp. 210–12. On Alberti’s translation, which trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago, 1985), 310–30,
was dedicated to Piero de’ Medici, see Mario pp. 325–26. In a case concerning a miraculous
Martelli, Letteratura fiorentina del Quattrocento. Il crucifix, it apparently became animated only
filtro degli anni Sessanta (Florence, 1996), p. 304. when it was touched, with the transforma-
34 “Pure s’ i’ parlo, i’ m’ odo, , veggio e sento,/ E tion remaining invisible to the eye. It was only
più che d’altro di questa mi scocco;/ Po’ , s’ i’ through touch that the crucifix’s sacred power
mi tocco delle volte ben cento,/ Dicendo: l’ could be experienced. The miracle occurred
giuro a dio, ch’ i’ pur mi tocco./ Questo come in Switzerland and was apparently recorded in
è che l’esser mio si è spento?” Geta e Birria, ed. a fourteenth-century text from a Swiss con-
Costantino Arlia (Bologna, 1879), p. 49. vent (Enrico Castelnuovo, Imago Lignea: sculture
35 François Quiviger, “Relief is in the mind: lignee nel Trentino dal XIII al XVI secolo [Trent,
Observations on Renaissance low relief 1989], p. 16, who does not provide his source;
sculpture,” in Depth of Field. Relief Sculpture discussed by Paoletti, “Wooden sculpture,” p.
in Renaissance Italy, eds. Donal Cooper and 92, and Holmes, Miraculous Image, p. 201). For
Mariko Leino (Bern, 2007), 169–89, p. 177. examples of mystics embracing Christ cruci-
36 On this practice, see Federico Ghisi, “Un fied, see Jacqueline E. Jung, “The tactile and
processionale inedito per la Settimana Santa the visionary: Notes on the place of sculp-
nell’opera del Duomo di Firenze,” Rivista ture in the Medieval religious imagination” in
Musicale Italiana 55 (Oct–Dec, 1953): 362–69, p. Looking Beyond. Visions, Dreams, and Insights in
363; Solange Corbin, La Deposition Liturgique Medieval Art and History, ed. Colum Hourihane
du Christ au Vendredi Saint. Sa place dans l’his- (Princeton, 2010), 203–40.
toire des rites et due theater religieux (Paris, 1960), 44 Roger Ekirch, At Day’s Close: Nights in Times
pp. 15–16; John T. Paoletti, “Wooden sculpture Past (NewYork, 2005), p. 122. See also Constance
in Italy as sacral presence,” Artibus et Historiae Classen, The Deepest Sense. A Cultural History of
13 (1992): 85–100; and Geraldine A. Johnson, Touch (Urbana, IL, 2012), p. 11.
“A taxonomy of touch: Tactile encounters in 45 Donald Beecher, “The lover’s body: The
Renaissance Italy,” in Sculpture and Touch, ed. Somatogenesis of Love in Renaissance
Peter Dent (Surrey, 2014), 91–106, pp. 94–95. Medical Treatises,” Renaissance and Reformation/
37 On paxes and the sense of touch, see Adrian Renaissance et Réform 24 (1988): 1–11, p. 8ff.
W. B. Randolph, Touching Objects. Intimate 46 Dale Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine
Experiences in Italian Fifteenth-Century Art (New Renaissance: The Patron’s Oeuvre (New Haven,
Haven, CT, 2014), pp, 218–37. 2000), p. 29.
38 Megan Holmes, The Miraculous Image in 47 Vespasiano da Bisticci, Vite di uomini illus-
Renaissance Florence (New Haven, CT, 2013), tri del secolo XV scritte da Vespasiano da Bisticci,
pp. 200–01 and 269–71. eds. Angelo Mai and Adolfo Bartoli (Florence,
39 Holmes, Miraculous Image, p. 201. 1859), p. 478ff. See Richard Krautheimer with
40 See, for instance, the account of translation of Trude Krautheimer-Hess, Lorenzo Ghiberti,
the relics of Saint Zenobius from San Lorenzo 2 vols. (Princeton, 1970), vol. 1, pp. 301–02.
to Santa Reparata, recounted in a late-Quat- 48 On the equivalence of touching and seeing,
trocento life of the saint, when the crowd see the essays in Paul L. Gavrilyuk and Sarah
pushed forward to touch the coffin with the Coakley, The Spiritual Senses. Perceiving God in
saint’s body inside. Sally J. Cornelison, “When Western Christianity (Cambridge, UK, 2012).
an image is a relic: The St. Zenobius panel 49 David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from
from Florence Cathedral,” in Images, Relics, and Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago, 1976), pp. 10–11.
Devotional Practices in Medieval and Renaissance This has been noted by Johnson, “Touch, tac-
Italy, eds. Sally J. Cornelison and Scott B. tility, and the reception of sculpture,” p. 63.
Montgomery (Tempe, AZ, 2006), 95–113, p. 97. 50 David C. Lindberg, “The science of optics,” in
41 Holmes, Miraculous Image, p. 201; and Johnson, Science in the Middle Ages, ed. David C. Lindberg
“A taxonomy of touch,” p. 94. (Chicago and London, 1978), 338–38, p. 340.
42 Holmes, Miraculous Image, p. 200. On medieval theories of vision and its effect on
43 Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, “Holy dolls: Play art, see, for instance, Michael Camille, “Before
and piety in Florence in the Quattrocento,” in the gaze. The internal senses and late medieval
practices of seeing,” in Visuality Before and the volume Looking Beyond.Visions, Dreams, and
Beyond the Renaissance. Seeing as Others Saw, ed. Insights in Medieval Art and History, ed. Colum
Robert S. Nelson (Cambridge, UK, 2000), 197– Hourihane (Princeton, NJ, 2010). See also
223; and Cynthia Hahn, “Visio Dei. Changes Suzannah Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment in
in medieval visuality,” in Visuality Before and the Middle Ages (London, 2002); and Georgia
Beyond the Renaissance. Seeing as Others Saw, Frank, The Memory of the Eyes: Pilgrims to Living
ed. Robert S. Nelson (Cambridge, UK, 2000), Saints in Christian Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA,
169–96. On competing theories of vision dur- 2000).
ing the Middle Ages and their influence on lit- 56 Saint Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John.
erature, including Dante, see Suzanne Conklin Homilies on the First Epistle of John. Soliloquies,
Akbari, Seeing through the Veil. Optical Theory and vol. 7 of A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Medieval Allegory (Toronto, 2004). Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip
51 Piero della Francesca, De prospectiva pingendi, Schaff, 14 vols. (Buffalo, NY, 1888), p. 439.
ed. Nicco Fasola (Florence, 1942), p. 98, trans. 57 Voragine’s Golden Legend, vol. 1, p. 216.This was
Michael Baxandall, Words for Pictures: Seven noted by Dale Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici, p. 434,
Papers on Renaissance Art and Criticism (New n. 13.
Haven, CT, 2003), p. 152. 58 Robert Grosseteste, Commentary on the Posterior
52 On the discovery of Lucretius’ De rerum nat- Analytics, quoted in Richard William Southern,
ura, see Alison M. Brown, “Lucretius and the Robert Grosseteste:The Growth of an English Mind
Epicureans in the social and political context in Medieval Europe (Oxford, 1986; 2nd edn.,
of Renaissance Florence,” I Tatti Studies in the 1992), p. 168 (“Sollertia vero est vis penetra-
Italian Renaissance 9 (2001): 11–62, pp. 11–12. tive qua visus mentalis non quiescit super rem
53 “[T]actus enim, tactus, pro divum numina visam, sed penetrat ipsam usque ad rem aliam
sancta,/ corporis est sensus. .
.” “[C]orpora sibi naturaliter coniunctam, sicut si visus corpo-
quae feriant oculos. . .” Lucretius, De rerum nat- ralis cadens super coloratum non quiesceret ibi,
ura, ed. William Henry Denham Rouse, Loeb sed penetraret usque ad complexionem corpo-
Classical Library (Cambridge, MA, 1924; repr. ris colorati, a qua complexione egreditur color,
1953), book 2, lines 434–35, p. 114; and book et iterum penetraret ipsam complexionem
4, line 217, p. 262. This has been discussed by donec apprehenderet elementares qualitates
Elizabeth D. Harvey, Sensible Flesh. On Touch in ex quibus provenit complexio; sic, cum visus
Early Modern Culture (Philadelphia, 2003), p. 4 mentis non quiescit super rem visam, sed pen-
54 Saint Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning etrat ipsam cito donec apprehenderit causam
of Genesis, Ancient Christian Writers 41–42, vel effectum rei vise, hec vis penetrative
trans. John Hammond Taylor, 2 vols. (New velociter sollertia est.” Robertus Grosseteste,
York, 1982), vol. 2, Book 12, pp. 178–231. Commentarius in Posteriorum Analyticorum
Augustine’s Literal Meaning of Genesis was avail- Libros, ed. Pietro Rossi, Unione Accademica
able at the S. Croce library (Curzio Mazzi, Nazionale Corpus Philosophorum Medii
“L’inventario quattrocentistico della Biblioteca Aevi, Testi e Studi, II [Florence, 1981], I:19,
di S. Croce in Firenze,” Rivista delle biblioteche p. 281). This has been discussed by Biernoff,
e degli archivi 8 (1897): 16–31, 99–113, 129–47, Sight and Embodiment, p. 71.
p. 101). His writings were also often copied in 59 “Sed species non est corpus, neque mutatur
vernacular Florentine commonplace books, secundum se totam ab uno loco in alium, sed
owned by people of all social levels during the illa quae in prima parte aeris fit non separa-
Renaissance. On this, see Dale Kent, Cosimo de’ tor ab illa, cum forma non potest separari a
Medici, pp. 83–84 and 428 ns. 147 and 148; and material in qua est, nisi sit anima, sed facit
Morpurgo, I manoscritti, vol. 1, index, p. 684. On sibi simile in secundam partem, et sic ultra.
the influence of Augustine’s theories during Et ideo non est motus localis, sed est gen-
the Renaissance, see Meredith J. Gill, Augustine eratio multiplicata per diversas partes medii;
in the Italian Renaissance. Art and Philosophy from nec est corpus quod ibi generator, sed forma
Petrarch to Michelangelo (New York, 2005), esp. corporalis non habens tamen dimensiones
pp. 129–32. per se, sed fit sub dimensionibus aeris: atque
55 Jung, “The tactile and the visionary,” p. 207. non fit per defluxum a corpore luminoso, sed
On Augustine’s theory, see the other essays in per educationem de potentia materiae aeris.”
Roger Bacon, “De Scientia Perspectiva,” 60 Bacon, Opus majus, trans. Burke, vol. 2, ch. 3, p.
in The Opus Majus of Roger Bacon, ed. John 470 (5.1.7.3). (“Nam recipit speciem rei visae,
Henry Bridges, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1897), vol. 2, et facit suam virtutem in medium usque ad vis-
Part 5, Dist. 9, ch. 4, pp. 71–72. (“[A] species ibile.” Roger Bacon, “De Scientia Perspectiva,”
is not body, nor is it changed as regards itself in Opus Majus, ed. Bridges, vol. 2, Part 5, Dist.
as a whole from one place to another, but 7, ch. 3, p. 52). Discussed in Biernoff, Sight and
that which is produced [by an agent] in the Embodiment, p. 86.
first part of the air [or other medium] is not 61 Bacon, Opus majus, trans. Burke, vol. 2, p. 445,
separated from that part, since form cannot chapter 2 (5.1.4.2). “[E]t ideo oportet ut sit
be separated from the matter in which it is, aliquantulum spissus, quatenus patiatur a spe-
unless it be soul, but the species forms a like- ciebus passionem quae est de genere doloris.”
ness to itself in the second position of the Roger Bacon, “De Scientia Perspectiva,” in
air, and so on. Therefore it is not a motion as Opus Majus, ed. Bridges, vol. 2, Part 5, Dist.
regards place, but is a propagation multiplied 4, ch. 2, p. 27. Discussed in Biernoff, Sight and
through the different parts of the medium; Embodiment, p. 96.
nor is it a body, which is there generated, but 62 Graziella Federici Vescovini, “Il problema delle
a corporeal form, without, however, dimen- fonti ottiche medievali del Commentario Terzo
sions per se, but it is produced subject to the di Lorenzo Ghiberti,” in Lorenzo Ghiberti nel
dimensions of the air; and it is not produced suo tempo. Atti del convegno internazionale di
by a flow from a luminous body, but by a studi (Firenze, Ottobre 18–21, 1978), 2 vols.
renewing from the potency of the matter (Florence, 1980), vol. 2, 349–87; and Lorenzo
of the air.” Roger Bacon, The Opus majus Ghiberti, I commentarii, ed. Lorenzo Bartoli
of Roger Bacon, trans. Richard Belle Burke, (Florence, 1998), pp. 14–15.
2 vols. (New York, 1962), vol. 2, pp. 489–90 63 “Il tatto, il qual si fa maggior fratello” (Claire J.
[5.1.9.4.].) “Tunc enim substantia agen- Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s Paragone. A Critical
tis activa tangens sine medio substantiam Interpretation with a New Edition of the Text in the
patientis potest ex virtute et potentia sua Codex Urbinas [Leiden, 1992], ch. 23, line 39,
activa transmutare primam partem patientis p. 223).
quam tangit. Et redundat actio in profundum 64 “Dammi cosa ch’io la possa veddere e toccare
illius partis, quia illa pars non est superficies, et non solamente la possa uddire. E no bias-
sed corpus quantumcunque sit parva; nec mare la mia ellettione de l’havermi io messa
sine profunditate sua potest accipi nec intel- la tua opera sotta ’l gomito e questa del pit-
ligi, et ideo nec tangi nec alterari.” Roger tore tengo con due le mani, dandolla alli miei
Bacon, “De multiplicatione specierum,” in occhi. Perché le mani da lor medessime hanno
Opus Majus, ed. Bridges, vol. 2, Part 1, ch. 3, tolto a servire a più degno senso.”Trans. Farago,
p. 436. (“[T]he active substance of the agent, Leonardo da Vinci’s Paragone, ch. 27, lines 15–19,
touching the substance of the recipient pp. 234–35. On touch in Leonardo’s Paragone,
without intermediary, can alter, by its active see Jodi Cranston, “The touch of the blind
virtue and power, the first part of the recipi- man,” in Sensible Flesh: On Touch in Early Modern
ent that it touches. And this action flows into Culture, ed. Elizabeth D. Harvey (Philadelphia,
the interior of that part, since that part is not PA, 2002), 224–42.
a surface, but a body, however small it may 65 Jung, “The tactile and the visionary,” pp.
be; nor can it be perceived or understood 208–09.
without its depth – and therefore without 66 Jeffrey F. Hamburger, “Seeing and believing.
depth it can be neither touched nor altered.” The suspicion of sight and the authentication
Roger Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, of vision in late medieval art and devotion,” in
Part 1, chapter 3, in David C. Lindberg, Roger Imagination und Wirklichkeit. Zum Verhältnis von
Bacon’s Philosophy of Nature: a Critical Edition mentalen und realen Bildern in der Kunst der frühen
with English Translation, Introduction, and Neuzeit, eds. Klaus Krüger and Alessandro
Notes of De multiplicatione specierum and Nova (Mainz, 2000), 47–69, p. 48.
De speculis comburentibus [Oxford, 1983], 67 Jung, “The tactile and the visionary,” p. 210.
pp. 52–53.) Discussed in Biernoff, Sight and See, for instance, cases of women who were
Embodiment, pp. 74–75). rewarded with being able to touch and hold
the Infant Christ Child, discussed in Klapisch- Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, in Sancti
Zuber, “Holy dolls,” pp. 325–26. Bernardi Opera Omnia, vol. 2, Sermon 83, III.6,
68 “[L]’affetto suo ardentissimo sì lo ce ’ncor- p. 302. For a discussion, see Rudy, Mystical
porao/ lo cor li stemperao como cera a sege- Language, p. 59.
llo:/ empremettece quello ov’era trasformato.” 75 “Ardorem desiderii patrum suspirantium
Jacopone da Todi, Laudi, trattato e detti, ed. Christi in carne praesentiam frequentis-
Franca Ageno (Florence, 1953), pp. 248–49. sime cogitans, compungor et confundor in
This has been noted by Gregory F. LaNave, memetipso. . . . Illorum ergo desiderium fla-
“Bonaventure,” in The Spiritual Senses, eds. Paul grans et piae exspectationis affectum spirat
L. Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley (Cambridge, mihi vox ista: OSCULETUR ME OSCULO
UK, 2011), 159–73, p. 170; and Biernoff, Sight ORIS SUI.” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux,
and Embodiment, p. 139. Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, in Sancti
69 Aristotle, On the Soul; Parva Naturalia; On Bernardi Opera Omnia, vol. 1, Sermon 2, I:1,
Breath, ed. and trans., Walter Hett (London, pp. 8–9. (“During my frequent ponderings
1964), Book 3, chapter 8, pp. 180–81. on the burning desire with which the patri-
70 “[Fides] . . . comprehendit immensa, apprehen- archs longed for the incarnation of Christ, I
dit novissima, ipsam denique aeternitatem suo am stung with sorrow and shame . . . I pray that
illo vastissimo sinu quodammodo circumclu- the intense longing of those men of old, their
dit.” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermones super heartfelt expectation, may be enkindled in me
Cantica Canticorum, in Sancti Bernardi Opera by these words: ‘Let him kiss me with the kiss
Omnia, 8 vols., eds. Jean Leclercq, Charles Hugh of his mouth.’” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux,
Talbot, and Henri Rochais (Rome, 1957–80), On the Song of Songs, vol. 3 of The Works of
vol. 2, Sermon 76, III.6, p. 258, trans. Gordon Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 2, Sermon 2, I:1, p. 8).
Rudy, The Mystical Language of Sensation in Discussed by Rudy, Mystical Language, p. 60.
the Later Middle Ages (New York, 2002), p. 57. 76 Morpurgo, I manoscritti, vol. 1, index, p. 688.
Bernard’s sermons on the Song of Songs were 77 For instance, Gregory of Nyssa, Alexander of
a favorite inclusion in Florentine zibaldoni. Hales, Bonaventure, and Bernard of Clairvaux.
(Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici, p. 84). They were also See Gavrilyuk and Coakley, The Spiritual Senses,
in the possession of S. Croce’s library. Mazzi, p. 9. On the presence of works by Bonaventure
“L’inventario quattrocentistico della Biblioteca and Bernard of Clairvaux in Florentine zibal-
di S. Croce,” p. 104. doni, see Morpurgo, I manoscritti, vol. 1, index,
71 Rudy, Mystical Language, p. 57. pp. 688 and 689.
72 Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, On the Song of 78 “[M]axime unit ei qui est summus spiritus;
Songs, trans. Kilian Walsh, introduction by propter quod dicitur primae ad Corinthios
Jean Leclerq, vol. 2 of The Works of Bernard of sexto: Qui adhaeret Deo unus spiritus est.”
Clairvaux, 4 vols. (Kalamazoo, MI, 1971–81), Saint Bonaventure, Opera Omnia, 10 vols.
vol. 3, Cistercian Fathers Series: Number (Quaracchi, 1882–902), 3:292a, trans. Rudy,
Seven, Sermon 28, IV:10, p. 96. (“Tanges manu Mystical Language, pp. 107–08.
fidei, desiderii digito, devotionis amplexu; tan- 79 “In hoc autem transitu. . . oportet quod relin-
ges oculo mentis.” Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, quantur omnes intellectuales operationes, et
Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, in Sancti apex affectus totus transferatur et transforme-
Bernardi Opera Omnia, vol. 1, Sermon 28, IV.10, tur in Deum.” Saint Bonaventure, Itinerarium
p. 199). Discussed by Rudy, Mystical Language, mentis in Deum in Opera Omnia, vol. 12, chap-
p. 57 (and for a broader discussion of touch, see ter 7, p. 21, trans. by Rudy, Mystical Language,
Rudy, pp. 49, 54, 56–61). pp. 107–08. There is some controversy about
73 Rudy, Mystical Language, p. 45. the meaning of Bonaventure’s words here, for
74 “Quia SPIRITUS ANTE FACIEM which, see Bernard McGinn, The Flowering of
NOSTRAM CHRISTUS DOMINUS, cui Mysticism: Men and Women in the New Mysti-
adhaerentes in osculo sancto, unus spiritus cism—1200–1350 (New York, 1998), pp. 110–12.
ipsius dignatione efficimur.” Saint Bernard of 80 Morpurgo, I manoscritti, vol. 1, index, p. 689.
Clairvaux, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum, in His works were also in the collection at Santa
Sancti Bernardi Opera Omnia, vol. 1, Sermon 3 Croce. (Mazzi, “L’inventario quattrocentistico
III.5, p. 17. See also Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, della Biblioteca di S. Croce,” pp. 106–07).
81 “Corpus hominis resurgentis oportet esse sensus est etiam instrumentum tactus; unde
tactivum: quia sine tactu nullum est animal. ex hoc quod habet meliorem tactum, sequitur
Oportet autem ut resurgens sit animal, si sit quod simpliciter habet meliorem sensitiuam
homo. Corpus autem aereum non potest esse naturam et per consequens quod sit melioris
tactivum, sicut nec aliquod aliud corpus sim- intellectus, nam bonitas sensus est dispositio
plex: cum oporteat corpus per quod fit tactus, ad bonitatem intellectus. Ex hoc autem quod
esse medium inter qualitates tangibiles, ut sit aliquid habet meliorem uisum uel auditum,
quodammodo in potentia ad eas, ut Philosophus non sequitur quod sit melius sensitiuum sim-
probat in libro de Anima. Impossibile est igitur pliciter, set solum secundum quid. Alia ratio
quod corpus hominis resurgentis sit aereum est, quia bonitas tactus sequitur bonitatem
et simile ventis.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa complexionis siue temperanciam: cum enim
Contra Gentiles. Liber Quartus cum commentariis instrumentum tactus non possit esse denuda-
Francisci de Sylverstris Ferrariensis Sancti Thomae tum a genere tangibilium qualitatum eo quod
Aquinatis. In Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Opera est ex elementis compositum, oportet quod sit
omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P.M. edita, in potentia ad extrema saltem per hoc quod
vols. 13–15 (Rome, 1918–30), vol. 15, ch. 84, par. est medium inter ea; ad bonam autem com-
14, p. 269. (“The body of man when he rises plexionem corporis sequitur nobilitas animae,
must have the capacity to touch, for without quia omnis forma est proportionata suae mate-
touch there is no animal. But that which rises riae. Unde sequitur, quod qui sunt boni tactus
must be animal if it is to be man. But an aerial sunt nobilioris anime et perspicacioris men-
body can have no capacity for touch, just as no tis.” Thomas Aquinas, Sentencia libri De anima,
simple body can, for the body in which the in Sancti Thomae de Aquino, Opera Omnia
touch sensation takes place must be midway iussu Leonis XIII P. M. edita, ed. René Antoine
between the tangible qualities so as to be in Gauthier (Rome, 1984), vol. 45, no. 1, liber 2,
potency to them, as the Philosopher proves in ch. 19, p. 149. (”[T]he touch of man is far supe-
De anima. It is impossible, then, that the body rior to that of other animals in exactitude of
of man who rises be like the air or the winds.” apprehension. This pre-eminence of touch in
Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra Gentiles, Book man is the reason why man is the wisest of
4: Salvation, ed. Charles J. O’Neil [Notre Dame, animals; moreover, among men it is in virtue of
IN, 1975], ch. 84, par. 14, pp. 322–33.) fineness of touch, and not of any other sense,
82 “[S]et homo secundum tactum multum differt that we discriminate the mentally gifted from
in certitudine cognitionis ab aliis animalibus. the rest. Those whose bodily constitution is
Vnde, quia homo habet optimum tactum, tough, and whose sense of touch is therefore
sequitur quod sit prudentissimum omnium poor, are slow of intellect; whilst those of a
aliorum animalium, quia et in genere hom- delicately balanced constitution with, in con-
inum ex sensu tactus accipimus, quod sunt sequence, a fine sense of touch are mentally
ingeniosi et aliqui non ingeniosi, et non secun- acute. This too is why the other animals have
dum aliquem alium sensum. Qui enim habent flesh of a coarser texture than man.Yet it might
duram carnem et per consequens habent seem that mental capacity corresponded rather
malum tactum, sunt inepti secundum men- to excellence of sight than of touch, for sight
tem, qui uero sunt molles carne et per conse- is the more spiritual sense, and reveals better
quens boni tactus, sunt bene apti mente. Vnde the differences between things. Still, there are
etiam alia animalia habent duriores carnes two reasons for maintaining that excellence of
quam homo. <Qvestiones> <1> Set uidetur mind is proportionate to fineness of touch. In
quod aptitudo mentis magis respondeat bon- the first place touch is the basis of sensitivity as
itati uisus quam bonitati tactus, quia uisus est a whole; for obviously the organ of touch per-
spiritualior sensus et plures differencias rerum vades the whole body, so that the organ of each
demonstrat. Set dicendum est quod duplici ex of the other senses is also an organ of touch,
causa bonitas mentis respondet bonitati tactus. and the sense of touch by itself constitutes a
Prima ratio est quia tactus est fundamentum being as sensitive. Therefore the finer one’s
aliorum sensuum omnium: manifestum est sense of touch, the better, strictly speaking, is
enim quod organum tactus diffunditur per one’s sensitive nature as a whole, and conse-
totum corpus et quodlibet instrumentum quently the higher one’s intellectual capacity.
For a fine sensitivity is a disposition to a fine inedite dal ms. Laurenziano Acquisti e Doni 290,
intelligence. But an exceptionally good hear- ed. Cecilia Iannella (Pisa, 1997); and Lina
ing or sight does not imply that the sensitivity Bolzoni, Rete delle immagini: predicazione in vol-
as a whole is finer, but only that it is so in one gare dalle origini a Bernardino da Siena (Turin,
respect. The other reason is that a fine touch 2002), p. 105.
is an effect of a good bodily constitution or 85 Howard, Beyond the Written Word, pp. 90–93.
temperament. For as the organ of touch is itself 86 “Nelle mani, e in tutti gli altri membri è
necessarily endowed with tangible qualities diposto il toccare; imperò che l’assaggiare
(being composed of the elements) it needs to della bocca e della lingua è più aguto che ’l
be in a condition of potency to extremes of the toccamento delle mani, o degli altri membri”
tangible at least by itself constituting a mean Aldobrandino da Siena, Trattato dei cinque sensi
between them. Now nobility of soul follows dell’uomo con altre scritture del buon secolo della lin-
upon a well-balanced physical constitution; gua: allegate nel Vocabolario della Crusca (Florence,
because forms are proportionate to their mat- 1872), p. 2.
ter. It follows that those whose touch is deli- 87 “À moltissime dolceze, le quali el viso nolle
cate are so much the nobler in nature and the comprehende, né con forte luce, né con tem-
more intelligent.” Thomas Aquinas, Aristotle’s perate, solo la mano a toccarlo la truova.”
De Anima in the Version of William of Moerbeke Ghiberti, I commentarii, p. 108. This has been
and the Commentary of St.Thomas Aquinas, trans. discussed by Amy Bloch, Lorenzo Ghiberti’s
Kenelm Foster and Silvester Humphries (New Gates of Paradise. Humanism, History, and Artistic
Haven, CT, 1951), lec. 19, pars. 482–85, pp. Philosophy in the Italian Renaissance (New York,
303–04. This has been discussed by Jung, “The 2016), p. 227.
tactile and the visionary,” p. 208. Thomas’ idea 88 “Ancora nel senso del tatto, il quale diriva da
finds visual expression in an anonymous dia- esso senso comune, non si ved’elli istendersi
gram from Saxony (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek colla sua potenzia insino alle punte delle dita,
München [Clm 5961,VD innen]) showing the le quali dita, subito che ànno tocco (su) l’obbi-
workings of the brain that includes the inscrip- eto, immediate il senso à giudicato se è caldo o
tion “touch is located in all parts of the body” freddo, se è duro o molle, se è acuto o piano.”
in a band around the figure’s neck. Illustrated Leonardo da Vinci, Codex atlanticus in Il Codice
in Carl Schoonover, ed., Portraits of the Mind. Atlantico di Leonardo da Vinci nella Biblioteca
Visualizing the Brain from Antiquity to the 21st Ambrosiana di Milano, ed. Giovanni Piumati
Century (New York, 2010), p. 23. (Milan, 1894–904), text S. 945–1311, p. 971, fol.
83 Berthold Louis Ullman and Philip A. Stadter, 270v, b. This has been discussed by Kenneth D.
The Public Library of Renaissance Florence: Niccolo Keele, “Leonardo da Vinci’s physiology of the
Niccoli, Cosimo de’ Medici, and the Library of senses,” in Leonardo’s Legacy. An International
San Marco (Padua, 1972), pp. 18–19; Mazzi, Symposium, ed. Charles Donald O’Malley
“L’inventario quattrocentistico della Biblioteca (Berkeley, CA, 1969), 35–56, p. 52.
di S. Croce,” p. 108; and Peter Howard, Beyond 89 Martin Kemp, “The handy worke of the
the Written Word. Preaching and Theology in the incomprehensible creator,” in Writing on Hands.
Florence of Archbishop Antoninus, 1427–1459 Memory and Knowledge in Early Modern Europe,
(Florence, 1995), p. 61. eds. Claire Richter Sherman and Peter M.
84 Alison Cornish, Vernacular Translation in Dante’s Lukehart, exh. cat., Trout Gallery, Dickinson
Italy (New York, 2011), p. 112. On Giordano College, Carlisle, PA, September 8–November
da Pisa, see Carlo Delcorno, “Predicazione 25, 2000, and the Folger Shakespeare Library,
volgare e volgarizzamenti,” Mélanges de l’Ecole Washington, DC, December 13, 2000–March
Française de Rome. Moyen-Age, Temps Modernes 4, 2001 (Seattle, WA, 2001), 22–27, p. 22.
89 (1977): 679–89, pp. 684–85; Giordano da 90 “Incredulus etiam ille discipulus Thomas tetigit
Pisa, Quaresimale fiorentino 1305–1306, ed. Carlo latus perforatum, et exclamavit:‘Dominus meus
Delcorno (Florence, 1974); Carlo Delcorno, et Deus meus’ . . . Tangere autem, credere esse.”
Giordano da Pisa e l’antica predicazione volgare Augustine, Opera Omnia, 7 vols., in Patrologiae
(Florence, 1975); Giordano da Pisa, Sul terzo Cursus Completus, Patrologia Latina, ed. Jacques-
capitolo del Genesi, ed. Cristina Marchioni Paul Migne, 217 vols. (Paris, 1841–902), vols.
(Florence, 1992); Giordano da Pisa, Prediche 38–39, Sermon 245, chs. 2–3, p. 1152. (“That
unbelieving disciple Thomas touched his 95 Most, Doubting Thomas, p. 58.

pierced side, and exclaimed, ‘My Lord and my 96 “Videbat tangebatque hominem, et confiteba-
God’ . . . Touching means believing” Augustine tur Deum, quem non uidebat neque tangebat;
of Hippo, Sermons (230-272B) on the liturgi- sed per hoc quod uidebat atque tangebat, illud
cal seasons, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund iam remota dubitatione credebat. Dicit ei Iesus :
Hill, vol. 7 of The Works of Saint Augustine. A Quia uidisti me, credidisti. Non ait: tetigisti me ;
Translation for the 21st Century, 41 vols. [Hyde sed : uidisti me ; quoniam generalis quodam-
Park, NY, 1993], pt. 3, Sermon 245, pp. 100–01). modo sensus est uisus.” Saint Augustine of
91 Saint Bonaventure, Holiness of Life, Being St. Hippo, Sancti Aurelii Augustini in Iohannis Evan-
Bonaventure’s Treatise De perfectione vitae ad gelium Tracatus CXXIV, ed. Willems Radbodus,
sorores, trans. Laurence Costello (Saint Louis, CCL 36 (Turnhout, 1954), pp. 667–68. Saint
MI, 1928), pp. 63–64. (“Accede ergo tu, o Augustine of Hippo, Tractates on the Gospel of
famula, pedibus affectionum tuarum ad lesum John 112–24, trans. John W. Rettig (Washington,
vulneratum, ad lesum spinis coronatum, ad DC, 1995), Tractate 121, p. 61.
lesum patibulo cruces affixum, et cum beato 97 “Non hoc casu, sed divina dispensatione ges-
Thoma Apostolo non solum intuere in mani- tum est . . . nobis Thomae infidelitas ad fidem
bus eius fixuram clavorum, non solum mitte quam fides credentium disciplulorum profuit,
digitum tuum in locum clavorum, non solum quia dum ille ad fidem palpando reducitur”
mitte manum tuam in latus eius, sed totaliter Gregory the Great, Homiliarum In Evangelia,
per ostium lateris ingredere usque ad cor ipsius Lib. II, Homil. XXVI, P. L. 76, col. 1197, 1201,
Iesu, ibique ardentissimo Crucifixi amore in trans. C. W. Marx, “The virtues of scepticism:
Christum transformata, clavis divini timoris A medieval interpretation of Thomas’ doubt,”
confixa, lancea praecordialis dilectionis trans- Neophilologus 71 (1981): 296–304, p. 298. There
fixa, gladio intimae compassionis transverber- was a copy of Gregory’s Homilies on the Gospels
ata, nihil aliud quaeras, nihil aliud desideres, in recorded in the collections of the librar-
nullo alio velis consolari, quam ut cum Christo ies at San Marco and Santa Croce. Ullman
tu possis in cruce mori.” Saint Bonaventure, and Stadter, The Public Library, Appendix IV,
De perfectione vitae ad sorores VI.2 in Decem opus- “San Marco’s Catalogue,” p. 159; and Mazzi,
cula ad theologiam mysticam spectantia, 2nd edn. “L’inventario quattrocentistico della Biblioteca
[Quaracchi, 1900], p. 314). di S. Croce,” p. 103. Gregory’s sermons are
92 George Marcil, ed., Anthony of Padua, Sermons recorded in at least one Florentine a com-
for the Easter Cycle (New York, 1994), p. 102.This monplace book (Morpurgo, I manoscritti,
has been discussed by Benay and Rafanelli, vol. 1, p. 697), written by a saddlemaker in
Faith, Gender and the Senses, p. 107. 1445 that later passed through the hands of
93 “[I]l cuore dentro per amore si consuma e si a wool-trimmer and a shoemaker (Kent,
dissolve, come dice la Sposa:Vi scongiuro, figli- Cosimo de’ Medici, p. 74). On the reception
uole di Hierusalem, se troverete il mio diletto, of Gregory’s works during the Renaissance
che me lo annunciate, perch’io mi consumo per (including Florence specifically), see Ann
amor suo [Cant. 5]. Desidera ancora dissolversi e Kuzdale, “The Reception of Gregory in
esser con Cristo [Phil. 1]; e solamente in quello the Renaissance and Reformation,” in A
diletta. Dico adunque che questo è toccare e Companion to Gregory the Great, eds. Bronwen
maneggiare il Verbo, perché questo intelletto e Neil and Matthew Dal Santo (Leiden, 2013),
questo amore può esser da solo Dio; perché è 359–86, pp. 363–67, with further bibliography.
sopra la natura creata che l’uomo, lasciate le cose 98 “Thomas autem non solum vidit, sed etiam vul-
visibili, seguiti con tutto il cuore le cose invis- nera tetigit” (Thomas not only saw the wounds
ibili con tanto lume, tanto amore e desiderio.” but he touched them). Thomas Aquinas,
Girolamo Savonarola, “Della celsitudine del Summa Theologiae, vol. 55: The Resurrection
Verbo di Dio per il senso del toccare,” Prediche di of the Lord (3a. 53–59), ed. C. Thomas Moore
Fra Girolamo Savonarola de’ predicatori (Florence, (London, 1976), IIIa q. 54 a.4, p. 34.
1845), Sermon 3, pp. 29–30. Benay (“The pur- 99 Meditations on the Life of Christ. An Illustrated
suit of truth,” p. 6; and Benay and Rafanelli, Manuscript of the Fourteenth Century. Paris, Bibli-
Faith, Gender and the Senses, pp. 130–31) discusses othèque Nationale, ms. Ital. 115, trans. Isa Ragusa
Savonarola in these terms. and Rosalie B. Green (Princeton, 1961), p. 370.
94 Most, Doubting Thomas, p. 62–63. 100 Voragine, Golden Legend, p. 217.
101 “Se io non veggio nelle mani sue i forami and Function in the Late Medieval Bible, eds. Eyal
de’ chiavelli, e metta il dito mio ne’ luoghi Poleg and Laura Light [Leiden, 2013], 264–81.)
de’ chiavelli, e metta la mano mia nel lato Rhymed Gospels were also source material
suo, io non crederò.” Il Diatessaron Toscano for confraternal laude and street performances.
in Il Diatessaron il volgare italiano. Testi inediti In addition, street performers recited devo-
dei secoli XIII–XIV, eds. Venanzio Todesco, P. tional tracts in the vernacular, making texts,
Alberto Vaccari, and Marco Vattasso (Vatican doctrine (sometimes heretical), and exegeses
City, 1938), 173–368, chapter 179, lines 25–28 accessible to a wide audience (Cyrilla Barr,
and 1–9, pp. 364–65. For another example The Monophonic Lauda and the Lay Religious
from a Tuscan Gospel harmony, see Jacopo Confraternities of Tuscany and Umbria in the Late
Gradenigo, Gli Quattro Evangelii concordati in Middle Ages [Kalamazoo, 1988], p. 148; and
uno, ed. Francesca Gambino (Bologna, 1999), p. Rosa Salzburg, “The word on the street: Street
302.The 1471 Bible printed by Nicholas Jenson performers and devotional texts in Italian
reads:“Se io non vederò nelle sua mani le fissure Renaissance cities,” The Italianist 34, no. 3
de’ chiodi, e metterò il mio ditto nello cavito (2014): 336–48. On the accessibility of doctri-
dell chiodi, e se non metterò la mia mano nel nal questions, see Salzburg, “The word on the
suo costato, io non crederò.” Carlo Negroni, street;” and also Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici, pp. 59
ed., La Bibbia Volgare secondo la rara edizione del I and 102–04).
Ottobre MCCCCLXXI, vol. 9: Nuovo Testamento: 102 “Tomaso, uno de’ dodoci il quale era detto
i quattro Evangeli e gli atti degli Apostoli (Bologna, Didimo, non era con loro quando venne Gesù.
1886), John 20: 25, pp. 585–86. On the two Adunque dissero a lui gli altri discepoli: Noi
printed Bibles, see Kenelm Foster, “Vernacular vedemo il Signore. Ed egli disse a loro: Se io
scriptures in Italy,” in The West from the Fathers non veggio nelle mani sue i forami de’ chia-
to the Reformation, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, vol. 2 of velli, e metta il dito mio ne’ luoghi de’ chiavelli,
The Cambridge History of the Bible (Cambridge, e metta la mano mia nel lato suo, io non cred-
UK, 1969), 452–65, pp. 453–54. Vernacular erò. E dopo otto dì, erano anche i discepoli
bibles were used and circulated widely in suoi dentro e Tomaso con loro. E Gesù venne,
Renaissance Florence. Lay readers purchased stando le porte chiuse, e stette in mezzo e
them (from a cartolaio – bookseller – or sec- disse: Pace sia a voi. E poi disse a Tomaso: Metti
ondhand) or borrowed them (from other lay qua il ditto tuo, e guarda le mani mie, e fa’ in
owners or from religious institutions – espe- qua la mano tua e mettila nel lato mio; e non
cially those connected closely with the urban essere incredulo, ma fedele. Rispuose Tomaso
laity, such as the Mendicants and the so-called e disse: Signor mio e Dio mio. E Gesù disse
Yesuati – or from confraternities). Most surviv- a lui: Inperò che tu m’ài veduto, ài creduto.
ing Tuscan biblical manuscripts are not com- Beati coloro che non videro, e credettoro.” Il
plete Bibles but consist of the New Testament Diatessaron Toscano in Il Diatessaron il volgare
(especially the Gospels), a harmonized version italiano, chapter 179, lines 25–28 and 1–9, pp.
of the Gospels, the Gospels accompanied by 364–65. For another example from a Tuscan
a commentary by Augustinian friar Simone Gospel harmony, see Gradenigo, Gli Quattro
Fidati da Cascia, or a liturgical form of a Evangelii concordati in uno, p. 302. On manu-
Gospel Lectionary. (On vernacular Scriptures scripts of Tuscan Gospel harmonies dating
[complete Bibles and Gospel harmonies], see from the fifteenth century, see Gradenigo, Gli
Foster, “Vernacular scriptures in Italy.” On the Quattro Evangelii concordati in uno, pp. 178–82.
surviving manuscripts of vernacular Tuscan The printed Bible reads: “Ma Tomaso, uno de’
bibles, their readership, and use, see Sabrina dodici, il quale è detto Didimo, non era con
Corbellini, “The plea for lay Bibles in four- loro quando venne Iesù. Dissero a lui poi gli
teenth and fifteenth century Tuscany: The altri discepoli: noi abbiamo veduto il Signore.
role of confraternities,” in Faith’s Boundaries. E quello disse a loro: se io non vederò nelle sue
Laity and Clergy in Early Modern Confraternities, mani le fissure de’ chiodi, e metterò il mio ditto
eds. Nicholas Terpstra, Adriano Prosperi, and nello cavito delli chiodi, e se non metterò la mia
Stefania Pastore [Turnhout, 2012], 87–112; and mano nel suo costato, io non crederò. E dopo
Sabrina Corbellini, “Vernacular Bible manu- gli otto giorni un’altra volta erano gli discepoli
scripts in late medieval Italy: Cultural appro- suoi rinchiusi in casa, e Tomaso era con loro.
priation and textual transformation,” in Form Ed essendo le porte serrate, venne Iesù, e stette
in mezzo di loro, e disse: pace sia a voi. E poi his claim (ASF, Provisioni, Registri, 172 [1481],
disse Tomaso: poni il digito tuo qui nelle mie fols. 2v–3v, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del
mani, e poni la tua mano nel mio costato, e Verrocchio, pp. 299–301, doc. iv.31.x).
non essere più incredulo, ma fedele. Rispose 112 “[I]n San Tommaso si scorge la incredulità e
Tomaso, e disse: Signore mio, e Dio mio. E Iesù la troppa voglia di chiarirsi del fatto” Vasari-
disse a lui: Tomaso, perchè tu mi hai veduto, Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 363. This is Paul Barolsky’s
hai creduto; (e imperò) beati coloro che non elegant translation. Paul Barolsky, “Verrocchio’s
hanno veduto, e hanno creduto” (Negroni, La vision in bronze,” in Visions of Holiness: Art and
Bibbia Volgare, vol. 9: Nuovo Testamento, John Devotion in Renaissance Italy, eds. Andrew Ladis
20: 24–29, pp. 584–85). On lay readers of these and Shelley E. Zuraw (Athens, GA, 2001), 191–
texts, see the references in n. 101, p. 313 earlier. 93, p. 191. The verb chiarire is the Italian for
103 Glenn W. Most, Doubting Thomas (Cambridge, claresco in Latin, which translates as “to grow
MA, 2005), p. 49. bright.”
104 Most, Doubting Thomas, p. 55. 113 Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio,
105 Jean Luc Nancy, Noli me tangere. On the Raising pp. 73–76. The location of the statues would
of the Body, trans. Sarah Clift, Pascale-Anne have meant that their lustrous surfaces would
Brault and Michael Naas (New York, 2008), pp. catch the rays of the rising sun and sunlight
6–7. throughout the day. In addition, the sunlight
106 Nancy, Noli me tangere, p. 48. would have reflected off the niche, made from
107 Verrocchio’s sculptures exhibit, therefore, the polished and gilded marble. On the niche and
quality of pictorialism, for which, see Timothy sunlight, see Kristen Van Ausdall, “Tabernacles
Verdon, “Pictorialism in the sculpture of of the sacrament: Eucharistic imagery and clas-
Verrocchio,” in Verrocchio and Late Quattrocento sicism in the early Renaissance,” Ph. D. diss.,
Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven Bule, Alan Phipps Rutgers University, 1994, p. 130; and David
Darr and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi (Florence, Boffa, “Divine Illumination and the Portrayal
1992), 25–31. of the Miraculous in Donatello’s St Louis of
108 Dario A. Covi (“Andrea del Verrocchio 1435– Toulouse,” Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the
1488,” in Encyclopedia of Sculpture, ed. Antonia History of Art 31, no. 4 (2004–05): 279–91, p. 289.
Boström, 3 vols. [New York and London, 114 On Riemenschneider’s manipulation of light
2004], vol. 3, 1721–22, p. 1722) has described at Rothenburg, see Michael Baxandall, The
Thomas’ gesture “as if respectfully restraining Limewood Sculptors of Renaissance Germany
from touching him [Christ].” (New Haven, CT, 1980), pp. 189–90. My thanks
109 William Diebold, “‘Except I shall see . . . I will to Michael Cole for making this connection.
not believe’ (John 20:25): Typology, theology, Closer to Verrocchio is Lorenzo Ghiberti, who,
and historigiography in an Ottonian ivory Amy Bloch has convincingly argued, planned
diptych,” in Objects, Images, and the Word. Art in how the fall of light would affect the frame
the Service of the Liturgy, ed. Colum Hourihane figure of Samuel on the Gates of Paradise so
(Princeton, 2003), 257–73, esp. p. 263. that there is a long shadow behind him to indi-
110
Diebold, “‘Except I shall see,” 257–73, esp. cate his status as ghost (Dante used the word
p. 263. ombra – shade or shadow – in this way in the
111
This may have been the message intended Commedia). (Bloch, Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Gates of
by the Mercanzia, if we are to believe the Paradise, p. 251).
account of Luigi Passerini (writing in 1866), 115 Kristen Van Ausdall, “The Corpus Verum:
who claimed that the judges commissioned Orsanmichele, tabernacles, and Verrocchio’s
the statues to symbolize the idea that a sen- Incredulity of Thomas,” in Verrocchio and Late
tence should not be handed down in court Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven
until the truth has been touched by the hand Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi
(Luigi Passerini, Curiosità storico-artistiche fioren- Gioffredi (Firenze 1992), 33–49, p. 37ff.
tine 2 vols. [Florence, 1866], vol. 1, p. 131). This 116 John 10:9. On the metaphor of Christ as door,
has been noted by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, see Gervase Rosser, “Beyond naturalism in art
p. 81. Passerini cites a document of March 26, and poetry: Duccio and Dante on the Road to
1481, as his source (Curiosità storico, p. 132, n. 1), Emmaus.” Art History 35, no. 3 (2012): 474–97,
but the document he cites does not support pp. 493–94.
117 “[Q]uod manus in illis fenestris fornacis arden- Thomas, Figures 13, 18, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43,
tissimi amoris iesu(. . .) posuerat.” Ubertino da 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 68, 69, and 78.
Casale, Arbor vitae crucifixae (1305), 358aC, trans. 121 Erik Thunø, Image and Relic: Mediating the
Alexander Murray, Doubting Thomas in Medieval Sacred in Early Medieval Rome (Rome, 2002),
Exegesis and Art (Rome, 2006), p. 56. pp. 110–11, and Figure 113. On the tradition
118 Mazzi, “L’inventario quattrocentistico della of including a closed door in the scene of
Biblioteca di S. Croce,” p. 139. On transla- Doubting Thomas, see the discussion in Benay,
tions into the vernacular of the Arbor vitae “The pursuit of truth,” pp. 36–41.
crucifixae, see Ubertino da Casali, Arbor vitae 122 On sportelli and the resurrected Christ, see
crucifixae Jesu, ed. Charles T. Davis (Turin, Van Ausdall, “The Corpus Verum,” p. 47; and
1961), pp. iii–iv, with further references. For on the tabernacle door commissioned from
Bernardino’s debt to Ubertino, see Bernardino Verrocchio, see Butterfield, Sculptures of Andrea
da Siena, Opera Omnia, ed. Panifico Perantoni, del Verrocchio, p. 125 and Figures 158 and 159,
9 vols. (Quaracchi, 1950–65), vol. 6 (1959), pp. who attributes it to the artist’s workshop.
65–180. Bernardino’s sermons were copied in The example by Verrocchio or his workshop
Florentine zibaldoni (for which, see Morpurgo, was added to a preexisting tabernacle by
I manoscritti, vol. 1, index, p. 688). Urbertino’s Luca della Robbia. The bronze door shows
works were the subject of sermons directed to the resurrected Christ holding the cross and
a lay audience at Santa Croce in Florence, for shedding blood from his hand into a chalice.
which see Delcorno, “Predicazione volgare e The emphasis on Christ as door is emphasized
volgarizzamenti,” p. 682. in this example by the lunette by Luca della
119 “[A]t the time of his resurrection he [Christ] Robbia earlier, which shows the dead Christ
was, as it were, in a sort of intermediate state held by angels, one of whom touches the side
between the solidity of the body as it was before wound, and Christ’s arms overlapping the
his passion and the condition of a soul uncov- frame, gesturing downward toward the bronze
ered by any body. This explains why ‘when his door below showing the resurrected Christ.
disciples and Thomas with them were gathered 123 John 10:9.
together, Jesus came after the doors had been 124 Van Ausdall, “The Corpus Verum,” p. 41ff and
shut and stood in the midst, and said, Peace further bibliography provided in n. 26.
be unto you. Then he said to Thomas, Reach 125
Butterfield, “Verrocchio’s Christ and St
hither your finger,’ and so on.” Origen, Contra Thomas,” p. 232.
celsum, trans. Henry Chadwick (Cambridge, 126
Covi recognized that one of Verrocchio’s
UK, 1953; repr. 1980), Book 2, chapter 62, p. probable sources, a mosaic he could have
113. (“Erat autem post suam resurrectionem seen in Venice (the connection is implied by
quasi medius inter crassum corpus illud quod the unusual inclusion of the words quoted at
habebat antequam pateretur, et subtile quo the beginning of the inscription on Thomas’
anima induta conspicitur postquam prius cor- robe), emphasizes Christ’s connection to
pus deposuit. Unde cum essent simul discip- doors, though Covi did not acknowledge how
uli ejus et Thomas venit Jesus, januis clausis, et Verrocchio presents his Christ as a door. Dario
stetit in medio et dixit: Pax vobis; et Thomae: A. Covi, “Verrocchio and Venice, 1469,” Art
‘Infer digitum tuum huc, etc.” Origenis, Libros Bulletin 65 (1983), 253–73, pp. 258–60.
Octo Contra Celsum in Origenis, Opera Omnia 127 I am grateful to Ilaria Andreoli for drawing my
in vol. 11 of Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series attention to this image.
Graeca, ed. Jacques-Paul Migne, 161 vols. [Paris, 128 Hebrews 10:19–20.
1857–66], Book 2, chapter 62, p. 894. Origen’s 129 Herbert L. Kessler, Spiritual Seeing. Picturing
Contra Celsum was first published in Venice in God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art (Philadelphia,
1481, but knowledge of his ideas circulated PA, 2000), p. 101. See Holmes, Miraculous Images,
well before this date in Florence (Edgar Wind, p. 200.
“The revival of Origen,” in Studies in Art and 130 “Et ut breviter dicam, omnes species visibilis
Literature for Belle da Costa Greene, ed. Dorothy et invisibilis creaturae, omnesque allegoriae,
Miner [Princeton, 1954], 412–24). sive in factis, sive in dictis, per omnem sanctam
120 See, for instance, the following illustrations in utriusque Testamenti Scripturam, velamina
Schunk-Heller, Die Darstellung des ungläubigen paterni radii sunt, et ipse radius secundum
carnem suam suimet secundum Deitatum relinquat; necesse est, ut igne candefacta atque
maximum velamen est nobisque connaturale” arte fabrili retractata effigies, non jam eadem
Joannis Scoti, Expositiones super ierarchiam cae- conservetur, sed commutata ac subdistracta
lestem S. Dionysii, in Opera Omnia, in vol. 122 of appareat” S. P. N. Methodii, Ex Libro De res-
Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Patrologia Latina, urrectione, in Opera Omnia, vol. 18 of Patrologiae
ed. Jacques–Paul Migne, 217 vols. (Paris, 1841– Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, ed. Jacques–
902), 125–266, p. 136. (“And to speak briefly, Paul Migne, 161 vols. (Paris, 1857–66), bk. 3, ch.
every kind of creature, visible and invisible, 6, col. 271.
every allegory, whether in word or deed, in the 139 “Sed quemadmodum si statua cuiuslibet sol-
whole of sacred scripture, in each of the testa- ubilis metalli aut igne liquesceret aut con-
ments, is a veil over the father’s radiance, and tereretur in puluerem aut confunderetur in
that radiance itself, whether in the form of the massam, et eam uellet artifex rursus ex illius
flesh which veils its own very great Godhead, materiae quantitate reparare, nihil interesset ad
is within our own nature.”) eius integritatem quae particula materiae cui
131 Schunk-Heller, Die Darstellung des ungläubigen membro statuae redderetur, dum tamen totum
Thomas in der italienischen Kunst, Figures 13, 32, ex quo constituta fuerat restituta resumeret, ita
33, 35, and 78. deus, mirabiliter atque ineffabiliter artifex, de
132 “Così la neve al sol si disigilla.” Dante Alighieri, toto quo caro nostra constiterat, ea, mirabili et
Paradiso, Canto 33, line 64 in Dante Alighieri, ineffabili celeritate restituet” Saint Augustine
The Divine Comedy, trans. John Ciardi (London, of Hippo, Enchiridion, ed. E. Evans, ch. 89, in
2003), vol. 1, pp. 374–75. This has been dis- Aurelii Augustini Opera, ed. Michael P. J. van den
cussed by Holmes, Miraculous Image, p. 220. Hout et al. (Turnhout, 1969), pt. 13, vol. 2, CCL
133
Furthermore, in the story told in Luke 46, p. 97. Mazzi, “L’inventario quattrocentistico
(24:36–41) – which does not focus on Thomas della Biblioteca di S. Croce,” p. 101.
specifically but considers a group of disciples – 140 “Ipsa igitur terrena materies, quae discedente
Christ calls his followers to handle his body anima fit cadaver, non ita in resurrectione
and see his true nature (“for a spirit hath not reparabitur, ut ea quae dilabuntur et in alias
flesh and bones, as you see me to have”). atque alias rerum species vertuntur, quam-
134
Giuseppe Guido Ferrero, ed., Opere di vis ad corpus redeant unde dilapsa sunt, ad
Benvenuto Cellini (Turin, 1980), p. 522, trans. easdem quoque corporis partes ubi fuerunt,
Michael W. Cole, Cellini and the Principles of redire necesse sit. Alioquin, si capillus redit
Sculpture (Cambridge, UK, 2002), p. 50. quod tam crebra tonsura detraxit; si unguibus
135 “[Q]uod manus in illis fenestris fornacis arden- quod toties dempsit exsectio, immoderata et
tissimi amoris iesu(. . .) posuerat.” Ubertino da indecens cogitantibus resurrectionem carnis,
Casale, Arbor vitae crucifixae (1305), 358aC, trans. et ideo non credentibus, occurrit informitas . . .
Alexander Murray, Doubting Thomas in Medieval Sed quemadmodum si statua cuiuslibet solu-
Exegesis and Art (Rome, 2006), p. 56. bilis metalli igne liquesceret, vel contereretur
136 Bonaventure, Holiness of Life, p. 63. (“[S] in pulverem, vel confunderetur in massam,
ed totaliter per ostium lateris ingredere et eam vellet artifex rursum ex illius materia
usque ad cor ipsius Iesu, ibique ardentissimo et quantitate reparare, nihil interesset ad eius
Crucifixi amore in Christum transformata.” integritatem quae particula materiae cui mem-
Bonaventure, De perfectione vitae, p. 314). bro statuae redderetur, dum tamen totum ex
137 However, it did not feature in discussions of quo constituta fuerat, restituta resumeret; ita
the resurrection of Christ (but it was his res- Deus, mirabiliter atque ineffabiliter artifex,
urrection that served as the promise for all the de toto quo caro nostra exstiterat, eam mira-
saved). bili celeritate restituet; nec aliquid attinebit ad
138 “Si nullo prorsus modo voluerit artifex habere eius redintegrationem,utrum capilli ad capil-
deturpatum statuam quam tanto studio ele- los redeant et ungues ad ungues, an quidquid
gantiaque elaboravit, rursum plane inducet in eorum perierat, mutetur in carnem, et in partes
animum, ut conflatam illam, qualis antea erat, alias corporis revocetur; curante Artificis prov-
reficiat. Quod si fundere denuo, atque ab inte- identia ne quid indecens fiat” Peter Lombard,
gro restituere et instaurare non placeat: sed Sententiae in IV libris distinctae, ed. Collegium
medicans tantum et corrigens, ita uti se habet, S. Bonaventurae, 2 vols. (Rome, 1971–81),
vol. 2 (3rd edn.), Dist. 44, ch. 2, p. 518. On the Dalarun and Lino Leonardi, eds., Biblioteca
use of the statue analogy, see Caroline Walker Agiografica Italiana [BAI]. Repetorio di testi e
Bynum, The Resurrection of the Body in Western manoscritti, secoli XIII–XV, 2 vols. [Florence,
Christianity, 200–1336 (New York, 1995), pp. 99 2003], vol. 2 p. 601).
and 123. 144 “E dopo otto dì, erano anche i discepoli suoi
141
Charles T. Davis, “The early collection of dentro e Tomaso con loro. E Gesù venne,
books of S. Croce in Florence,” Proceedings stando le porte chiuse, e stette in mezzo e
of the American Philosophical Society 107, no. disse: Pace sia a voi.” Il Diatessaron Toscano in
5 (Oct. 15, 1963): 399–414, p. 399. The meta- Il Diatessaron il volgare italiano, 179: 26, p. 364.
phor of the reforged sculpture continued to “E dopo gli otto giorni un’altra volta erano
be used through the twelfth century when gli discepoli suoi rinchiusi in casa, e Tomaso
Scholastics debated whether reforging a statue era con loro. Ed essendo le porte serrate, venne
changed it fundamentally and thus whether a Iesù, e stette in mezzo di loro, e disse: pace sia
resurrected body was the same as an earthly a voi” (Negroni, La Bibbia Volgare, vol. 9: Nuovo
body. Bynum, Resurrection of the Body, p. 134. Testamento, John 20:26, p. 585).
See, for instance, Cod. Vat. Lat. 10754, in Die 145 “Erat autem post suam resurrectionem quasi
Unsterblichkeit der Seele und die Auferstehung des medius inter crassum corpus illud quod habe-
Leibes: Eine problemgeschichtliche Untersuchung der bat antequam pateretur” Origenis, Libros Octo
frühscholastischen Sentenzen- und Summenliteratur Contra Celsum in Origenis, Opera Omnia in
von Anselm von Laon bis Wilhelm von Auxerre, ed. Patrologia Graeca, ed. Migne, vol. 11, Book 2,
Richard Heinzmann, Beiträge zur Geschichte chapter 62, p. 894. This has been discussed by
der Philosophie und Theologie des Mittelalters: Benay, “The pursuit of truth,” p. 23.
Texte und Untersuchungen 40.3 (Münster, 146 Origen, Contra celsum, ed. Chadwick, Book 2,
1965), p. 210, lines 52–59: “Nullum ergo tunc chapter 60, p. 112. (“quibusdam circum sepul-
erit membrum corporis mei quod sit modo, et cra apparere mortuorum umbras et imagines.
ita aliud corpus habebo. Quod falsum esse con- Igitur ex aliqua re subjecta imagines illae exsis-
stat, Iob attestur: quem visurus sum ego ipse et tunt. Res autem haec subjecta anima est, quae
non alius, id est in eadem carnis substantia, non in corpore splendido, ut Graeci loquuntur, et
alienata. Unde idem: et in carne mea videbo simili luminis substitit.” Origenis, Libros Octo
deum salvatorem meum (Iob 19,26). Dicamus Contra Celsum in Origenis, Opera Omnia in
ergo cum Iob et Augustino, quod idem erit Patrologia Graeca, ed. Migne, vol. 11, Book 2,
corpus quia ex eadem materia constabitur et chapter 60, p. 891).
forte accidentale est illi materiae esse manum 147 Morpurgo, I manoscritti, vol. 1, index, p. 693.
vel caput. Non ergo nimium emungamus, ne 148 Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers,
forte sanguinem eliciamus. Melius est enim esse trans. Robert D. Hicks, 2 vols. (London, 1925),
simplicem catholicum quam disertum haereti- vol. 1, pp. 480–81, bk. 5, ch. 33. This has been
cum.” discussed by Amy R. Bloch, “Donatello’s
142
Thomas Aquinas, Sentence commentary, bk. Chellini Madonna, Light, and Vision,” in
4, dist. 44, art. I, quaestiuncula 2, obj. 4, and Renaissance Theories of Vision, eds. John Shannon
quaestiuncula 3, Opera omnia (Parma 1852– Hendrix and Charles H. Carman (Farnham,
73), ed. Vernon J. Bourke, 25 vols (New York, Surrey, 2010), 63–88, pp. 79–80. Laertius’ Lives
1948), vol. 7, 1072–75, referred to by Bynum, of Eminent Philosophers was widely known in
Resurrection of the body, p. 239. Florence after its translation into Latin by
143 Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Ambrogio Traversari in the 1430s and into the
Martyrs, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1972; rev. 2000), vernacular, also during the fifteenth century,
vol. 2, p. 15. This account has been disas is evident from the many copies of it in
cussed by Brigitte Buettner, “From bones extant fifteenth-century manuscripts, and from
to stones – Reflections on jeweled reliquar- its presence among the books owned by the
ies,” in Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds. Bruno fifteenth-century physician Giovanni Chellini.
Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint (Berlin, 2005), Charles Bernhard Schmitt, “The rediscovery
43–59, p. 43. A vernacular telling of the mar- of ancient skepticism in modern times,” in
tyrdom of Saint Polycarp was included in a fif- Reappraisals in Renaissance Thought, ed. Charles
teenth-century Venetian manuscript. (Jacques Bernhard Schmitt (London, 1989), 225–51,
pp. 233 and 247, n 50; and Bloch, “Donatello’s models in the Quattrocento,” in Verrocchio and
Chellini Madonna,” pp. 79–80. Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven
149
The humanist Niccolo Niccoli and the Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi
physician Giovanni Chellini, for instance, Giofreddi (Florence, 1992), 217–24, p. 219; and
owned copies (Ullman and Stadter, The Hannelore Glasser, Artist’s Contracts of the Early
Public Library of Renaissance Florence, p. 73; and Renaissance, Ph. D. diss., Columbia University,
Bloch, “Donatello’s Chellini Madonna,” p. 67). 1965, Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine
150 Aristotle, The Physics, trans. Philip H. Arts (New York, 1977), p. 118.
Wicksteed and Francis M. Cornford, 2 vols. 157 Cadogan has pointed out that the procedure
(London, 1929), vol. 1, pp. 129–31. This has of making clay models and draping them in
been discussed by Bloch, “Donatello’s Chellini fabric was a procedure long used in bronze
Madonna,” p. 80. casting. Cadogan, “Linen drapery studies by
151
Several scholars, following Fabriczy, have Verrocchio,” pp. 40–41, n. 34.
claimed that Verrocchio had made a life-size 158 On the importance of light for Verrocchio’s
model of Saint Thomas that was purchased sculpture, see Kathleen Weil Garris Brandt,
by the Università dei Mercanti in 1482 to “Leonardo e la scultura,” Lettura vinciana 38
be placed on public display in the Palazzo (April 18, 1998): 9–39, p. 15.
della Mercanzia. However, Dario Covi has 159 “Nelle tenebre o luce non s’inpaccia perché
explained how this idea was based on a mis- la natura per sè li genera nelle sue sculture”
understanding of the term “bozza” used in (“He [the sculptor] is not concerned with
the document apparently recording the sale. darkness or light because nature itself gener-
Although one of the meanings of “bozza” is ates them in his sculptures” Leonardo da Vinci,
model, the term was used more generally (and trans. in Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s Paragone,
more commonly) for an unfinished work, and ch. 36, lines 72–73, pp. 260–61). I am grateful to
the document probably refers to this rather Michael W. Cole for this point.
than to a lost model. (For sources for this dis- 160
Massimo Leoni, “Casting techniques in
cussion, see n. 62, pp. 270–271 in Chapter 1.) Verrochio’s workshop when the Christ and
Nevertheless, Vasari does say explicitly that St Thomas was made,” in Verrocchio’s Christ
Verrocchio made models for the Christ and and St Thomas. A Masterpiece of Sculpture from
Saint Thomas, and the artist must have made Renaissance Florence, ed. Loretta Dolcini,
models, given that the sculpture was made exh. cat., Palazzo Vecchio, Florence, and The
from bronze.Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 362. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
152 Christina Neilson, “Rediscovered photographs December 5, 1992–April 17, 1993 (New York,
of two terracotta modelli by Verrocchio,” 1992), 83–100, pp. 89–90.
Burlington Magazine 154, no. 1316 (November, 161 Donatello employed the skillet maker Rosso
2012): 762–67. Padellaio to cast the bronze basin for the
153
Butterfield, “The Christ and St. Thomas of Fontana Maggiore and the tinker Andrea
Andrea del Verrocchio,” p. 74. Calderai to cast the bronzes for the altar in the
154 Günter Passavant, Verrocchio. Sculptures, Paintings Santo in Padua (Leoni, “Casting techniques in
and Drawings, trans. Katherine Watson (London, Verrocchio’s workshop,” p. 87). According to
1969), pp. 59–60. For the most important stud- Flaten, the fifteenth-century medalist Niccolò
ies on the drapery studies see my chapter 1, Fiorentino probably had the medals produced
n. 45, p. 269 earlier. in his workshops cast in a “remote facility.”
155 Vasari describes this practice in the construc- An inventory of 1515 made of his estate and
tion of models for marble sculpturing. Giorgio workshop after the artist’s death lists mate-
Vasari, Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction rials for making bronzes but does not refer
to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture to a foundry or a furnace. Flaten notes also
and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most that Fiorentino does not provide any indica-
Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, ed. tion as to the existence of such a facility in
Gerald Baldwin Brown, trans. Louise S. either of his tax returns of 1480 or 1498, and
Maclehouse (New York, 1960), pp. 148–51. Flaten suggests therefore that he had the med-
156 Lavin, “Bozzetti and Modelli,” p. 97. For spe- als cast elsewhere, perhaps at the workshop
cific cases, see Gary M. Radke, “Benedetto da of his older cousins Antonio and Zanobi di
Maiano and the use of full scale preparatory Cola Spinelli, both goldsmiths, who inherited
the family’s goldsmith’s workshop in Florence e le opera di Leonardo da Vinci [Milan, 1919]).
in 1458 (Arne R. Flaten, “Portrait medals Michelangelo turned to the assistance of an
and assembly-line art in late Quattrocento expert for casting his Julius II in Bologna in
Florence,” in The Art Market in Italy (15th-17th 1507, though the result was a failure (Cole,
Centuries). Il Mercato dell’arte in Italia [secc. Cellini and the Principles of Sculpture, p. 45;
xv–xvii], eds. Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. see Paola Barocchi, ed., Scritti del Arte del
Matthew, and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco Cinquecento, 3 vols. [Milan, 1973], vol. 1, pp. 391–
[Modena, 2003], 127–39, pp. 129 and 133). 92). Giovanni Francesco Rustici employed the
Flaten (“Portrait medals and assembly-line same founder as Michelangelo (Bernardino,
art in late Quattrocento Florence,” p. 133) has a cannon maker from Milan), though with suc-
pointed out that Maso di Bartolomeo’s Libro cess, for his figures for the Florentine Baptistery
di Ricordi includes references to casting works (Cole, Cellini and the Principles of Sculpture, p.
in bronze for other artists in the mid-Quat- 45; see Gaetano Milanesi, “Documenti riguar-
trocento. Bertoldo di Giovanni’s medal com- danti le statue di marmo e di bronzo fatte per
memorating the Pazzi conspiracy was cast le porte di San Giovanni di Firenze da Andrea
by another artist, Guacialoti, and Bertoldo’s del Monte San Savino e da G. F. Rustici,” in
Belerephon Taming Pegasus (Vienna) was cast Gaetano Milanesi, Sulla storia dell’arte Toscana:
by his assistant, Adriano Fiorentino, a medal- Scritti varii [Siena, 1873], pp. 247–61). In his
ist (Flaten, “Portrait medals and assembly-line Autobiography, Cellini implies that the use of
art in late Quattrocento Florence;” and Luke foundrymen to cast sculptures in bronze was
Syson, “Bertoldo di Giovanni, republican not uncommon, and he lamented their inept-
court artist,” in Artistic Exchange and Cultural ness: “Often founders are called on to help
Translation in the Italian Renaissance city, eds. make [bronze] figures, but disasters occur
Stephen J. Campbell and Stephen J. Milner because they do not have enough experience,
(Cambridge, UK, 2004), 96–133, p. 108. See or use enough care, and they cause our hard
Wilhelm von Bode, Bertoldo und Lorenzo dei work to be lost.” (“[M]aestri d’artiglierie il
Medici: Die Kunstpolitik des Lorenzo il Magnifico più delle volte sono chiamati da quelli che
im Spiegel der Werke seines Lieblingkünstlers fanno le figure, e venendo alcuni casi ter-
Bertoldo di Giovanni (Frieburg im Breisgau, ribili che promette l’arte, quei tali maestri
1925), pp. 88–91; James David Draper, Bertoldo d’artiglierie non avendo cotai sperienzie,
di Giovanni: Sculptor of the Medici Household, e scarsi di diligenzie, sono causa che le dette
(Columbia, MO, 1992), pp. 176–85, cat. 18). fatiche si perdono.” Benvenuto Cellini,
Antonio Lombardo subcontracted bell cast- Opere, ed. Bruno Maier [Milan, 1968], pp.
ers to pour his bronzes (Cole, Cellini and 808–09). Scalini has argued that Alberti did
the Principles of Sculpture, p. 45. See Bertrand not discuss bronze casting in his De statua
Jestaz, La Chapelle Zen à San Marc de Venise: (whereas he does discuss modeling), because
D’Antonio à Tullio Lombardo [Stuttgart, 1986], it was usually carried out by specialist
pp. 58–60). Jacopo Sansovino relied on experts founders (Mario Scalini, “Original Settings
when he began making bronzes in Venice. of Nonreligious Bronzes in the Renaissance,”
(Cole, Cellini and the Principles of Sculpture, p. in Large Bronzes in the Renaissance, ed. Peta
45; see Bruce Boucher, The Sculpture of Jacopo Motture, vol. 64 of Studies in the History of Art
Sansovino, 2 vols. [New Haven, CT, 1991], [2003], 31–55, p. 31). And Cole has noted that
vol. 1, p. 145). Tribolo had his ten-foot-high sculptors who were also casters were often
satyr cast by Zanobi Portigiani (Cole, Cellini goldsmiths (Cole, Cellini and the Principles of
and the Principles of Sculpture, p. 45. See James Sculpture, pp. 45–46).
Holderbaum, “Notes on Triboli I: A doc- 162 Pomponius Gauricus, De sculptura (1504), eds.
umented bronze by Tribolo,” Burlington André Chastel and Robert Klein (Geneva,
Magazine 99 (1957): 336–43, 369–72). 1969), pp. 218–19. It would appear that
Ludovico Sforza sent for founders in Florence Donatello had his bronzes cast by specialist
when Leonardo was preparing his equestrian calderai. On this see Bruno Bearzi, “La tecnica
monument (about which Michelangelo later fusoria di Donatello,” in Donatello e il suo tempo.
taunted him) (Cole, Cellini and the Principles Atti dell’ VIII convegno internazionale di studi sul
of Sculpture, p. 45; see the documents in Luca rinascimento, 1966 (Florence, 1968), 97–106, pp.
Beltrami, Documenti e memorie rituardanti la vita 97–106.
163 Bearzi, “La tecnica fusoria di Donatello,” pp. Dolcini, and Edgar Lein in Die Christus-
101–02. Thomas-Gruppe von Andrea del Verrocchio, eds.
164 Luca Boschetto, “Ghiberti e i tre compare. Un Herbert Beck, Maraike Bückling and Edgar
nuovo documento sulla fusione dei telai della Lein (Frankfurt am Main, 1996). There were
seconda porta del Battistero,” Mitteilungen des different advantages for casting directly or
Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 53, no. 1 indirectly. In the indirect method copies of the
(2009): 145–49. original model were made (called “intermod-
165 Bloch, Lorenzo Ghiberti’s Gates of Paradise, els”) and only the copies were destroyed in
p. 221. the casting; the original model was preserved,
166
“[F]attone i modelli e le forme, le gettò.” which was advantageous as bronze casting was
Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 362. a risky enterprise and a lot could go wrong.
167 “[R]acconcio che ebbe il primo modello, lo With the direct method, if the casting is a fail-
gettò di bronzo, ma non finì già del tutto; ure, the artist must begin again, making a new
perchè essendo riscaldato e raffreddato nel model. On the other hand, the direct casting
gettarlo, si morì in pochi giorni in quella method was preferable for conveying surface
città [Venezia].” Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 368. details and required less cold work, because
(Reducing the first model that he (Verrocchio) in indirect casting, an intermediate mold was
had, he cast it in bronze, but he did not finish required, and the use of this mold tended to
all of it, because he overheated and caught a lead to a diminished surface quality for bronze
chill during the casting, and he died a few days (Jane L. Bassett, The Craftsman Revealed: Adriaen
later in that city [Venice]). de Vries, Sculptor in Bronze [Los Angeles, CA,
168 A courier bound for Venice was instructed to 2008], p. 264).
find Verrocchio in Treviso in 1469, where the 170 This connection between sculptor and Thomas
artist was acquiring copper sheets for the palla. is made explicitly in a late medieval Norwegian
(AOF, VIII.I.49 [Quaderno di cassa, January, crucifix onto which the artist wrote “Thomas”
1468/69–June, 1469], fol. 12 left side, tran- along Christ’s arm (Martin Blindheim, Painted
scribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 312, Wooden Sculpture in Norway c. 1100–1250 [Oslo,
doc.VI.34.f). 1998], pp. 41 and 80, cat. 61). On this, see my
169 Richard E. Stone (“A new interpretation of the forthcoming study: Living Devotion: Animating
casting of Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes,” Late Medieval and Early Modern Statues. For a
in Small Bronzes in the Renaissance, ed. Debra useful discussion of making bronze sculptures
Pincus, vol. 62 of Studies in the History of and the senses involved (especially the avoid-
Art (2001), 54–69, pp. 55–56) argued that ance of touch), see Ittai Weinryb, The Bronze
the Christ and Saint Thomas was cast directly, Object in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, UK,
whereas Massimo Leoni (“La tecnica fon- 2016), pp. 44–54.
deria ai tempi del Verrocchio,” in Verrocchio and 171 Theophilus Presbyter, De diversis artibus, Book
Late Quattrocento Italian Sculpture, eds. Steven III, trans. and ed. Charles Reginald Dodwell
Bule, Alan Phipps Darr, and Fiorella Superbi (London, 1961), chapter, 30, p. 102.This has been
Gioffredi [Florence, 1992], 157–61, pp. 159–60; discussed by Weinryb, The Bronze Object, p. 52.
and “Casting technique in Verrocchio’s work- 172 For another argument about how in the sculp-
shop,” pp. 89–90) argued it was cast indirectly. ture Thomas stands for Verrocchio, see Andreas
The basis for these different opinions lies in Beyer, “Verus oculus oder die Konversion des
the interpretations of the evidence of the Andrea del Verrocchio,” in Die Christ-Thomas
sculptures themselves, specifically the presence Gruppe von Andrea del Verrocchio, eds. Herbert
of core material on the statues’ reverses, the Beck, Maraike Bückling and Edgar Lein
varying thickness of the bronze walls of the (Frankfurt, 1996), 103–19.
sculptures, and the lack of similitude between 173 Alison Wright, “‘Touch the truth?’ Desiderio
the fronts and reverses of the sculptures. For da Settignano, Renaissance relief, and the body
technical studies of the sculptures, see also of Christ,” Sculpture Journal 21, no. 1 (2012):
the essays published in OPD restauro 3 (1991) 7–25.
reporting on the sculpture’s recent restora- 174
On the theoretical framework and broader
tion and those by Giorgio Bonsanti, Loretta anthropological context of this attitude see
Daniel Miller (“Materiality: An introduction,” about the role of artifice – see Bret Rothstein,
in Materiality, ed. Daniel Miller [Durham, “Vision and devotion in Jan van Eyck’s Virgin
2005], p. 1 and the contents of this volume), and Child with Canon Joris van der Paele,” Word
who has explored how most of the world’s and Image 15, no. 3 (1999): 262–76.
religions (ancient through modern) express 175 Norman E. Land, The Viewer as Poet. The
the conviction that the material world is mere Renaissance Response to Art (University Park,
illusion– that which lies behind the material PA, 1994), pp. 52–53.
world is the truth – and yet, “paradoxically, 176 Nikolaos Mesaries, Description of the Church
material culture has been of considerable con- of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople, ed. and
sequence as the means of expressing this con- trans. Glanville Downey, in Transactions of the
viction.” And for a similar interpretation of Jan American Philosophical Society 47 (1957): 855–
Van Eyck’s Virgin and Child with Canon Joris 918, p. 888. This has been discussed by Land,
van der Paele (c. 1434–36, Groeningemuseum, Viewer as Poet, pp. 51–52. 1434-1536
Bruges) – though with a different conclusion
4: THE SCULPTURED IMAGINATION
1 Bernard Berenson was the first to attribute look as though brown wash has been applied,
the drawing to Verrocchio, in 1938 (Bernard but these have so little connection to what is
Berenson, The Drawings of the Florentine depicted, they are probably more likely to be
Painters, 3 vols. (Chicago, 1938), vol. 1, pp. 48, areas of discoloration (this is also supported
n. 2, and 59; vol. 2, p. 359, no. 2782A; and vol. when one views the drawing from the reverse).
3, figure. 127). All later scholars have accepted On the drawing’s technique, see also Bambach,
this opinion. For a summary of attributions, Drawing and Painting, pp. 259–62; and Bambach,
see Carmen C. Bambach in Leonardo da Vinci. Leonardo da Vinci, pp. 242–45.
Master Draftsman, ed. Carmen C. Bambach, 5 The hatching in ink was executed from right
exh. cat., The Metropolitan Museum of Art, to left, whereas the hatching in black chalk was
New York, January 22–March 30, 2003 (New done left to right. Bambach has noted that the
Haven, CT, 2003), pp. 242–45, cat. 1. delicate reworking with short, left-handed par-
2 According to Claire Van Cleave, black chalk allel hatching in brush and gray wash, which
used in the fifteenth century was a naturally unifies the tonal structure of the shadows on
occurring shale made from carbon and clay, the woman’s temple and cheek in the Christ
cut down to a convenient size to be fitted in Church drawing, may be the hand of the
a holder. Claire Van Cleave, “Tradition and young Leonardo at work. Bambach, Drawing
Innovation in the Early History of Black Chalk and Painting, pp. 260–61.
Drawing.” In Florentine Drawing at the Time of 6 The pricking is very finely done and goes over
Lorenzo the Magnificent, ed. Elizabeth Cropper, all areas of the drawing, including the hair,
Villa Spelman Colloquia, vol. 4, Florence, 1992 veil, plaits, clothing, and her face and neck
(Bologna, 1994), 231–44, p. 232. (including every fold in her neck), though
3 On the sculptural tonal range achieved by not including the apex of the veil at the top of
Verrocchio in his drawings and Renaissance the drawing. As Johannes Nathan recognized,
understandings of the potential of black chalk, though, there are significant deviations between
see my chapter 1, n. 27, p. 267 earlier. the actual drawing and the pricking, including
4 Van Cleave has argued that the retouching in the hair, drapery, contour of the forehead, the
ink was done as an afterthought to the origi- tip of the nose, and the mouth (“The Working
nal drawing and may even be by another art- Methods of Leonardo da Vinci and Their
ist (Van Cleave, “Tradition and Innovation,” p. Relation to Previous Artistic Practice” [Ph.D.
234, n. 12). I agree with Van Cleave: I think it is diss., Courtauld Institute of Art, University
possible that the hatching may have been done of London, 1995], p. 123). Although Nathan
in Verrocchio’s workshop because it supple- (“Working Methods of Leonardo da Vinci,” pp.
ments the stumping. There are also areas that 138–39), who examined the drawing before it
was removed from its support, claimed that the Rossi, “Head of an Angel,” in Chapman and
pricks did not perforate the paper, Bambach Faietti, Fra Angelico to Leonardo, p. 186, cat. 41.
(Leonardo da Vinci, p. 244) has argued that they 16 This has been noted by Bambach, Leonardo da
did and that the holes contain charcoal dust. Vinci, p. 245.
7 Van Cleave (“Tradition and Innovation,” p. 17 Alexander Nagel, “Leonardo’s Sfumato,” Res 24
234) proposes that it probably served as a car- (1993): 7–20.
toon for the Virgin in a painting. 18 The outline is more loosely defined than it
8 This has been noted by Nathan, “Working appears (it seems more exaggerated because of
Methods of Leonardo da Vinci,” p. 123. On the ink outline around the chin and the prick-
charcoal dust in the holes see n. 6, pp. 321–322 ing around the face and hair), though it is not
earlier in this chapter. sfumato.
9 A similar attention to surface, and with the 19 See, for instance, Bambach, Drawing and
same intention as an independent work of art, Painting, p. 261.
can be recognized in Leonardo’s silverpoint 20 Claire Farago, Leonardo da Vinci’s Paragone. A
drawing Bust of a Warrior (c. 1475–80, British Critical Interpretation (Leiden, 1992), p. 137. On
Museum, London), which Hugo Chapman the relationship between painting and sculp-
has plausibly proposed was inspired by a relief ture in Leonardo’s oeuvre, see Kathleen Weil
sculpture by Verrocchio (Hugo Chapman, Garris Brandt, “Leonardo e la scultura,” Lettura
“Introduction,” and Hugo Chapman, vinciana 38 (April 18, 1998): 9–39, and on relief
“Leonardo da Vinci, Bust of a Warrior,” in Hugo sculpture specifically, see pp. 26–36.
Chapman and Marzia Faietti, Fra Angelico to 21 Van Cleave, “Tradition and Innovation,” p. 234.
Leonardo. Italian Renaissance Drawings, exh. cat., 22 Karen-edis Barzman, The Florentine Academy
The British Museum, April 22–July 25, 2010 and the Early Modern State: The Discipline of
[London, 2010], pp. 66 and 204–05, cat. 50). Disegno (Cambridge, UK, 2000), p. 145.
10 Elizabeth Cropper, ed., Florentine Drawing at the 23 Bambach, Drawing and Painting, p. 377 n. 62. On
Time of Lorenzo the Magnificent, Villa Spelman fifteenth-century theories of disegno, see Luigi
Colloquia, vol. 4, Florence, 1992 (Bologna, Grassi, Il disegno italiano, Il Trecento e Quattrocento
1994), p. ix. (Venice, 1961), pp. x–xiii; and Andreina Griseri,
11 On technical developments in drawing, with a “Il disegno,” Storia dell’arte italiana 9, no. 1
consideration of their theoretical significance, (1980): 187–226.
see Bambach, Drawing and Painting. 24 “[S]ai che ttaverra, pratichando il disengniare di
12 Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, penna / che tti fara sperto, praticho e chapacie
scultori ed architettori, 1550, rev. 1568, ed. Gaetano di molto disengno entro / la testa tua.” Cennino
Milanesi, 9 vols. (Florence, 1878), vol. 3, p. 364. Cennini, Cennino Cennini’s Il Libro dell’arte.
13 A memorandum of 1335, for instance, by the A new English Translation and Commentary with
Trevisan notary and banker Oliviero Forzetta Italian Transcription, ed. and trans. Lara Broecke
expresses his desire to acquire books of draw- (London, 2015), ch. 13, p. 34,
ings by the Venetian painter Angelo di Tedaldo 25 “[L]a prima misura che pigli adisegniare piglia
and his sons while in Venice (Luciano Gargan, luna de / lle tre che a il viso chenn a in tutto
“Oliviero Forzetta e la nascita del collezi- tre cioe latesta il viso e l mento co / llaboccha
onismo nel Veneto,” in La pittura nel Veneto: e pigliando una diqueste te ghuida di tutta lafi-
il Trecento, ed. Mauro Lucco, 2 vols. [Milan, ghura de / chasamenti dall una fighura allaltra
1992], vol. 2, 503–16, pp. 509–11). On this and ede perfetta tuo ghuida aoper / ando il tuo
other examples from the Quattrocento, see intelletto disaper ghuidar lepredette figure
Chapman, “Introduction,” in Chapman and e misure e questo / sifa perchelastoria o ffi-
Faietti, Fra Angelico to Leonardo, p. 22. ghura sara alta che cho mano non potrai agiu /
14 Chapman, “Introduction,” in Chapman and gniere per misuralla conviene che conintelletto
Faietti, Fra Angelico to Leonardo, p. 23. ti ghuidi e trover / rai laverita ghuidandoti per
15 Verrocchio created areas that resemble shim- questo modo.” ([A]s the first measurement
mering light in a drawing of a head of an angel which you choose for your drawing, choose
(Uffizi [130E]) by employing the same tech- one of the three which the face has, which has
nique of leaving part of the paper bare. Ilaria a total of three, that is: the forehead, the face
and the chin and mouth together. And once pp. 7–32, 201, 202, 251, 281, and 314. The defi-
you have chosen one of these it is your guide nition of lineamenta, in particular, has sparked
for the whole figure, for the buildings, from much scholarly debate. Alberti uses the term
one figure to another and it is a perfect guide in the context of the practice of architecture,
when using your judgement to understand which he divides into lineamenta and struc-
how to guide the figures and measurements tura. Bartoli translated lineamenta as disegno (to
mentioned above. And you do this because the imply “drawing” as well as “design”); Martin
scene or figure will be high up so that you translated it as lineamens and once as platteform;
will not be able to reach with your hand to Leoni as “design”; Theuer as risse; Panofksy
measure it; you need to use your judgement as “form”; Krautheimer as “plan” or “defi-
as your guide and you will get it right if you nitions,” but in the context of De re aedifac-
guide yourself in this way.” Cennino, Cennino toria he translated it as “schematic outlines,”
Cennini’s Il Libro dell’arte, ch. 30, p. 50. rather than “drawings” or “designs.” See Susan
26 “Perchè il disegno, padre delle tre arti nostre, Lang, “De Lineamentis: L. B. Alberti’s Use of
Architettura, Scultura e Pittura, procedendo a Technical Term,” Journal of the Warburg and
dall’intelletto, cava di molte cose un giudizio Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965): 331–35, p. 331 n.
universale; simile a una forma ovvero idea di 8. Alberti used the term in his Preface to De
tutte le cose della natura, la quale è singolaris- Re Aedifactoria where he notes that “the build-
sima nelle sue misure; di qui è che non solo nei ing is a form of body, which like any other
corpi umani e degli animali, ma nelle piante consists of lineaments and matter, the one the
ancora, e nelle fabriche e sculture e pitture, product of thought, the other of Nature; the
conosce la proporzione che ha il tutto con le one requiring the mind and the power of rea-
parti, e che hanno le parti fra loro e col tutto son, the other dependent on preparation and
insieme. E perchè da questa cognizione nasce selection.” Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten
un certo concetto e giudizio, che si forma nella Books, p. 5. S. Lang claimed that for Alberti
mente quella tal cosa che poi espresso con le lineamenta signified both ground plan and
mani si chiama disegno; si può conchiudere design, “in which all the ideas of the architect
che esso disegno altro non sia che una appar- are incorporated” (Lang, “De Lineamentis: L.
ente espressione e dichiarazione del concetto B. Alberti’s Use of a Technical Term,” p. 335).
che si ha nell’animo, e di quello che altri si è Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Robert
nella mente immaginato e fabbricato nell’idea.” Tavernor, on the other hand, preferred to
Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 1, pp. 168–69, trans. and translate it as “lines,” “linear characteristics,”
discussed in Robert Williams, Art, Theory and and “design,” because ground plan was too
Culture in Sixteenth Century Italy: From Techne to close to their translation of the term finitio
Metatechne (Cambridge, UK, 1997), p. 33. (Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books,
27 Hills has argued that “[f]or Alberti the line is pp. 422–23).
not constituted on the basis of resemblance 29 Van Eck has pointed out that in translating lin-
to things seen in the world, rather it is a eamenta as “lines” and “linear characteristics,”
sign belonging to the surface on which it is “it obscures the mental nature of lineamenta
inscribed by the artist. When the artist sees a in favour of its materialisation in the form
line it is the line that he has just drawn. Thus of lines, etc.” Therefore, she has proposed the
the line belongs to the performance of deline- term “design.” Caroline van Eck, “Architecture,
ating with the hand what has been conceived Language and Rhetoric in Alberti’s De Re
by the mind – Alberti’s text makes this clear. Aedificatoria,” in Architecture and Language. Con-
The line is conceptual before it is phenom- structing Identity in European Architecture c. 1000-
enal; it becomes subject to the judgement of c. 1650, eds. Georgia Clarke and Paul Crossley
sense only when it is inscribed” (Paul Hills, (Cambridge, UK, 2000), 72-81, p. 186, n. 28.
“Ray, Line, Vision and Trace,” Word and Image 30 Van Eck, “Architecture, Language and
6 (1990): 217–25, p. 217). Rhetoric,” pp. 74 and 76. On Alberti’s use of
28 Leon Battista Alberti, On the Art of Building in the term, see also Gerhard Wolf, “The Body
Ten Books, trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach, and Antiquity in Alberti’s Art Theoretical
and Robert Tavernor (Cambridge, UK, 1988), Writings,” in Antiquity and Its Interpreters, eds.
Alina Payne, Ann Kuttner, and Rebekah Smick màntachi ad Andrea del Verrochio per alleghar
(Cambridge, UK, 2000), 174–90. metallo; portoron i detti; fu libre 600.” AOF,
31 Heinrich Ludwig, Lionardo da Vinci: Das VIII.I.58, Quaderno di cassa, July–December,
Buch von der Malerei nach dem Codex Vaticanus 1473), fol. 15 left side, transcribed by Dario
(Urbinas) 1270, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1882), 133, trans. A. Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio. Life and Work
in Leonardo da Vinci, Treatise on Painting: Codex (Florence, 2005), p. 331, doc. VI.39. It is not
urbinas latinus 1270, ed. A. Philip McMahon, 2 known whether Verrocchio was responsible for
vols. (Princeton, NJ, 1959), vol. 1, p. 61, no. 102. casting the bell.
32 On the relationship between representation 43 Biringuccio, Pirotechnia, p. 219.
and thing in Renaissance culture, see Richard 44 AOF, VIII.I.54 (Quaderno di Cassa, July–
Waswo, Language and Meaning in the Renaissance December, 1471), fol. 12 left side, transcribed by
(Princeton, NJ, 1987). Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 352, doc. vi.53.b.
33 “‘Chi può parlar colla boce di Geta/ Se non è 45 Biringuccio warns of the potential for failure
il Geta? Or questo come fue?/ So io ben però (Pirotechnia, p. 214).
che loica non vieta/ Che con simile boce par- 46 Biringuccio, Pirotechnia, pp. 295–96.
lin due./ Et anche è cosa assai ben consueta/ 47 Benedetto Varchi claims that Michelangelo
Ch’ un medesimo nome è posto a due.’ . . . ’La made his own tools, and other sculptors must
boce e’ fatti chiaro Geta il fanno . . . Dunche have done this too, as Vincenzo Borghini
siàn fatti due ch’eravam’ uno? Questo non può claims, and as Francesco da Sangallo and Cellini
caper nel capo mio . . . Udendo me mi fa chi- appear to have said also. Suzanne Butters, The
aro di dua.’” Costantino Arlia, ed., Geta e Birria. Triumph of Vulcan. Sculptors’ Tools, Porphyry, and
Novella (Bologna, 1879), pp. 37–38. the Prince in Ducal Florence, 2 vols. (Florence,
34 As Alison Elliott has noted with regard to the 1996), vol. 1, p. 196.
version by Vitalis of Blois, the subject of the 48 For marble sculptors’ tools, see Giorgio Vasari,
satire is clearly Peter Abélard with his emphasis Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the
on dialectic and “universals.” Elliot notes, for Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and
example, that Paris was known as the “Athens Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent
of the North” (and thus Amphitryon and Geta’s Painters, Sculptors and Architects, ed. Gerald
trip to Athens may be an allusion to Paris). Baldwin Brown, trans. Louise S. Maclehouse
Alison G. Elliott, “Geta by Vitalis of Blois,” (New York, 1960), pp. 48–49; and Butters,
Allegorica: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Triumph of Vulcan, vol. 1, p. 189ff (with further
Literature (Allegorica) 3, no. 2 (Winter, 1978): bibliography).
9–61, p. 10. She also notes that Geta’s concern 49 Vasari recommends polishing with a pum-
about his name echoes Abélard’s discussion of ice stone, Tripoli earth, and straw made into
universals and the issue of names. Elliott, “Geta bunches.Vasari, Vasari on Technique, pp. 152–53.
by Vitalis of Blois,” pp. 10–11. Abélard derived 50 On the use of the drill in Renaissance sculp-
his ideas about universals from the writings of ture, see Gigetta Dalli Regoli, “Il trapano e la
the Greek commentator Porphyry. pietra: note sull’uso del trapano nella lavorazi-
35 Elliott, “Geta by Vitalis of Blois,” pp. 10–11. one del marmo fra Medioevo e Rinascimento,”
36 Porphyry translated and quoted by Anders Critica d’arte 63 (June, 2000): 31–44.
Plitz, The World of Medieval Learning (Oxford, 51 “Scitum quidem est quod fertur de Donatelli
1981), p. 58. abaco. Is quum rogaretur a M. Balbo nobili
37 “Il Geta è pazzo . . . con suo gran sapere.” Arlia, uiro inspiciundi sui abaci copiam faceret,
Geta e Birria, p. 64, canto 179. respondit postridie mane domum ad se ueni-
38 Elliott, “Geta by Vitalis of Blois,” p. 11. ret, idque se quam lubentissime facturum. Ille
39 Vannoccio Biringuccio, The Pirotechnia of ubi uenit, prandioque susceptus est, ‘Praeter
Vannoccio Biringuccio: The Classic Sixteenth hunc quem hic uides,’ inquit Donatellus, ‘nul-
Century Treatise on Metals and Metallurgy, trans. lus est mihi Balbe alius abacus, nisi quem soli
Cyril Stanley Smith and Martha Teach Gnudi mihi contueri licet, quem nullis impedimen-
(New York, 1959; repr., 1990), p. 211. tis, nulla sarcina mecum ipse semper porto. Si
40 Biringuccio, Pirotechnia, pp. 210–11. tamen uidere quid cupias, afferte huc pusiones
41 Biringuccio, Pirotechnia, p. 210. cum stilo papyrum. Illic et depromptam
42 “Canpana si fa di nuovo, grande, de’ dare adì 20 abaco quancunque historiam dimirabere, siue
di lugl[i]o lire due, dati a 4 fachini per menar Palliatos siue Togatos, siue et Nudos spectare
libuerit.’” Pomponius Gauricus, De sculptura in his example of light-giving bodies.” John

(1504), eds. André Chastel and Robert Klein Gage, “Ghiberti’s Third Commentary and Its
(Geneva, 1969), pp. 64–65. (“It is well known Background,” Apollo 95 (1972): 364–69, p. 365.
what is told of Donatello’s abacus. When he 55 Philippe Morel “La théâtricalisation de l’al-
was asked by a certain nobleman, M. Balbus, chimie de la nature. Les grottes artificielles
whether he would give him the opportunity of et la culture scientifique à Florence à la fin
inspecting his abacus, he replied that he should du XVIe siècle,” Symboles de la Renaissance 3
come on the following morning to his home (1990): 154–83, pp. 160–66; and Philippe Morel,
and he would most willingly show it to him. Les grottes maniéristes en Italie au XVIe siècle.
When he came and was entertained at a meal, Théâtre et alchimie de la nature (Paris, 1998), p.
Donatello said, ‘Besides the person you see, I 22. Aristotle’s Meteorology, known as the Metaura
possess no other abacus, Balbus; apart from the in Italian, was translated into the vernacular in
visible person belonging to me alone which I the fourteenth century and had wide circu-
myself always carry with me without any bags lation. Eugenio Refini “‘Aristotile in parlare
or baggage. But if you would like to see some- materno’:Vernacular Readings of the Ethics in
thing, the boys must bring me paper and stylus; the Quattrocento,” I Tatti Studies in the Italian
thereupon indeed you will admire whatever Renaissance 16, no. 1/2 (2013), 311–41, p. 313–
account is produced by the abacus, whether 14. For a critical edition of the text, see Rita
you will have wished to see them in cloaks or Librandi, La Metaura d’Aristotile:Volgarizzamento
togas or even naked’.”) fiorentino anonimo del XIV secolo (Naples, 1995).
52 David Summers, Michelangelo and the Language 56 Rabbi Joshua bar Hanania, rabbinical Midrash
of Art (Princeton, 1981), p. 365. of Leviticus Rabbah 22, 27, quoted in Fabio
53 Charles Dempsey, review of Michelangelo Barry, “Walking on Water: Cosmic Floors in
and the Language of Art, by David Summers, Antiquity and the Middle Ages,” Art Bulletin
Burlington Magazine 125 (1983): 624–27, p. 624; 139, no. 4 (December, 2007): 627–57, p. 630.
Elizabeth Cropper, review of Michelangelo and 57 Eric J. Holmyard and Desmond C. Mendeville,
the Language of Art, by David Summers, Art eds., Avicennae de Congelatione et Conglutinatione
Bulletin 65, no. 1 (March, 1983): 157–62. Lapidum, Being Sections of the Kitab al-Shifa
54 On tacit knowledge of artisans, see the work (Paris, 1927), p. 46; Ferdinand Dussaussay De
of Pamela H. Smith, including: “Giving Voice Mély and Charles Émile Ruelle, Les lapidaires
to the Hands: The Articulation of Material de l’antiquité et du Moyen Âge, 3 vols. (Paris,
Literacy in the Sixteenth Century,” in Popular 1896–1902), vol. 3, p. xxxiv.
Literacy: Studies in Cultural Practices and Poetics, 58 “Segnor, tu sai che per algente freddo/ l’acqua
ed. John Trimbur (Pittsburgh, PA, 2001), diventa cristallina petra.” Robert M. Durling
pp. 74–93; The Body of the Artisan. Art and and Ronald L. Martinez, Time and the Crystal.
Experience in the Scientific Revolution (Chicago, Studies in Dante’s Rime Petrose (Berkeley, CA,
IL, 2004); and “Making and Knowing in a 1990), pp. 284–85, lines 25–26. For a detailed
Sixteenth-Century Goldsmith’s Workshop,” in discussion of Dante’s knowledge of the crea-
The Mindful Hand: Inquiry and Invention between tion and qualities of stones, see Durling and
the Late Renaissance and Early Industrialization, Martinez, Time and the Crystal, pp. 34–45.
eds. Lissa Roberts, Simon Schaffer, and Peter 59 Filarete, Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture: Being
Dear (Amsterdam, 2007), pp. 20–37. In the the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known
rare case that an artist was also a theorist, their as Filarete, trans. John R. Spencer, 2 vols. (New
observations and experience of working with Haven, CT, 1965), vol. 1, pp. 31–32; bk 3, fols.
materials contributed to their theoretical ideas. 17v–18r, referred to by Barry, “Walking on
One such example is Lorenzo Ghiberti’s the- Water,” p. 631.
ories about light, which came from his expe- 60 “[P]orto la tua figura./ In cor par ch’eo vi
rience as a jeweler. As John Gage has pointed porti,/ pinta como parete, . .
. Avendo gran
out, in the fifteenth century, gems were “cut disio,/ dipinsi una figura,/ bella, voi simigliante”
en cabochon, round or oblong, with a smooth Giacomo da Lentini, “Maravigliosamente,” in
and rounded surface. When they were treated Le Rime della Scuola Siciliana, ed. Bruno Pan-
in this way, the colored light did not seem to be vini, 2 vols. (Florence, 1962), vol. 1, pp. 7–8. For
received and refracted in flashes, but to glow as Lorenzo’s Raccolta Aragona, see Prosatori volgari
if generated from within, as Ghiberti suggested del Quattrocento. La letteratura italiana: Storia e
testi, vol. xiv, ed. Claudio Varese (Milan, 1955), as well as the vernacular (including classics
pp. 985–90. translated into the vernacular, such as Ovid).
61 Durling and Martinez, Time and the Crystal, Lorenzo’s Ambra is variously dated from c.
especially, p. 48. 1485 to 1491–92 – and thus probably post-
62 “[L]a mente mia ch’è più dura che petra/ in dates Verrocchio’s drawing (On the dating, see
tener forte imagine di petra.” (Mind harder Lorenzo de’ Medici, Ambra [Descriptio Hiemis],
than stone to hold fast an image of stone.) “[M] ed. Rossella Bessi [Florence, 1986]; Charles
i fa sembiante pur come una donna/ che fosse Dempsey, “Lorenzo De’ Medici’s Ambra,”
fatta d’una bella petra/ per man di quei che in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig High
me’ intagliasse in petra.” Durling and Martinez, Smyth, eds. Andrew Morrogh, Fiorella Superbi
Time and the Crystal, pp. 278–79, lines 12–13; Giofreddi, Piero Morselli and Eve Borsook,
and pp. 284–85, lines 10–12. 2 vols [Florence, 1985], vol. 2, 177–90, esp. pp.
63 Salomone Morpurgo, I manoscritti della R. 185–86; Charles Dempsey,“La data dell ‘Ambra’
Biblioteca Riccardiana di Firenze: manoscritti ital- [Descriptio Hiemis] di Lorenzo de’ Medici,”
iani (Rome, 1893), vol. 1, index, p. 706. Interpres 10 [1990]: 265–69; and Rossella Bessi,
64 Petrarch, Petrarch’s Lyric Poems, pp. 176–79. This “Ancora sulla data dell’Ambra Laurenziana,”
has been noted by Charles Dempsey, The Early Interpres 11 [1991]: 345–47). I am not imply-
Renaissance and Vernacular Culture (Cambridge, ing, therefore, that Verrocchio was inspired to
MA, 2012), p. 66. make his drawing by Lorenzo’s poem (which
65 “l’idolo mio scolpito in vivo lauro” (an idol postdates it by several years), but rather that the
carved in living laurel). Petrarch, Sonnet 30, artist’s interest in evoking a sensuous response
in Petrarch’s Lyric Poems. The Rime Sparse and in his viewer was one shared by others in
Other Lyrics, ed. and trans. Robert M. Durl- Renaissance Florence and expressed elsewhere
ing (Cambridge, MA, 1976), pp. 88 and 89. On and in other media.
this sonnet, see Robert M. Durling, “Petrarch’s 68 “[I]l colpo de’ vostr’occhi,/ Donna, sentiste a
‘Giovene donna sotto un verde lauro’,” Modern le mie parti interne/ dritto passare.” Petrarch’s
Language Notes 86 (1971): 1–20; and John Frec- sonnet 87 in the Rime sparse (Petrarch, Petrarch’s
cero, “The Fig Tree and the Laurel: Petrarch’s Lyric Poems, pp. 190–91). It was described this
Poetics,” Diacritics 5, no. 1 (Spring, 1975): 34–40. way too by Pietro Bembo (“who does not
66 Lorenzo de’ Medici, Comento de’ miei sonetti, ed. immediately know how to make his beloved
Tiziano Zanato (Florence, 1991), p. 225; Lorenzo into an archer, pretending her eyes strike
de’ Medici, The Autobiography of Lorenzo de’ wounds with the keenest arrows” [Bembo,
Medici The Magnificent: A Commentary on My Gli Asolani, ed. cit. II.8, p. 395f]) and Politian
Sonnets, trans. James Wyatt Cook (Binghamton, (“Quickly, Cupid, hidden in those beautiful
NY, 1995), p. 139.The poem has been discussed eyes, adjusts the notch of his arrow to his bow
by Adrian W. B. Randolph, Engaging Symbols: string, then he draws back with his powerful
Gender, Politics and Public Art in Fifteenth- arm so that the two ends of the bow meet; his
Century Florence (New Haven, CT, 2002), p. 134. left hand is touched by the point of fiery gold,
There are forty-one sonnets with accompany- his right breast by the string: the arrow does
ing commentaries in the Comento. They were not begin to hiss through the air before Julio
composed between 1474 and 1492, the year of has felt it inside his heart” [Politian, Stanze,
Lorenzo’s death. Sonnets I–IV and VII–IX date I.40, quoted and discussed in Charles Dempsey,
from 1474 to 1475 and 1477, X dates from 1478 The Portrayal of Love. Botticelli’s Primavera and
to 1479, and the rest date from 1480 to 1483. Humanist Culture at the Time of Lorenzo the
The commentaries were initiated in 1473, con- Magnificent (Princeton, NJ, 1992), pp. 149 and
tinued in the 1480s until 1492. Tiziano Zanato, 153]). For the topos of the “arrow of love”
“Sulla datazione del Comento,” in Lorenzo de’ in poetry, see Dana E. Stewart, The Arrow of
Medici, Comento de’ miei sonetti, pp, 123–29. Love. Optics, Gender, and Subjectivity in Medieval
67 Although Lorenzo probably composed his Love Poetry (Lewisburg, PA, 2003). For a use-
poem after Verrocchio had made his drawing, ful discussion of the phenomenon as it per-
nevertheless the transformation of a woman tains to Renaissance art, see Adrian Randolph,
into a natural material was one that would Touching Objects. Intimate Experiences of Italian
have been familiar to readers of the ancients, Fifteenth-Century Art (New Haven, CT, 2014),
pp. 124–37. An early fifteenth-century man- mia a voi mando,” in Panvini, Le Rime della
uscript of Dante’s Paradiso in Padua depicts Scuola Siciliana, vol. 1, p. 31, verse 6, lines 41–4.
Beatrice sending forth a torrent of sparks from 73 See Introduction, p. ? and ns. 116 and 117.
her eyes towards Dante, who turns away and 74 “[Q]uesta donna gentile a me venire/ e aprirmi
staggers, as if to fall from their force. This has il petto, e dentro poi scrivesse/ là in mezzo ‘l
been discussed by Barbara Newman, “Love’s core, posto a sofferire, il suo bel nome di littere
Arrows: Christ as Cupid in Late Medieval d’oro/ in modo ch’indi non potesse uscire.”
Art and Devotion,” in The Mind’s Eye: Art and Giovanni Boccaccio, “Amorosa Visione,” in
Theological Argument in the Middle Ages, eds. Tutte le opere, trans. Robert Hollander,Timothy
Anne-Marie Bouché and Jeffrey Hamburger Hampton, and Margherita Frankel (Hanover,
(Princeton, NJ, 2006), 263–83, p. 282 and NH, 1986), 45.1–15. This has been discussed
Figure 13. On the physiological explanation by Randolph, Engaging Symbols, p. 135. On
of this phenomenon and its discussion in the process as outlined in poetry, see Giorgio
medical literature, see Donald Beecher, “The Agamben, Stanzas. Word and Phantasm in West-
Lover’s Body: The Somatogenesis of Love in ern Culture, trans. Ronald R. Martinez, Theory
Renaissance Medical Treatises,” Renaissance and and History of Literature, vol. 69 (Minneapolis,
Reformation/ Renaissance et Réform 24 (1988): MN, 1993), p. 70ff. Boccaccio uses the word
1–11, p. 8ff “scrivesse” – write – but writing with a sty-
69 “Talia in me utinam multiplicity vulnera a lus as a form of carving on the heart had a
planta pedis usque ad verticem, ut non sit in me long history to which Boccaccio was referring,
sanitas. Mala enim sanitas, ubi vulnera vacant for which, see Eric Jager, The Book of the Heart
quae Christi pius infligit aspectus.” Gilbert of (Chicago, IL, 2000), and on Boccaccio specifi-
Hoyland, Sermones in Canticum Salomonis 30.2, cally, pp. 77–78.
Patrologiae Cursus Completus . . . Series Latina, ed. 75 Medici, Comento, pp. 208–09; Medici,
Jacques–Paul Migne, 221 vols. (Paris, 1844–55 Autobiography, pp. 119–21. This poem has been
and 1862–65) (henceforth PL), vol. 184, 156B, discussed in Randolph, Engaging Symbols, p.
trans. Newman, “Love’s Arrows,” p. 271. On the 132. The conceit of the bella mano also features
popularity of Gilbert’s sermons in Florence, see in the poetry of Giusto de’ Conti, which was
Martha L. Dutton, “The Medici Connection: published in 1472 and again in 1474 (Randolph,
Gilbert of Hoyland’s Sermons on the Song of Songs Touching Objects, p. 53).
in Renaissance Italy,” Citêaux: Commentarii cister- 76 This has been noted by Randolph, Touching
cienses 52, nos. 1–2 (2001): 93–119, pp. 114–15. Objects, p. 53.
70 Saint Augustine of Hippo, Confessions, trans. 77 Medici, Comento, p. 211. This has been dis-
Henry Chadwick (Oxford, 1991), ch. 9: 3, p. cussed by James Hall, “Lorenzo Ghiberti and
156 (“Sagittaveras tu cor nostrum charitate tua, Michelangelo in Search of the Feeling Hand,”
et gestabamus verba tua transfixa visceribus.” S. in Sculpture and Touch, ed. Peter Dent (Surrey,
Aurelii Augustine [Saint Augustine of Hippo], 2014), 197–210, pp. 198–99. See also Randolph,
Confessionum, in Sancti Aurelii Augustini [Saint Engaging Symbols, p. 132.
Augustine of Hippo], Opera Omnia in PL, 78 This has been discussed by Charles Dempsey,
Book 9, chapter 2, 3, p. 764.) Inventing the Renaissance Putto (Chapel Hill,
71 Jacobus de Voragine, The Golden Legend: NC, 2001), p. 95.
Readings on the Saints, trans. William Granger 79 Dempsey, Inventing the Renaissance Putto, p.
Ryan (Princeton, NJ, 1993), vol. 2, p. 117. 70ff. On the banner, see Cornelis de Fabriczy,
Augustine’s Confessions was also contained in “Andrea Verrocchio ai servizi de’ Medici,”
the collection at the S. Croce library (Curzio Archivio storico dell’arte 2d. ser., vol. 1 (1895):
Mazzi, “L’inventario quattrocentistico della 163–76 (the banner is listed in the inventory
Biblioteca di S. Croce in Firenze,” Rivista delle published on p. 167, no. 10); Giovanni Poggi,
biblioteche e degli archivi 8 (1897): 16–31, 99–113, “La giostra medicea del 1475 e la ‘Pallade’ del
129–47, p. 101). For more examples in devo- Botticelli,” L’arte (1902): 71–77; David Alan
tional literature, see Newman, “Love’s Arrows.” Brown and Charles Seymour, Jnr., “Further
72 “In gran dilettanza era,/ madonna, in quello Observations on a Project for a Standard by
giorno/ quando vi formai in cera/ le belleze Verrocchio and Leonardo,” Master Drawings 12,
d’intorno.” Giacomo da Lentini, “Madonna no. 2 (Summer, 1974): 127–33; and David Alan
Brown, “Verrocchio and Leonardo: Studies for 86 On the idea of love being born in the imag-
the Giostra,” in Florentine Drawing at the Time of inativa, see Robert Klein, “Spirito Peregrino,”
Lorenzo the Magnificent, ed. Elizabeth Cropper, in Form and Meaning. Essays on the Renaissance
Villa Spelman Colloquia, vol. 4 (Florence, and Modern Art, trans. Madeline Jay and
1992; Bologna, 1994), 99–109. Leon Wieseltier (New York, 1979), 62–85,
80 Petrarch, Sonnet 129, in Petrarch’s Lyric Poems, p. 77; and Dempsey, Portrayal of Love, esp.
ed. Durling, p. 264. Later Petrarch in the same pp. 146–49.
sonnet wrote that he had seen her “in the clear 87 Agamben, Stanzas. On the close connection
water, upon the green grass, . . . in the trunk of a between Renaissance poets and natural philos-
birch tree, and in the white clouds.” Summers, ophers on spirits, see Klein “Spirito Peregrino.”
Michelangelo and the Language of Art, p. 124. 88 The Poetry of Guido Cavalcanti, ed. and trans.
81 “[M]odelling portraits from clay was first Lowry Nelson, vol. 18, series A, Garland
invented by Butades, a potter of Sicyon, at Library of Medieval Literature (New York,
Corinth. He did this owing to his daughter, 1986), p 43. This has been discussed by
who was in love with a young man; and she, Dempsey, Inventing the Renaissance Putto, pp.
when he was going abroad, drew in outline on 43–45 and 95. Cavalcanti’s poems were copied
the wall the shadow of his face thrown by a in Florentine zibaldoni, see Morpurgo, I mano-
lamp. Her father pressed clay on this and made scritti, vol. 1, index, p. 691.
a relief ” Pliny, Natural History, trans. Harris 89 Agamben, Stanzas, esp. pp. 70–121; Charles
Rackham, 10 vols. (Cambridge, MA, 1938–62), Dempsey, Inventing the Renaissance Putto, pp.
vol. 9, Book XXXV. XLIII, pp. 370–73. I am 87–96. Cavalcanti also writes of a lady whose
grateful to one of my anonymous readers for spirits entered his eye but could not reach
making this connection. the second ventricle of his brain where she
82 “Artes eorum, qui ex corporibus a natura would have been “depicted on the imagi-
procreates effigies et simulacra suum in opus nation.” This has been discussed by Klein,
promere aggrediuntur, ortas hinc fuisse arbi- “Spirito Peregrino,” p. 77. On spiritelli, see
tror. Nam ex trunco glebave et huiusmodi also Francesco Flamini, “Ricerche intorno
mutis corporibus fortassis aliquando intue- all’elemento filosofico nei poeti del ‘dolce stil
bantur lineamenta nonulla, quibus paululum novo,’” Il giornale Dantesco 18, nos. 5–6 (1910):
immutatis persimile quidpiam veris naturae 162–85.
vultibus redderetur. Coepere id igitur animo 90 Dempsey, Portrayal of Love, pp. 114–39.
advertentes atque adnotantes adhibita dili- 91 Lucrezia was also the subject of a painted por-
gentia tentare conarique possentne illic adi- trait on wood by Verrocchio that belonged
ungere adimereve atque perfinire quod ad to Lorenzo that is now lost and recorded in
veram simulacra speciem comprehendendam the inventory made by his brother Tommaso.
absolvendamque deesse videretur.” Leon Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi,
Battista Alberti, On Painting and Sculpture: ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. 1), fol.43r,
The Latin Texts of De Pictura and De Statua, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 287,
trans. and ed. Cecil Grayson (London, 1972), doc.VI.28.
p. 8. See Horst W. Janson, “The ‘Image Made 92 Dempsey, Portrayal of Love, pp. 131–32.
by Chance’ in Renaissance Thought,” in 93 Medici, Comento, p. 219; Medici, Autobiography,
Horst W. Janson, 16 Studies (New York, 1973), p. 133. This has been discussed by Randolph,
53–74, p. 55. Engaging Symbols, p. 133.
83 Medici, Comento, p. 210; Medici, Autobiography, 94 Medici, Comento, p. 222; Medici, Autobiography,
p. 121. This has been discussed by Randolph, p. 135. This has been discussed by Randolph,
Engaging Symbols, p. 132. Engaging Symbols, p. 133.
p. 123. This has been discussed by Randolph, p. 139. This has been discussed by Randolph,
Engaging Symbols, p. 132. Engaging Symbols, p. 134.
p. 241. This has been discussed by Dempsey, p. 139. This has been discussed by Dempsey,
Portrayal of Love, p. 146. Portrayal of Love, pp. 146–47.
5: MATERIAL MEDITATIONS IN VERROCCHIO’S BARGELLO CRUCIFIX
1 Franco Sacchetti, novella 83, in Il trecentonovelle, 6 This is especially apparent in the face, which
ed. Antonio Lanza (Milan, 1993), pp. 166–72. bears substantial evidence of manipulation
The tale has been discussed in relation to with the artist’s hands (My thanks to Lisa
Renaissance crucifixes by Paul Barolsky in his Pesciolini Venerosi for this information; see
“In Praise of Folly,” Source 20, no. 2 (Winter, also Lisa Venerosi Pesciolini, “L’intervento di
2001): 8–12. The story was well known dur- restauro,” OPD restauro 7 [1995]: 26–32, p. 30).
ing the Renaissance and repeated in many A similar technique was employed by some
European fabliaux, see, for instance, the version other fifteenth-century Florentine sculp-
in Rosanna Brusegan, ed., Fabliaux. Racconti tors too. For examples, see Ida Giannelli,
francesi medievali (Turin, 1980), pp. 296–301. For “Il restauro del Cristo Ligneo attribuito a
other examples, see Reinhold Köhler, Kleinere Michelozzo di Bartolommeo nella chiesa di
Schriften, ed. Johannes Bolte, 3 vols. (Berlin, San Niccolò Oltrano,” in Legno e Restauro.
1898–1900), vol. 2, pp. 469–70. Ricerche e restauri su architetture e manufatti lignei,
2 “[E]gli [Verrocchio] lavorò . .
. Crucifissi di ed. Gennaro Tampone (Florence, 1989), 276–
legno.” Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de’ più eccellenti 78; and Peter Stiberc, “Donatello, Brunelleschi
pittori, scultori ed architettori, 1550, rev. 1568, ed. and the Others. Construction Techniques
Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols. (Florence, 1878), vol. in Early Renaissance Wooden Sculptures,”
3, p. 375. Polychrome Sculpture. Artistic Tradition and
3 Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi, “An Unpublished Construction Techniques, ed. Kate Seymour,
Crucifix by Andrea del Verrocchio,” Burlington ICOM-CC Interim Meeting, Working Group
Magazine 136, no. 1101 (December, 1994): 808– Sculpture, Polychromy, and Architectural
15, esp. 809–10; Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi, “Il Decoration, Glasgow, April 13–14, 2012 http://
crocifisso ligneo del Verrocchio: letture,” Artista www.icom-cc.org/ul/cms/fck-uploaded/
(1995): 30–53; and Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi, documents/Polychrome%20Sculpture%20
“Il crocifisso ligneo di Andrea del Verrocchio: Papers%202010-2013/POLYCHROME%20
ritrovamento e restauro,” OPD. Restauro SCULPTURE%20Vol%202%20Glasgow.pdf,
7 (1995): 11–32, 97–101. Butterfield (The 15–23, pp. 20–21.
Sculptures of Andrea del Verrocchio (New Haven, 7 Venerosi Pesciolini, “L’intervento di restauro,”
CT, 1997), pp. 90 and 216–17, cat. 14) accepted p. 30.
the attribution to Verrocchio, whereas Dario 8 Several ostensibly wooden sculptures from
A. Covi (Andrea del Verrocchio: Life and Work mid-fifteenth-century Florence were made
(Florence, 2005), pp. 260–61, no. 4) expressed by modeling stucco over, rather than by carv-
reservations on the basis of the physical suffering into, the wood (though Brunelleschi’s and
ing of Christ, which, he argued was not typical Donatello’s crucifixes, in Santa Maria Novella
of the artist. and Santa Croce, respectively, were made
4 Lisa Pesciolini Venerosi, the conservator who exclusively by carving). On this see Giannelli,
restored the crucifix, noted that the two low- “Il restauro del Cristo Ligneo attribuito
est of these ropes were placed in specially pre- a Michelozzo”; and Stiberc, “Donatello,
pared grooves, incised to receive the ropes; she Brunelleschi and the Others,” pp. 20–21.
was unable to verify if this was the case for For examples of wooden sculptures made
the highest one also. I thank Dott.ssa Pesciolini with other materials, see, for instance, see
Venerosi for sharing this information with me. Umberto Baldini and Paolo Dal Poggetto, eds.,
5 For examples of slightly later armor that Firenze restaura. Il laboratio nel suo quarantennio
employ this technique, see the examples dis- (Florence, 1972), pp. 61–64 (on Donatello’s
cussed in Stuart W. Pyhrr and José-A. Godoy, Mary Magdalen); Deborah Strom, “Studies
Heroic Armor of the Italian Renaissance. Filippo in Quattrocento Tuscan Wooden Sculpture”
Negroli and His Contemporaries, exh. cat., The (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979); Clara
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New Baracchini, ed., Scultura Lignea. Lucca 1200–
York, October 8, 1998–January 17, 1999 (New 1425, exh. cat., Museo Nazionale di Palazzo
York, 1998). Mansi and Museo Nazionale di Villa Guinigi,
Lucca, December 16, 1995–June 30, 1996, 2 (ultimo terzo del XV secolo),” in I crocifissi
vols. (Florence, 1995); Massimo Vezzosi, ed., lignei Riminesi. Redenti dalla sua carne e dal suo
Quattro crocifissi lignei restaurati, exh. cat., Chiesa sangue, eds. Stefano De Carolis, Learco Guerra,
Propositurale di Santa Croce, Greve in Chianti, and Rosanna Menghi (Rimini, 2012), 16–19,
1998 (Florence, 1998); Giancarlo Gentilini, ed., with further bibliography.
Proposta per Michelangelo Giovane. Un Crocifisso 10 For another crucifix that features cork, see
in legno di tiglio, exh. cat., Museo Horne, the example attributed to Antonio Pollaiuolo
Florence, May 8–September 4, 2004 (Turin, in San Lorenzo, Florence (though it is made
2004); Giovan Battista Fidanza, “Intaglio e entirely from cork with additions in stucco,
plastica: considerazioni formali e tecniche su whereas Verrocchio uses cork solely for the
alcune statue della bottega di Nero Alberti” head and shoulders). On Pollaiuolo’s crucifix,
and Simone Mancini and Lucia Fabbro, “In see Umberto Baldini and Barbara Schleicher,
margine al restauro di alcune sculture lignee “Antonio del Pollajolo Crocifisso,” in Metodo e
della bottega di Nero Alberti,” in Sculture “da Scienza, operatività e ricerca nel restauro (Florence,
vestire.” Nero Alberti da Sansepolcro e la produzione 1982), 50–53. The crucifix attributed to
di manichini lignei in una bottega del Cinquecento, Pollaiuolo uses wooden pins, though the res-
ed. Cristina Galassi, exh. cat., Museo di Santa toration report does not provide further details
Croce, Umbertide, June 11–November 6, 2005 about these or how they were used (apart from
(Perugia, 2005), 109–14 and 125–40; Laura stating they served as attachments) (Baldini and
Sperenza, ed., La Scultura Lignea Policroma. Schleicher, “Antonio del Pollajolo Crocifisso,”
Ricerche e modelli operative di restauro (Florence, p. 53).
2007); and Raffaele Casciaro, “Indagini su 11 Carlo Lalli, Pietro Moioli, Maria Rizzi, et al.,
materiali e sulle tecniche: I Primi Riscontri,” in “Il Crocifisso di Donatello nella Basilica di
Rinascimento scolpito: Maestri del legno tra Marche Santa Croce a Firenze. Osservazioni dopo il
e Umbria, ed. Raffaele Casciaro, exh. cat., con- restauro,” OPD Restauro 18 (2006): 13–39; Peter
vento di San Domenico, Camerino, May 5– Stiberc, “Donatellos Kruzifix in Santa Croce.
November 5, 2006 (Milan, 2006), 243–49; and Untersuchung und Restaurierung im Opificio
Agnès Cascio and Juliette Lévy, “Technical delle Pietre Dure in Florenz,” Restauro 6
study and restoration of La Belle Florentine,” in (September, 2006): 386–94; and Stiberc,
Desiderio da Settignano. Sculptor of Renaissance “Donatello, Brunelleschi and the Others.” On
Florence, ed. Marc Bormand, Beatrice Paolozzi the loincloth on Brunelleschi’s crucifix, see my
Strozzi, and Nicholas Penny, exh. cat., Musée chapter 1, p. 61 and n. 161, p.
du Louvre, Paris, October 26, 2006–January 22, 12 This has been noted by Paolozzi Strozzi, “An
2007, Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Florence, Unpublished Crucifix,” p. 810.
February 22–June 3, 2007, National Gallery of 13 Verrocchio spent time in Antonio Dei’s work-
Art, Washington, DC, July 1–October 8, 2007 shop sometime before 1457, which was on via
(Milan, 2007), 158–59. Vacchereccia near the Ponte Vecchio. Before
9 On crucifixes with movable arms and eyes, that, Verrocchio probably trained in the bot-
and provisions for blood, see Gesine Taubert tega of Francesco di Luca Verrocchio, who
and Johannes Taubert, “Mittelalterliche Kruzi- had workshops on via Vacchereccia and via
fixe mit schwenkbaren Armen. Ein Beitrag zur Calimala. See n. 62, p. 254 in my introduction.
Verwendung von Bildwerken in der Liturgie,” 14 Renee Watkins, “Il Burchiello (1404–1448):
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Vereins für Kunstwissen- Poverty, Politics and Poetry,” Italian Quarterly
schaft 23 (1969): 79–121; Ulla Haastrup, “Medi- 54 (1970): 21–87, pp. 23–24; and Alan K. Smith,
eval Props in the Liturgical Drama,” Hafnia. “Burchiello,” in Encyclopedia of the Renaissance,
Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art 11 (1987): ed. Paul Grendler, 6 vols. (New York, 1999), vol.
133–70, esp. p. 146; and Johannes Taubert, Far- 1, p. 315.
bige Skulpturen: Bedeutung, Fassung, Restaurierung 15 Cabinet des Dessins, Musée du Louvre, inv.
(Munich, 1978), especially pp. 38–50. On the RF 451r. On this drawing, see Dalli Regoli,
late fifteenth-century crucifix attributed to an Verrocchio, Lorenzo di Credi, Francesco di
unknown German artist (Figure 131), see Ste- Simone Ferrucci, p. 81. The poems on draw-
fano De Carolis, “Scultore Tedesco (Johannes ings by artists associated with Verrocchio
Teutonichus o Paolo Alemanno), Crocifisso include the sheets that originally made up the
so-called Verrocchio sketchbook, now scattered accepted by Alison Wright in her recent mon-
throughout various collections in Europe. On ograph. Margrit Lisner, “Ein Kruzifixus des
the sketchbook, see my chapter 1, p. 54 and ns. Antonio del Pollaiuolo in San Lorenzo in
117–127, pp. 277–278 earlier. Florenz,” Pantheon 25, no. 5 (1967): 319–28;
16 “Al mondo non fuma[i] piu bella chosa/ Al Margrit Lisner, Holzkruzifixe in Florenz und in
mondo no fumaj piu bel chosa.” On the inscrip- der Toskana von der Zeit um 1300 bis zum frühen
tion and Verrocchio’s probable authorship, see Cinquecento (Munich, 1970), pp. 74–75; and
my introduction, p. 26 and p. 260, n. 134. Alison Wright, The Pollaiuolo Brothers: The Arts
17 Domenico De Robertis, “Una proposta per of Florence and Rome (New Haven, CT, 2005),
Burchiello,” Rinascimento 8 (1968): 3–119, pp. p. 90. In Verrocchio’s case, however, the cork
11–13. was used solely for the head and shoulders
18 “Prezemoli, tartufi e pancaciuoli/ e anguille da of the figure, suggesting that it was employed
Legnaia e da San Salvi,/ lasagna de’ tedeschi, for reasons other than lightness. Lisa Venerosi
uomini calvi,/ e rape e pastinache e fusai- Pesciolini proposed that Verrocchio may have
uoli” Burchiello, I Sonetti del Burchiello, ed. used cork to protect the wood underneath; or
Michelangelo Zaccarello (Turin, 2004), sonnet as a support for the figure’s hair made a pastiglia;
CLXI, p. 226. or, more probably, to create a more homoge-
19 De Robertis, “Una proposta per Burchiello,” neous surface than would be possible with
pp. 18–19. wood for modeling over. Venerosi Pesciolini,
20 Paolozzi Strozzi, “An unpublished crucifix,” p. “L’intervento di restauro,” p. 30.
809 and figure 16. 26 John Henderson, “Penitence and the Laity in
21 Ludovica Sebregondi, Tre confraternite fioren- Fifteenth-Century Florence,” in Christianity and
tine. Santa Maria della Pietà, detta ‘Buca’ di San the Renaissance. Image and Religious Imagination
Girolamo, San Filippo Benizi, San Francesco in the Quattrocento, eds. John Henderson and
Poverino (Florence, 1991), p. 13. Timothy Verdon (New York, 1990), 229–49, pp.
22 Sebregondi, Tre confraternite fiorentine, pp. 4, 235–36.
12–13, 16, 189–91. 27 Henderson, “Penitence and the Laity,” p. 242.
23 Sebregondi, Tre confraternite fiorentine, p. 4. 28 I am grateful to Lisa Pesciolini Venerosi for
24 Paolozzi Strozzi, “An Unpublished Crucifix,” these observations. See also Venerosi Pesciolini,
pp. 811–12; and Paolozzi Strozzi, “Il crocificisso “L’intervento di restauro,” p. 28. On the other
ligneo di Andrea del Verrocchio: ritrovamento hand, the rough execution of the soles of
e restauro,” p. 17. Christ’s feet suggests they were not designed
25 Archivio della Compagnia di San Girolamo, to be seen.
Florence, Capitoli, 1413/14, 31v–32r, referred 29 Gesine Taubert and Johannes Taubert (in their
to by Sebregondi, Tre confraternite fiorentine, p. classic study “Mittelalterliche Kruzifixe mit
12. This might explain the use of cork for the schwenkbaren Armen,” pp. 81–82, 85) include a
Bargello crucifix.Vasari suggests that the mate- number of Tuscan examples of crucifixes with
rial was employed to make a figure lighter, for movable arms.
use in processions, in his discussion of the unu- 30 Horst W. Janson (The Sculpture of Donatello,
sual use of cork in a crucifix, sometimes attrib- 2 vols. [Princeton, 1957; 1963], vol. 1, p. 9)
uted to Antonio Pollaiuolo, from the church noted that Donatello’s Crucifix in Santa
of San Basilio, belonging to the Compagnia Croce featured arms hinged at the shoulders,
dello Santo Spirito, and today in San Lorenzo, permitting the figure to be removed from
Florence (“Nella chiesa degli Ermini (Armeni) the cross and placed on a bier or taken to
[San Basilio il Crocifisso], al canto della a tomb on Good Friday, a theory supported
Macine a Firenze, fece un Crucifisso da por- by the recent conservation of the sculpture
tare a processione, grande quanto il vivo; e (Lalli, Moioli, Rizzi, et al., “Il Crocifisso di
perché fusse più leggiero, lo fece di sughero”). Donatello nella Basilica di Santa Croce”).
Vasari, quoted in Baldini and Schleicher, Donatello’s Christ features a hollow area in
“Antonio del Pollajolo Crocifisso,” p. 50.Vasari the chest that can house the hinged compo-
attributed this crucifix to “Simone,” a pupil nents of the armpits when the arms are low-
of Donatello, but Margrit Lisner tentatively ered (Stiberc, “Donatello, Brunelleschi and
attributed it to Antonio Pollaiuolo, a proposal the Others,” p. 17).
31 The text is a processional for Good Friday Abbey of Pruefening near Regensburg men-
evening service at Santa Maria del Fiore tion crucifixes with movable parts being used
and dates from the late fifteenth century. in liturgical plays of the Deposition (Young,
Federico Ghisi, “Un processionale inedito per Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. 1, p. 164).
la Settimana Santa nell’opera del Duomo di A tenth-century record from the Basilica of
Firenze,” Rivista Musicale Italiana 55 (October– Saint Peter’s mentions a crucifix being pro-
December, 1953): 362–69, p. 363. This has been cessed through the church on Good Friday
discussed by Solange Corbin, La Deposition (Continuation of Annales Alamannici, 921, in
Liturgique du Christ au Vendredi Saint. Sa place Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriptores, ed.
dans l’histoire des rites et due theater religieux Georg Heinrich Pertz (Hannover, 1826), vol. 1,
(Paris, 1960), pp. 15–16. A sixteenth-century p. 56, cited in Jean-Marie Sansterre, “Attitudes
record indicates the same practice continued occidentales à l’égard des miracles d’images
in Florence into that century. John Paoletti, dans la haut Moyen Âge,” Annales. Histoire.
“Wooden Sculpture as Sacral Presence,” Artibus Social Sciences 53, no. 6 (1998): 1219–41, p.
et historiae 13, no. 26 (1992): 85–100, p. 97, n. 6 1230). Sometimes polychromed wooden cru-
with further details. cifixes were employed as part of pilgrimages.
32 Taubert, “Mittelalterliche Kruzifixe mit A crucifix of c. 1330, attributed to a follower
schwenkbaren Armen,” pp. 90–91. of Giovanni Pisano and today in the church of
33 Luca Dominici, Cronache di Ser Luca Dominici SS. Crocifissi dei Bianchi in Lucca, was used
(Pistoia, 1933), p. 164, trans. Megan Holmes, by the confraternity known as the “Bianchi”
The Miraculous Image in Renaissance Florence in their annual procession from Lucca to
(New Haven, CT, 2013), p. 170. Florence. The crucifix was mentioned and
34 On the dimensions of Tuscan crucifixes and illustrated in the fourteenth-century Lucchese
their implications for use, see the examples dis- chronicle of Giovanni Sercambi. Max Seidel,
cussed by Lisner, Holzkruzifixe in Florenz, pp. “Crocifisso,” in Scultura Lignea. Lucca 1200–
54–110; and Kamil Kopania, Animated Sculptures 1425, ed. Clara Baracchini, exh. cat., Museo
of the Crucified Christ in the Religious Culture of Nazionale di Palazzo Mansi and Museo
the Latin Middle Ages (Warszawa, 2010), pp. 166 Nazionale di Villa Guinigi, Lucca, , December
and 169. 16, 1995–June 30, 1996, 2 vols. (Florence, 1995),
35 Many sculptures with movable parts were vol. 1, 99–104, cat. 23, p. 99. And on some occa-
designed for use in ritual re-enactments sions, a figure with movable limbs could be
of sacred events in Renaissance Italy, for used for both liturgical dramas and pilgrimage
which, see: Claudio Bernardi, “Deposizioni e processions, though this appears to have been
Annunciazioni,” in Il teatro delle statue. Gruppi unusual. See, for instance, the case of a mirac-
lignei di Depozione e Annunciazione tra XII ulous Crucifix from Como (today on the main
e XIII secolo, ed. Francesca Flores d’Arcais altar of the SS. Crocifisso Sanctuary in Como).
(Milan, 2005), 69–85, p. 83; Claudio Bernardi, Ilaria Tameni, “Il teatro della Pietà. Devozione,
“La funzione della deposizione di Cristo il arte e rappresentazione della deposizione di
venerdi santo nella chiesa francescana di S. Cristo in area padana (secc. XIV–XVI),” (the-
Angelo a Milano (secolo XVII),” Medioevo e sis, facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Univer-
Rinascimento n.s. 6, no. 3 (1992): 235–49; and sità Cattolica di Brescia, 1997–98), pp. 111–213;
Paoletti, “Wooden Sculpture,” pp. 93–94. The Ilaria Tameni, “The Piety’s Theatre: Mobile
classic study of liturgical plays is Karl Young, Crucifixes in Holy Friday’s Deposition,” text
The Drama of the Medieval Church, 2 vols. of lecture at XI Colloque Societé Internationale
(Oxford, 1933); and for Florence, the work of pour l’étude du Théâtre Médiéval–Elx, du 9 au
Nerida Newbigin, including Feste d’Oltrano: 14 d’août 2004, http://parnaseo.uv.es/Ars/
Plays in Churches in Fifteenth-Century Florence webelx/Pon%C3%A8ncies%20pdf/Tameni.
(Florence, 1996). On art and liturgy, see also pdf, pp. 4–5. Often wooden sculptural fig-
Neil C. Brooks, The Sepulchre of Christ in Art ures and groups were not visible in churches
and Liturgy, University of Illinois Studies in except on feast days, emphasizing the impor-
Language and Literature, 7:2 (Urbana, 1921). tance of their role in sacred performances.
Ordos from the convents of Benedictine Lorenzo Carletti and Cristiano Giometti,
nuns of Barking, Essex, and the Benedictine “Medieval Wood Sculpture and Its Setting in
Architecture: Studies in Some Churches in and 37 Tameni, “Il teatro della Pietà,” tesi, pp. 111–213;
around Pisa,” Architectural History 46 (2003): Tameni, “The Piety’s Theatre,” p. 3. A docu-
37–56, p. 40. The figures from the Deposition ment of 1257 mentions that the role of Christ
in the Duomo in Tivoli were taken in pro- was played by a young man in a staged perfor-
cession “every Friday in March” by a confra- mance during Holy Week in Siena (Carletti
ternity that sung verses from the Passion of and Giometti, “Medieval Wood Sculpture, p.
Christ and the Miserere. Carletti and Giometti, 54, n. 19. See Alessandro d’Ancona, Origini del
“Medieval Wood Sculpture,” p. 54, n. 17. See teatro italiano: libri tre con due appendici sulla rappre-
Giovanni Carlo Crocchiante, L’istoria delle sentazione drammatica nel contado toscano e sul teatro
chiese della città di Tivoli (Rome, 1726), p. 42. mantovano nel sec. XVI, 3 vols. [Rome, 1891; repr.
For instance, a crucifix attributed to Giuliano 1966], vol. 1, p. 90).These records contradict the
or Benedetto da Maiano in the Museo d’Arte claim made by Claudio Bernardi that the role of
Sacra, San Gimignano, is recorded in a docu- Christ was not played by a living actor because
ment of 1474 as being kept “for Good Friday it would be indecorous and because wooden
in the sacristy.” Other documents indicate that statues were objects of devotion (Bernardi,
this crucifix was displayed on the wooden “Deposizioni e Annunciazioni,” p. 84).
pulpit during Advent and Lent and was used 38 Bernardi, “Deposizioni e Annunciazioni,” p.
in a procession through the church on Good 82. See Mario Sensi, “Fraternite disciplinate
Friday. This has been noted by Ilaria Bischi e sacre rappresentazioni a Foligno nel secolo
Ruspoli and Michele Maccherini, “Giuliano o XV,” Bollettino della Deputazione di Storia Patria
Benedetto da Maiano. Crocifisso (1474 circa),” per l’Umbria 71 (1974): 193–94.
in Benedetto da Maiano a San Gimignano. La 39 My thanks to Lisa Pesciolini Venerosi for this
riscoperta di un crocifisso dimenticato, ed. Michele point.
Maccherini, exh. cat., Galleria d’Arte Moderna 40 On the crucifix, which still stands in Santa
R. de Grada, San Gimignano, March 21–June Maria Novella, and the confraternity, see
21, 2009 (San Gimignano, 2009), 105–09, 106– Riccardo Gatteschi, Baccio da Montelupo. Scultore
07. See Enrico Castaldi, Ricordi da vecchie carte e architetto del Cinquecento (Florence, 1993),
sangimignanesi per le nozze Castaldi-Fratiglioni pp. 57–59.
(Poggibonsi, 1909), 39–50. One play, printed 41 Paoletti, “Wooden Sculpture,” p. 88.
in Florence in the 1490s, mentions a “Christ 42 For example, a play recorded in a thir-
crucified” (“el crocifosso che parla”) as one of teenth-century processionale from the Cathedral
the characters. The actor playing the role was of Cividale, on which see Hans Belting, The
required to speak but it is not clear from the Image and Its Public in the Middle Ages. Form
stage directions whether a real actor dressed up and Function of Early Paintings of the Passion,
as Christ crucified or spoke as if the voice of a trans. Mark Bartusis and Raymond Meyer
sculpture. For the play, see Nerida Newbigin, (New Rochelle, NY, 1990), p. 86; and Laura
“Dieci sacre rappresentazioni inedite fra Jacobus, “‘Flete mecum’: the representation of
Quattro e Cinquecento,” Letteratura italiana the Lamentation in Italian Romanesque art
antica 10 (2009): 21–397, pp. 74–97 (for the list and drama,” Word and Image 12, no. 1 (January–
of characters, see p. 74; for the speech of “Christ March, 1996): 110–26. Jacobus (p. 118) has
Crucified,” see pp. 77–78). It is not known if pointed out that although the Planctus was per-
the printed play is the same as that recorded formed in Latin, its audience was probably lay
as having been performed in Florence in 1477. men and women, implied by the opening lines
Nerida Newbigin, “Imposing Presence: The that address both men and women. Whereas
Celebration of Corpus Domini in Fifteenth- Jacobus proposes that the gestures of the actors
Century Florence,” in Performance, Drama and was designed to amplify the meaning of the
Spectacle in the Medieval City: Essays in Honour of words (pp. 118–19) – inaccessible except to
Alan Hindley, eds. Catherine Emerson, Mario those who knew Latin – I would suggest
Longtin, and Adrian P. Tudor (Louvain, 2010), instead that the gestures “told” the story, one
87–109, pp. 105–06. that was well known to its audience.
36 David Freedberg, The Power of Images. Studies 43 Belting, Image and Its Public, pp. 161–64.
in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago, 44 Miri Rubin, Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in
1989), p. 286. Late Medieval Culture (Cambridge, UK, 1991),
pp. 63; Caroline Walker Bynum, Fragmentation Summers, Michelangelo and the Language of Art
and Redemption: Essays on Gender and the (Princeton, 1981), p. 116.
Human Body in Medieval Religion (New York, 50 The Lessigrafia della Crusca gives the follow-
1992), p. 45. ing example: “Levato col pensiero sopra tutte
45 Piovano Arlotto, Motti e facezie del Piovano le cose terrene” (Francesco da Buti, Comento
Arlotto, ed. Gianfranco Folena (Milan, 1953), sopra la Divina Commedia [1395]), http://www
pp. 81–82. .lessicografia.it, consulted October 31, 2016. On
46 Cesare Guasti, Miscellanea Pratese di cose inedite levato as “raised up,” see Lars R. Jones, “Visio
o rare antiche e moderne (Prato, 1861; repr. 1982), Divina? Donor Figures and Representations of
no. 3, p. 6; and Dionisio Pacetti, “La tradizione Imagistic Devotion: The Copy of the ‘Virgin
dei tratatti spirituali di Ugo Panziera,” Studi of Bagnolo’ in the Museo dell’Opera del
francescani 64 (1967): 30–77, pp. 34–35, 48–49, Duomo, Florence,” in Italian Panel Painting of
50, and 57–63. the Duecento and Trecento, ed.Victor M. Schmidt,
47 Enrichetta Valenziani and Emidio Cerulli, vol. 61 of Studies in the History of Art (2002):
Indice Generale degli Incunaboli delle Biblioteche 30–55, p. 44. In my interpretation of Panziera’s
d’Italia, 6 vols. (Rome, 1943–81), vol. 4, p. 189, treatise, I am indebted to the work of Lars
ns. 7185 and 7186. R. Jones (apart from the article just men-
48 Bernardino da Siena, Opera Omnia, ed. Pacifico tioned, see also his “Visio Divina, Exegesis, and
Perantoni, 9 vols. (Quaracchi, 1950–65), vol. 5, Beholder-Image Relationships in the Middle
p. 457; vol. 7, p. 589; vol. 8, p. 350. Ages and the Renaissance: Indications from
49 “La mentale azione è chiamata da molti med- Donor Figure Representations” [Ph.D. diss.,
itazione e contemplazione. Alcuna differenzia Harvard University, 1999]).
è dalla mentale azione alla meditazione; gran- 51 For other examples, see Herbert Kessler,
dissima differenzia è dalla mentale azione alla “Medieval Art as Argument,” in Spiritual
meditazione; grandissima differenzia è dalla Seeing. Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval
mentale azione alla contemplazione. La perfetta Art (Philadelphia, 2000), 53–63; and Mary
mentale azione è la via d’andare alla perfetta Carruthers, “Moving Images in the Mind’s
meditazione e contemplazione, quando ha le Eye,” in The Mind’s Eye: Art and Theological
circunstanzie che alla sua perfezione si richiede, Argument in the Middle Ages, eds. Anne-Marie
coll’esercizio della imaginazione, il quale dee Bouché and Jeffrey Hamburger (Princeton,
essere si forte che continuamente reverberi 2006), 287–305, p. 292–94. Elizabeth Bailey
il suo oggetto ne’ corporali sentimenti, a ciò (“Raising the Mind to God: The Sensual
sufficienti secondo i pensieri di quello tempo. Journey of Giovanni Morelli [1371–444]
Quando la mente è, per prolisso intervallo di via Devotional Images,” Speculum 84, no. 4
tempo, in Cristo esercitata, Cristo nella imagi- [October, 2009]: 984–1008, p. 996) has argued
nativa portando, Cristo non si lascia della cor- that Morelli’s famous account of praying after
porale virtú attiva della mente spogliare. Nel the death of son was analogous to that of
primo tempo nel quale la mente comincia Panziera’s system (that Morelli looked at phys-
colle infrascritte circunstanzie di Cristo a pen- ical images and then drew and painted mental
sare, Cristo pare nella mente e nella imaginativa pictures in his mind based on what he saw and
scritto. Nel secondo pare disegnato. Nel terzo texts that he read).
pare disegnato e ombrato. Nel quarto pare col- 52 Lina Bolzoni, The Web of Images. Vernacular
orato e incarnato. Nel quinto pare incarnato Preaching from its Origins to St Bernardino da
e rilevato. Tanto ha la mentale virtú attiva di Siena, trans. Carole Preston and Lisa Chien
perfezione, quanto può colla corporale virtú (Aldershot, 2004), p. 26.
attiva regnare. Questo stato della mentale virtú 53 Bolzoni, Web of Images, p. 85. See also Ottavia
attiva, colla corporale virtuosa azione, merita, Niccoli, Vedere con gli occhi del cuore: alle orig-
per divina giustizia, il dono della meditazi- ini del potere delle immagini (Bari, 2011), pp.
one e della contemplazione.” Ugo Panziera, 77–79. On the presence of Cavalca’s Trattato in
“Della mentale azione,” from his Trattato della Florentine zibaldoni, see Salomone Morpurgo,
Perfezione, published in Mistici del Duecento e del I manoscritti della R. Biblioteca Riccardiana di
Trecento, ed. Arrigo Levasti (Milan, 1935), p. 273. Firenze: manoscritti italiani (Rome, 1893), index,
This passage has been discussed by David p. 691; and Dale Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici and the
Florentine Renaissance:The Patron’s Oeuvre (New and Claudia D’Alberto, “Il crocifisso parlante
Haven, CT, 2000), p. 429, n. 174. di Santa Brigida di Svezia nella Basilica di San
54 One could also point to a passage in the Paolo fuori le mura e i crocifissi replicati, copiati
Colloquio spirituale, written c. 1391, in which e riprodotti a Roma al tempo del Papato avi-
the author, the Dominican prior Simone da gnonese,” Studi Medievali e Moderni 1–2 (2011):
Cascina, calls his readers’ attention to the var- 229–55. Richa records that there was a legend
ious meanings of the “pallium of pure white about a wooden crucifix in Orsanmichele that
wool” that was worn by priests on important was much venerated by Florentines because
occasions. Bolzoni, Web of Images, p. 54. many believed it had spoken to Antoninus
55 Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena when he was a youth (Giuseppe Richa, Notizie
after the Black Death (Princeton, NJ, 1951), pp. istoriche delle chiese fiorentine, 10 vols. (Florence,
105–06; Sixten Ringbom, “Devotional Images 1754–62), vol. 1, p. 25).
and Imaginative Devotions. Notes on the Place 59 Christiane Klapish-Zuber, “Holy Dolls: Play
of Art in Late Medieval Private Piety,” Gazette and Piety in Florence in the Quattrocento,”
des Beaux Arts 73 (March, 1969): 159–70; Miklós in her Women, Family and Ritual in Renaissance
Boskovits, “Immagine e preghiera nel tardo Italy, trans. Lydia Cochrane (Chicago, IL, 1985),
medioevo: osservazioni preliminary,” Art Cris- 310–29, p. 326.
tiana 76 (1988), 93–104, reprinted in Miklós 60 Margherita of Cortona prayed before an image,
Boskovits, Immagini da meditare. Ricerche su dip- believed to be the carved and painted cruci-
inti di tema religoso nei secoli XII–XV (Milan, fix today in the church of Santa Margherita
1994), 73–106; Jeffrey Hamburger, “The Visual in Cortona. The sculpture’s authorship is
and the Visionary: The Image in Late Medieval unknown, but it is generally believed to be
Monastic Devotions,” Viator 20 (1989): 161– a work not of Italian origin dating from the
204; Suzannah Biernoff, Sight and Embodiment thirteenth or fourteenth century. Anna Maria
in the Middle Ages (New York, 2002); Chiara Maetzke, ed., Arte nell’Aretino, seconda mostra
Frugoni, “Female Mystics, Visions, and Ico- di restauri dal 1975 al 1979 (Florence, 1979), pp.
nography,” in Women and Religion in Medieval 21–26, Figures 21–31; Joanna Cannon and
and Renaissance Italy, eds. Daniel Bornstein and André Vauchez, Margherita of Cortona and the
Roberto Rusconi, trans. Margery J. Schnei- Lorenzetti: Sienese Art and the Cult of a Holy
der (Chicago, IL, 1996), 130–64; Jacqueline E. Woman in Medieval Tuscany (University Park,
Jung, “The Tactile and the Visionary: Notes on PA, 1999), p. 5, see Figures 3, 5 and 6.
the Place of Sculpture in the Medieval Reli- 61 Trans. Carolyn Muessig, “Performance of the
gious Imagination” in Looking Beyond. Visions. Passion: The Enactment of Devotion in the
Dreams, and Insights in Medieval Art and History, Later Middle Ages,” in Visualizing Medieval
ed. Colum Hourihane (Princeton, NJ, 2010), Performance. Perspectives, Histories, Contexts, ed.
203–40; and Caroline Walker Bynum, Christian Elina Gertsman (Ashgate, 2008), 129–42, p. 132.
Materiality. An Essay on Religion in Late Medieval Julian of Norwich experienced the Passion of
Europe (New York, 2011). Christ while gazing upon a crucifix that her
56 On how works of art were made to resemble attendant priest held up for her (Biernoff, Sight
the visions such objects inspired, see Frugoni, and Embodiment, pp. 135 and 137).
“Female Mystics,” pp. 133–34; Niccoli, Vedere 62 Raimondo da Capua, The Life of Catherine of
con gli occhi del cuore, pp. 98–113; and Megan Siena, trans. Conleth Kearns (Wilmington, DE,
Holmes, Miraculous Image, pp. 183–202. 1980), p. 185.
57 Henk Van Os, The Art of Devotion in the Late 63 Catherine of Siena, letter 62 to the nuns of
Middle Ages in Europe, 1300–1500, trans. Michael San Gagio and Monte San Savino (Fonti per
Hoyle, exh. cat., Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, la storia d’Italia: Epistolario di Caterina da Siena,
November 26, 1994–February 26, 1995 ed. Eugenio Dupre-Theiseder (Rome, 1940),
(Princeton, NJ, 1994), p. 61. p. 261; Saint Catherine of Siena, The Letters of
58 Katherine L. Jansen, “Miraculous Crucifixes in Catherine of Siena, trans. Suzanne Noffke, 3 vols.
Late Medieval Italy,” in Signs, Wonders, Miracles. (Binghampton, NY, 1988), vol. 1, p. 198, quoted
Representations of Divine Power in the Life of the in Jill Bennett, “Stigmata and Sense Memory:
Church, eds. Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory St. Francis and the Affective Image,” Art History
(Woodbridge, VA, 2005), 203–27, pp. 220–22; 24, no. 1 (February, 2001): 1–16, p. 11).
64 “[L]’affetto suo ardentissimo sì lo ce ’ncor- 72 Morpurgo, I manoscritti, index, p. 704; and ASF,
porao/ lo cor li stemperao como cera a Notariale Antecosimiano 15591, 237v and 238r
segello:/ empremettece quello ov’era tras- (an inventory made in 1435 of the possessions
formato.” Jacopone da Todi, Laudi, trattato e of the painter Stefano di Lorenzo). I am very
detti, ed. Franca Ageno (Florence, 1953), pp. grateful to Luca Boschetto for showing me this
248–49. This has been discussed in Gregory F. document in the State Archives in Florence.
LaNave, “Bonaventure,” in The Spiritual Senses. 73 Meditations on the Life of Christ: An Illustrated
Perceiving God in Western Christianity, eds. Paul Manuscript of the Fourteenth Century, trans. Isa
L. Gavrilyuk and Sarah Coakley (Cambridge, Ragusa and Rosalie B. Green (Princeton,
UK, 2011), 159–73, p. 170; and Biernoff, Sight NJ, 1961), pp. 38–39, cited and discussed by
and Embodiment, p. 139. Quiviger, “Relief Is in the Mind,” p. 177.
65 Jung, “Tactile and the Visionary,” p. 223. 74 Sant’Antonino, Opera a ben vivere di sant’An-
66 Chiara Frugoni, “Domine, in conspectu tuo omne tonino dell’ordine dei predicatori Arcivescovo di
desiderium meum: Visioni e immagini in Chiara Firenze, scritta a Dianora Tornabuoni ne’ Soderini,
da Montefalco” in S. Chiara da Montefalco e il ed. Lodovico Ferretti (Florence, 1923), parte
suo tempo: atti del quarto Convegno di studi stor- III, cap. XI, p. 149, translated and discussed
ici ecclestiastici organizzato dall’Archidiocesi di in relation to images by Pia Palladino, “33.
Spoleto, Spoleto 28–30 dicembre 1981, eds. Claudio Christ Crowned with Thorns,” in Lawrence
Leonardi and Enrico Menestò (Florence, 1985), Kanter and Pia Palladino, Fra Angelico, exh.
155–75, pp. 172–73. cat., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York,
67 Enrico Menestò, “The Apostolic Canonization October 26, 2005–January 29, 2006 (New
Proceedings of Clare of Montefalco, 1318– Haven, CT, 2005), p. 174. On the popularity of
1319,” in Women and Religion in Medieval and the Opera a ben vivere, see Raoul Morçay, Saint
Renaissance Italy, eds. Daniel Bornstein and Antonin, fondateur du couvent de Saint-Marc, arch-
Roberto Rusconi, trans. Margaret J. Schneider eveque de Florence, 1389–1459 (Tours, 1914), pp.
(Chicago, IL, 1996), 104–29, p. 105. 189–93; and Sant’Antonino, Opera a ben vivere
68 François Quiviger, “Relief is in the Mind: di S. Antonino, ed. Lodovico Ferretti (Florence,
Observations on Renaissance Low Relief 1923). On the relationship between Antoninus’
Sculpture,” in Depth of Field. Relief Sculpture text and devotional images and practices,
in Renaissance Italy, eds. Donal Cooper and see Miklós Boskovits, “Arte e Formazione
Mariko Leino (Bern, 2007), 169–89, p. 178. Religiosa: Il Caso del Beato Angelico,” first
69 It should be noted that any assumption of a published in L’Uomo di fronto all’arte. Valori
divide between lay and clerical devotional, estetici e valori etico-religiosi (Milan, 1986), 153–
and between popular and elite, is problematic. 64, republished in Miklós Boskovits, Immagini
As Bornstein, among others, has highlighted, da meditare. Ricerche su dipinti di tema religoso nei
“[c]hanges in liturgical practice, the prolifera- secoli XII–XV (Milan, 1994), 369–95, p. 386.
tion and transformation of lay confraternities, 75 Bailey, “Raising the Mind to God,” p. 1001.
and the response to popular preachers all dis- 76 Bornstein, Bianchi, pp. 44–45.
close a high culture that was substantially open 77 Dominici, Cronache, vol. 1, p. 98, trans. Bornstein,
to low culture, and in which the circulation Bianchi, p. 152. This has also been discussed by
of religious ideas and cultural models among Holmes, Miraculous Image, p. 201. Other cases are
different cultural groups was anything but discussed in Bornstein, Bianchi, pp. 151–53.
unidirectional.” Daniel Bornstein, The Bianchi 78 Bornstein, Bianchi, p. 151.
of 1399: Popular Devotion in Late Medieval Italy 79 Bernard’s works were well known in the
(New York, 1993), p. 6. vernacular and contained in a number of
70 Lorenzo Cèndali, Giuliano e Benedetto da Florentine commonplace books (Morpurgo, I
Majano (San Casciano [Val di Pesa], 1926), p. manoscritti, index, p. 688). His sermons on the
184; and Morpurgo, I manoscritti, index, p. 695. Song of Songs were contained in the library
71 On this, see, for instance, Klapish-Zuber,“Holy at Santa Croce (Curzio Mazzi, “L’inventario
Dolls”; and Adrian W. B. Randolph, Touching quattrocentistico della Biblioteca di S. Croce
Objects. Intimate Experiences of Italian Fifteenth- in Firenze,” Rivista delle biblioteche e degli archivi
Century Art (New Haven, CT, 2014), pp. 204–37. 8 (1897): 16–31, 99–113, 129–47, p. 104).
80 Gordon Rudy, The Mystical Language of to respond to the threat posed by a priest who
Sensation in the Later Middle Ages (New York, wants to destroy it. Folena, ed. Motti, pp. 40f
2002), p. 46. (Facezia, cxxviii). The story is discussed by
81 “Obtulit carnem sapientibus carnem, per quam Richard C. Trexler, “The Florentine Religious
discerent sapere et spiritum.” Saint Bernard of Experience: The Sacred Image,” Studies in the
Clairvaux, Sermones super Cantica Canticorum Renaissance 19 (1972): 7–41, p. 28. On miracu-
6, in Sancti Bernardi Opera Omnia, 8 vols., eds. lous images in Renaissance Italy, see Holmes,
Jean Leclercq, Charles Hugh Talbot, and Henri Miraculous Image; and Jane Garnett and Gervase
Rochais (Rome, 1957–80), vol. 1, Sermon 6, Rosser, Spectacular Miracles. Transforming Images
I:3, p. 27. in Italy from the Renaissance to the Present
82 Ronald F. E. Weissman, “Sacred Eloquence. (London, 2013).
Humanist Preaching and Lay Piety in 88 Bennett, “Stigmata and Sense Memory,” p. 5.
Renaissance Florence,” in Christianity and the See Daniel Arasse, “Entre Dévotion et Culture:
Renaissance. Image and Religious Imagination Fonctions de l’Image Religieuse au XVe
in the Quattrocento, eds. Timothy Verdon and Siècle,” in Faire Croire; Modalités de la diffusion
John Henderson (Syracuse, NY, 1990), 250–71, et de la réception des messages religieux du XIIe
p. 264. au XVe siècle;Table ronde, Rome, 22–23 juin, 1979,
83 Weissman, “Sacred Eloquence,” p. 262. Collection de l’école Francaise de Rome, 51
84 “[C]onsiderato che dal capo a’ piedi in lui (Rome, 1981), 132–46.
ciaschuna parte patì. Imperochè il sanctissimo 89 Bennett, “Stigmata and Sense Memory,” esp.
suo capo da pungenti spine, i lucentissimo ochi pp. 6–7.
da obscurante benda, la melliflua boccha da 90 Klaus Krüger, “Authenticity and Fiction: On
amarissimo fiele, la resplendente faccia da san- the Pictorial Construction of Inner Presence
guigno sudore, le debile spalle del gravissimo in Early Modern Italy,” in Image and Imagination
peso della croce, il sacratissimo pecto dalla acuta of the Religious Self in Late Medieval and Early
lancia, le innocente mani et gli immaculati piedi Modern Europe, eds. Reindert Falkenburg,
da spuntati chiovi et finalmente tutto il suo Walter S. Melion, and Todd M. Richardson
pretioso corpo da asprissime battiture” Olga (Turnhout, 2007), 37–69, p. 42.
Zorzi Pugliese, “Two Sermons by Giovanni 91 For an interesting interpretation of sculptured
Nesi and the Language of Spirituality in Late relief panels that seem to bridge the divide
Fifteenth-Century Florence,” Bibliothèque d’hu- between two worlds, see Jones,“Visio Divina?,”
manisme et Renaissance 42, no. 3 (1980): 641–56, pp. 44–45.
p. 648; trans. Henderson, “Penitence and the 92 Ugo Panziera, Trattato della Perfezione, in Mistici
Laity in Fifteenth-Century Florence,” p. 242. del Duecento e del Trecento, ed. Levasti, pp. 273–83.
85 “Io mi pento di cor, ché scorso sono/ nel 93 Holmes, Miraculous Image, p. 201. The docu-
peccato carnal; però con una/ disciplina mie’ mentary source for this tale is not known. It
fianchi spesso sprono,/ onde, versando, ’l is mentioned in Paoletti (“Wooden Sculpture,”
sangue si rauna/ dintorno a mie ginocchia 92), who cites Enrico Castelnuovo, but he does
poste ’n terra,/ e con molte mie lagrime not provide the original citation. Apparently, it
s’aduna. Da me, che son vil vermo, si diserra/ occurred in Switzerland.
contra Dio e contra ’l prossimo superbia,/ la 94 “Qual di pennel fu maestro o di stile/ che
qual meritamente mi sottera” (Antonio Lanza, ritraesse l’ombre e’ tratti ch’ivi/ mirar farieno
ed., Lirici toscani del ’400 [Rome, 1973], p. 387, uno ingegno sottile? Morti li morti e i vivi
lines 61–69; trans. Weissman, Ritual Brotherhood, parean vivi” Dante Alighieri, Purgatorio, Canto
p. 49). 12, lines 64–67 in Dante Alighieri, The Divine
86 Richard C. Trexler, Church and Community Comedy, trans. Charles S. Singleton (Princeton,
1200–1600: Studies in the History of Florence and NJ, 1991), vol. 1, pp. 124–25.
New Spain (Rome, 1987), pp. 50–51; and his 95 “Ergo quae corporum simulacra pictor viva
Public Life in Renaissance Florence (New York, apparere voluerit, in his efficient et Omnia
1980), pp. 68–69. membra suos motus exequantur.” Leon Battista
87 On agency, see the story told by Arlotto Alberti, On Painting and On Sculpture, ed. and
Piovano of a fresco depicting a saint that seems trans. Cecil Grayson (London, 1972), p. 76.
This has been discussed by Fredrika Jacobs, listed in Tommaso’s inventory of goods made
The Living Image in Renaissance Art (Cambridge, for the Medici, which reads: “lo gnudo rosso”
UK, 2005), p. 89. (Florence, Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi,
96 “Ergo quaedam circa magnitudinem mem- ms. 60 [Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. 1], fol.43r,
brorum ratio tenenda est, in qua sane com- transcribed by Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p. 287,
mensuratione iuvat in animantibus pingendis doc.VI.28). This was pointed out by Francesco
primum ossa ingenio subterlocare, nam haec, Caglioti, “Due restauratori per le antichità dei
quod minime inflectantur, semper certam primi medici: Mino da Fiesole, Andrea del
aliquam sedem occupant. Tum oportet ner- Verrocchio e il ‘Marsia rosso’ degli Uffizi. I,”
vos et musculos suis locis inhaerere, denique Prospettiva 72 (1993): 17–42, p. 23.
extremum carne et cute ossa et musculos ves- 101 “[O]nde si vede in ogni casa di Firenze, sopra
titos reddere. .
.sed veluti in vestiendo prius i cammini, usci, fenestre, cornicioni, infiniti
nudum subsignare oportet quem postea vesti- di detti ritratti, tanto ben fatti e naturali, che
bus obambiendo involuamus, sic in nudo pin- paiano vivi.”Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 3, p. 172.
gendo prius ossa et musculi dispondendi sunt” 102 Cennino Cennini, Cennino Cennino’s Il libro
Alberti, On Painting, p. 75. dell’arte. A new English translation and commentary
97 Katherine Park and Eckhard Kessler, with Italian transcription, trans. and ed. Lara Broeke
“Psychology: The Concept of Psychology,” in (London, 2015), chs. 236–42, pp. 250–58. Julius von
The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, Schlosser pointed to Brunelleschi’s death mask,
eds. Charles Bernhard Schmitt, Quentin made in 1446; the death mask of Dante, which
Skinner, Eckhard Kessler and Jill Kraye may be authentic; and examples from medieval
(Cambridge, UK, 1988), 453–63, p. 455. France. Julius von Schlosser, “Geschichte der
98 Martin Kemp, “Il concetto dell’anima in Portraitbildnerei in Wachs: ein Versuch,” Jahrbuch
Leonardo’s Early Skull Studies,” Journal of the der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 29
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34 (1971): (1910/11): 171–258, p. 236.
115–34, p. 125. 103 Biblioteca della Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence,
99 See Chapter 2, ns. 184–88. ms. 60 (Miscellanee Manoscritte, vol. 1), fol.
100 “Cosimo de’ Medici . . . fatto porre un bellis- 43r, transcribed in Covi, Andrea del Verrocchio, p.
simo Marsia di marmo bianco, impiccato a 287, doc.VI.28.
un tronco per dovere essere scorticato: per- 104 Vasari’s description of the voti of Lorenzo

chè volendo Lorenzo suo nipote, al quale era de’ Medici in his life of Verrocchio did not
venuto alle mani un torso con la testa d’un appear in the 1550 edition of the Vite. Alison
altro Marsia, antichissimo, e molto più bello Luchs has suggested that Vasari added the
che l’altro, e di pietro rossa, accompagnarlo col description after obtaining new information
primo; non poteva ciò fare, essendo imperfet- from the Benintendi family. (Alison Luchs,
tisimo. Onde datolo a finire ed acconciare ad “Lorenzo from Life? Renaissance Portrait
Andrea, egli fece le gambe, le cosce e le brac- Busts of Lorenzo de’ Medici,” Sculpture Journal
cia che mancavano a questa figura, di pezzi 4 [2000]: 6–23, p. 21 n. 25). According to the
di marmo rosso, tanto bene, che Lorenzo ne Dizionario biografico degli Italiano, ed. Alberto
rimase sodisfattissimo, e la fece porre dirim- M. Ghisalberti, 45 vols. (Rome, 1960), vol. 8,
petto all’altra, dall’altra banda della porta. Il p. 540, Orsino Benintendi entered Verrocchio’s
quale torso antico, fatto per un Marsia scorti- workshop in 1440.
cato, fu con tanta avvertenza e giudizio lavorato, 105 Giorgio Vasari, Le Vite de’ piu eccellenti pittori,
che alcune vene bianche e sottili, che erano scultori e architetori nelle redazioni del 1550 del 1568,
nella pietra rossa, vennero intagliate dall’arte- ed. Rosanna Bettarini and annotated by Paola
fice in luogo appunto che paiono alcuni pic- Barocchi, 7 vols. (Florence, 1966–87), vol. 8, pp.
coli nerbicini che nelle figure naturali, quando 373–74 (only in 1568), trans. Luchs, “Lorenzo
sono scorticate, si veggiono. Il che doveva from Life?,” pp. 11–12 and n. 25, p. 21. Although
far parere quell’opera, quando aveva il suo these wax effigies no longer survive, replicas of
primiero pulimento, cosa vivissima” (Vasari- some examples may exist in terracotta. A terra-
Milanesi, vol. 3, pp. 366–67). Vasari’s claim that cotta bust of Lorenzo il Magnifico, one of three
Verrocchio produced a statue of Marsyas for surviving busts associated with the wax voti
the Medici is supported by the second item Lorenzo had made after the Pazzi conspiracy,
may have been made from the wax voto placed episcopi Parisiensis, ed. Pierre Mandonnet, 3
in the Chiarito church in 1478 that was dressed vols. (Paris, 1929–33), vol. 1, p. 267ff. For an
in Lorenzo’s clothing. This has been suggested overview of the subject, see Marta Fattori
by Luchs, “Lorenzo from Life?” p. 18. Another and Massimo Luigi Bianchi, eds., Spiritus. IV
terracotta bust of Lorenzo, sometimes attrib- Colloquio Internazionale del Lessico Intelletualle
uted to Antonio del Pollaiuolo, may have been Europeo, Atti (Rome, 1984). See also: Robert
made from a life mask, as the wax voti may have Klein, “Spirito Peregrino,” in Form and Meaning.
been too. The Ashmolean bust is the only one Essays on the Renaissance and Modern Art, trans.
of the group of surviving busts of Lorenzo in Madeline Jay and Leon Wieseltier (New York,
terracotta to have been made from a life or 1979), 62–85; Charles Dempsey, Inventing the
death mask (the proportions of the other busts Renaissance Putto (Chapel Hill, NC, 2001).
indicate that they could not have been made 113 Dempsey, Renaissance Putto, p. 41.
from a mask). Warren argued it was made from 114 Dempsey, Renaissance Putto, ch. 1.
a life mask, rather than a death mask, because 115 On the tomb, see Ida Cardellini, Desiderio da
it bears none of the stubble evident in the sur- Settignano (Milan, 1962), pp. 45 and 160 with
viving death mask in the Museo degli Argenti further bibliography.
in Florence (Jeremy Warren, “A Terracotta 116 Charles Seymour, Jr., The Sculpture of Verrocchio
Bust of Lorenzo de’ Medici in Oxford,” The (London, 1971), p. 114.
Sculpture Journal 2 [1998]: 1–12, pp. 5–6). 117 Dempsey (Renaissance Putto, p. 12) reads the
106 Karla Langedijk, The Portraits of the Medici, spiritelli on Jacopo della Quercia’s tomb of
15th–18th Centuries, 2 vols. (Florence, 1981), vol. Ilaria del Carretto as celebrating Ilaria‘s life.
1, pp. 27–28 and n. 47. 118 Michael Wayne Cole, “Cellini’s Blood,” Art

107 Hugo van der Velden, “Medici Votive Images Bulletin 81 (1999): 215–35; Jacobs, The Living
and the Scope and Limits of Likeness,” in The Image.
Image of the Individual. Portraits in the Renaissance, 119 Cole, “Cellini’s Blood.”
eds. Luke Syson and Nicholas Mann (London, 120 Alessandro Bagnoli,“Lando di Pietro, Crocifisso,”
1998), 126–37, p. 133. in Scultura Dipinta. Maestri di legname e pittori
108 Contemporary documents record the purchase a Siena 1250–1450, ed. Alessandro Angelini et
of pigments and of cloaks and mantles to dress al., exh. cat., Pinacoteca Nazionale, Siena, July
boti. See the documents transcribed in Gino 16–December 31, 1987 (Florence, 1987), 66–67,
Masi,“La ceroplastica in Firenze nei secoli XV– cat. 12, trans. Catherine King, “Effigies: Human
XVI e la famiglia Benintendi.” Rivista d’arte 9 and Divine,” in Siena, Florence, and Padua:
(1916): 124–42, pp. 134–42; and Giorgio Vasari, Art, Society and Religion 1280–1400, ed. Diana
Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Norman, 2 vols. (New Haven, 1995), vol. 2,
Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and 105–28, p. 125.
Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent 121 “[e] soffiò Iddio nella faccia sua lo spirito della
Painters, Sculptors and Architects (Florence, 1568), vita, e fatto è uomo in anima vivente.” Carlo
ed. Gerald Baldwin Brown, trans. Louise S. Negroni, ed., La Bibbia Volgare secondo la rara
Maclehouse (New York, 1960), pp. 148–49. edizione del I Ottobre MCCCCLXXI, vol. 1:
109 Cennini, Cennino Cennino’s Il libro dell’arte, chs. Genesi, Esodo e Levitico (Bologna, 1882), Genesis
21 and 160–62, pp. 42, 190–93. See Pamela H. 2:7, p. 29.
Smith,“Vermilion, Mercury, Blood, and Lizards: 122 Enzo Carli (Scultura Lignea Senese [Milan,

Matter and Meaning in Metalworking,” in 1951], p. 27) records that this note had been
Materials and Expertise in Early Modern Europe: inserted behind one of Christ’s knees. This has
Between Market and Laboratory, eds. Ursula been discussed by Donal Cooper, “Projecting
Klein and Emma Spary (Chicago, IL, 2010), Presence:The Monumental Cross in the Italian
29–49, esp. pp. 35–43. Church Interior” in Presence: The Inherence of
110 Ovid, Metamorphoses I, 363–65. the Prototype within Images and Other Objects,
111 Christian Bec, Les livres des Florentines (1413- eds. Robert Maniura and Rupert Shephard
1608) (Florence, 1984), p. 28; Morpurgo, I mano- (Aldershot, 2005), 47–69, p. 48.
scritti, index, p. 706. 123 “[C]ogli occhi della mente, più che con quelli
112 See, for instance, Thomas Aquinas, Scriptum
del corpo, considerate la faccia sua. Prima, alla
super libros Sententiarum Magistri Petri Lombardi corona delle spine, fittegliele in testa, insino
al celabro; . . . poi lo naso, pieno di mocci e di “Le Tractatus parabolicus du pseudo-Arnaud de
lacrime e di sangue; la bocca, piena di fiele e Villeneuve,” Chrysopoeia 5 (1992–96): 145–71,
di bava e di sangue.” Sant Antonino [Antonino p. 166. This has been discussed by William R.
Pierozzi], Opera a ben vivere di Santo Antonino Newman, Promethean Ambitions. Alchemy and
messa ora a luce con altri suoi ammaestramentie the Quest to Perfect Nature (Chicago, IL, 2004),
un giunta di antiche orazioni toscane da Francesco p. 90.
Palermo, ed. Francesco Palermo (Florence, 131 Chiara Crisciani, “Hermeticism and Alchemy:
1858), p. 169. The Case of Ludovico Lazzarelli,” Early Science
124 This has been discussed, for instance, by
and Medicine 5, no. 2 (2000): 145–59, pp. 150–51.
Randolph, Touching Objects, pp. 205–13. 132 Ladislao Reti, “Parting of Gold and Silver

125 Vasari-Milanesi, vol. 2, p. 520. with Nitric Acid in a Page of the Codex
126 For excellent discussions of Fra Angelico’s
Atlanticus of Leonardo da Vinci,” Isis 56, no.
practice within the context of contemporary 3 (Autumn, 1965): 307–19; and Newman,
theoretical and spiritual debates, see William Promethean Ambitions, pp. 120–24. On the
Hood, Fra Angelico at San Marco (New Haven, links between alchemy and art, see also Cole,
CT, 1993); Georges Didi-Huberman, Fra “Cellini’s Blood;” Frits Scholten, “Bronze, The
Angelico. Dissemblance and Figuration, trans. Jane Mythology of a Metal,” in Bronze. The Power
Marie Todd (Chicago, IL, and London, 1995); of Life and Death, eds. Martina Droth, Frits
and Alexander Nagel, Review of Fra Angelico: Scholten, and Michael Cole, exh. cat., Henry
Dissemblance and Figuration, by Georges Didi- Moore Institute, Leeds, September 13, 2005–
Huberman; and Fra Angelico at San Marco, January 7, 2006 (Leeds, 2005), 20–35; and Smith,
by William Hood, Art Bulletin 78, no. 3 “Vermilion, Mercury, Blood, and Lizards.”
(September, 1996): 559–65. 133 On change in the Eucharist, see Caroline

127 I thank Michael W. Cole for making this
Walker Bynum, “Seeing and Seeing Beyond:
connection. The Mass of St. Gregory in the Fifteenth
128 On this, see Christina Neilson, “Carving
Century,” in The Mind’s Eye: Art and Theological
Life: The Meaning of Wood in Renaissance Argument in the Middle Ages, eds. Anne-Marie
Sculpture,’ in The Matter of Art. Materials, Prac- Bouché and Jeffrey Hamburger (Princeton, NJ,
tices, Cultural Logics, c. 1250–1750, eds. Christy 2006), 208–40, p. 229.
Anderson, Anne Dunlop, and Pamela H. Smith 134 Bynum, “Seeing and Seeing Beyond,” p. 210.
(Manchester, 2015), 223–39. 135 Aden Kumler, Translating Truth: Ambitious
129 On this, see François Quiviger, “Imagining
Images and Religious Knowledge in Late Medi-
and Composing Stories in the Renaissance,” eval France and England (New Haven, CT,
in Pictorial Composition from Medieval to Modern 2011), esp. pp. 156–59; and Aden Kumler, “The
Art, eds. Paul Taylor and François Quiviger, ‘Genealogy of Jean le Blanc’: Accounting for
Warburg Institute Colloquia 6 (London, 2000), the Materiality of the Medieval Eucharist,” in
45–57, p. 48. The Matter of Art. Materials, Practices, Cultural
130 “Filii philosophorum intelligite quod regi-
Logics, c. 1250–1750, eds. Christy Anderson,
mus mercurium secundum exemplum Christi. Anne Dunlop, and Pamela H. Smith (Man-
Colligite quod quatuor passiones fuerunt in chester, 2015), 119–40.
exemplo Christo et quatuor in mercurio. Et 136 This has been convincingly argued by Alison
hoc breuiter exponamus. Hoc notatur quod Wright, “Tabernacle and Sacrament in
sicut in passione Christi in corona cerebrum Fifteenth-Century Tuscany,” in Carvings, Casts
perforatum sic in mercurio ipsum extrahen- & Collectors. The Art of Renaissance Sculpture,
tem.Tertia passio fuit crux Christi ubi pependit eds. Peta Motture, Emma Jones, and Dimitrios
et anima penam recepit. Etiam in mercurio per Zikos (London, 2013), 42–57, p. 44.
decoctionem rubescat, et denotat illa rubedo 137 Rab Hatfield, “The Compagnia de’ Magi,”

corpus Christi faciem suam et corpus fuscum Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33
et tenebrosum quod denotat mortem. Quarta (1970): 107–61, pp. 132–33.
passio cum dixit: ‘Consummatum est’, ‘Sitio!’ 138 Bornstein, Bianchi, p. 32.
que fuit in ligna et signat mortem inclinato 139 Hatfield, “Compagnia de’ Magi”; Marvin

capite. Sic de mercurio qui inbibitur et exic- B. Becker, “Aspects of Lay Piety in Early
catur et designat mortem.” Antoine Calvet, Renaissance Florence” in The Pursuit of
Holiness, eds. Charles Trinkaus and Heiko Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds. Bruno Reudenbach
A. Oberman (Leiden, 1974), 177–99, pp. and Gia Toussaint (Berlin, 2005), 43–59.
190–95; Paul Oskar Kristeller, “Lay Religious 146 Ovid’s Metamorphoses was first translated
Traditions and Florentine Platonism,” in Paul into the vernacular in the first half of the
Oskar Kristeller, Studies in Renaissance Thought Trecento by Arrigo Simintendi da Prato.
and Letters (Rome, 1956), 99–122; Weissman, (Bodo Guthmüller, “Die volgarizzamenti,” in
“Sacred Eloquence,” pp. 250–71. Die Literatur bis zur Renaissance, vol. 1 of Die
140 Bornstein, Bianchi, p. 29. italienische Literatur im Zeitalter Dantes und am
141 Hatfield, “Compagnia de’ Magi,” p. 123. Übergang vom Mittelalter zur Renaissance, ed.
142 Bornstein, Bianchi, p. 35; and Roberta Manetti August Buck, 2 vols. [Heidelberg, 1989], p.
and Giancarlo Savino, “I libri dei Disciplinati di 212). See, for instance, the influence of Ovid’s
Santa Maria della Scala di Siena,” Bolletino Senese Metamorphoses on Dante’s Inferno and on
di Storia Patria 97 (1990): 122–92, pp. 158–59. Petrarch’s Rime sparse (Leonard Barkan, The
On lay artisans as readers and participants in lay Gods Made Flesh. Metamorphosis and the Pursuit
devotion through copying and reading devo- of Paganism [New Haven, CT, 1986], pp. 137–70
tional texts, see Sabrina Corbellini and Margriet and 206–15).
Hoogvliet, “Artisans and Religious Reading in 147 Ovid’s Heroides was translated into the ver-
Late Medieval Italy and Northern France (ca. nacular in 1325 by Filippo Ceffi, a Florentine
1400–ca. 1520),” Journal of Medieval and Early and contemporary of Dante (Massimo Zaggia
Modern Studies 43, no. 3 (Fall, 2013): 521–44. and Matteo Ceriana, I Manoscritti illustrate delle
143 Hatfield, “Compagnia de’ Magi,” pp. 129–35; “Eroidi” ovidiane volgarizzate [Pisa, 1996], p. 1).
Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness. On Verrocchio’s possession of these books, see
Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist earlier, introduction, pp. 25–26 and 258, ns. 116
Thought, 2 vols. (Chicago, IL, 1970), vol. 2, pp. and 117.
633–50. 148 Jane Bennett, Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology
144 Becker, “Aspects of Lay Piety,” p. 190. of Things (Durham, NC, 2010).
145 Bynum, Christian Materiality, pp. 182–83. On the 149 See Neilson, “Carving Life.”
comparison between saints’ bodies and stones, 150 Bynum, Christian Materiality, pp. 247–51.
see Brigitte Buettner, “From Bones to Stones 151 Poggio Bracciolini, Facezie, ed. Marcello
– Reflections on Jeweled Reliquaries,” in Ciccuto (Milan, 1983), pp. 129–30.
INDEX
Abélard, Peter, 324n34 animation,Verrocchio’s interest in, 188–191

acanthus leaves motif, on Verrocchio’s tomb Anonimo Magliabechiano, 21, 248n32,
of Giovanni and Pier de’Medici, 283n188
111–112 Antonio di Benedetto, 277n116, 285n200
Acciaiuoli, Donato, 29 Antoninus of Florence, 107, 133–134, 176,
Adelard of Bath, 130–132 180–181, 191
Aesop’s Fables, 29 Antonio Dei, 16–17, 175, 330n13
Agamben, Giorgio, 165 aperture design, in Florentine tombs, 86, 88
Agnes of Montepulciano, 180 Apollonio di Giovanni, 67, 262n158
Agnolo di Polo, 52 aporia, Gospel representation of Thomas and,
Alberti, Francesco d’Altobianco degli, 29 135–136
Alberti, Leon Battista, 25–26, 100 Aquinas, Thomas, 107, 133
on anatomy, 186 casting metaphor of resurrection, by, 146
on animation, 186, 337n95, 338n96 on Saint Thomas, 135
antiquity, study of, 97–98, 291n46 Summa Theologiae by, 133, 312n98
Della famiglia (On the Family), 100, Aragona, Giovanni d’, 100
296n120 Arasse, Daniel, 182–183
Della Pittura by, 186, 328n82 Archimedes, 246n16
De Re Aedificatoria by, 157 arcosolium tomb, style of, 87
De Statua by, 49, 319n161 Aristotle, 100–101, 103–104, 132–133, 147, 190
on disegno, 157 De Anima by, 132–133
Musca by, 25, 258n120 on marble, 161
On the Family by, 100, 296n120 Meteorology, 161, 325n55
on porphyry, 95, 293n80 Nichomachean Ethics, 100–101
painting by, 248n32 Physics, 147
porphyry carving by, 66 Arnald of Villanova, 193
on sculpture, 49, 164 Arnolfo di Cambio, use of glass paste for
sculpture by, 248n32 Madonna by, 67–68
vernacular literary culture and, 28–29, 174 Arte dei Medici e Speziali, 21, 24, 257n93
Albertus Magnus, 110–111 Arte di Calimala, 16–17, 40, 120
Albizzi, Maso de Luca degli, tomb of, 86–91 artisanal epistemology, 34, 158–161, 263n174
alchemy, 193, 300–301n183, 340n132 artisanal literacy, 161
Aldobrandino da Siena, 134 artistic experimentation
Trattato dei cinque sensi dell’uomo by, 134, perception and cognition in, 158–161
311n86 in Renaissance Florence, 56–73
Allegreti, Antonio, 108 Astesanus of Asti, 107, 299n171
Ames-Lewis, Francis, 97, 263n172 Summa de casibus by, 107
Ammirato, Scipione, 8, 290n33 Augustine (Saint), 131, 135, 146, 259n125,
anatomy 307n54, 316n139
Renaissance artists and, 186–187 on the arrow of love, 162–163
Verrocchio’s interest in, 187 Confessions by, 162, 327n70, 327n71
animation, theories of, 186–191 Enchiridion by, 146
343
344 INDEX
Augustine (Saint) (cont.) Borghini, Don Vincenzio, 46, 266n24, 324n47

on touch, 131, 134–135, 162, 311–312n90, Bornstein, Daniel, 194, 336n69
312n96, 327n70 bottega
authority, ducal tombs as assertion of, vernacular culture at, 28–29, 174–176
102–117 of Verrocchio, 51–56, 196
avello tomb, style of, 86–91 botteghe
Avery, Charles, 71 vernacular culture in, 28–29, 174–176
Avogadro, Giovanni, 99 Botticelli, Sandro, 6, 24, 53, 268n36, 274n91,
279n135, 280n147
Baccio da Montelupo, 178 Botticini, Francesco, 53, 261–262n155, ,
Bacon, Roger, 131–132 274n93, 279n135
Opus majus by, 132, 307–308n59, 308n60, Bracciolini, Poggio, 130–131
308n61 Brigid of Sweden, 180
Baldovinetti, Alesso, 56–57 bronze
Bambach, Carmen C., 156–157 casting and Verrocchio, 18–21, 35–37, 39,
Banco, Nanni di, 35, 66 108–110, 159, 264n3, 320n167,
Barberino, Andrea da, 25–26 324n42
Guerrino il Meschino by, 25, 258n122 in Christ and Saint Thomas (Verrocchio),
Barberino, Luigi da, 105 35–37, 118–119, 122–123, 147–151
Barbo, Cardinal Pietro, 96–97, 176, in Florentine tombs, 88
294n88 foundry sources for, 318–319n161
Barbo, Marco (Bishop), 159–161 and metaphor of resurrection, 145–147
Barolsky, Paul, 138 technological innovation and collaboration
Basso, Bernardino, 52 on, 71–73, 285–286n201, 320n170
Bearzi, Bruno, 148 works by Verrocchio in, see Verrocchio,
Becchi, Gentile de’, 80 Andrea del, bronze, works of, by
Belcari, Feo, 176 Brown, David Alan, 21–22
Bellincioni, Bernardo, 116 Brunelleschi, Filippo
Bellini, Jacopo, 154 Crucifix by, 60, 172, 266n16, 329n8
Benintendi, Orsino, 53, 187–188, 278n127 design for Florentine Duomo, 1–2, 63,
Bennett, Jill, 182–183 245n1
Bernardino of Siena, 107, 141–142, 179, humanist influence on, 131, 260n139
299n173, 315n118 Medici palace construction and, 106
Bernard of Clairvaux, 133, 182 Novella del Grasso Legnaiuolo by, 26–27,
Bertoldo di Giovanni, 27, 285n201, 319n161 260n136
Biagio d’Antonio, 22, 53, 274n94 San Lorenzo, Old Sacristy, 80, 289n12,
Bigordi, Giovanbattista, 278n127 289n13
Billi, Antonio, 106 San Lorenzo parish church designed by,
Biringuccio,Vannoccio, 158–159 78–80
Bischeri family, 55, 278–279n132 technological innovation, experimenta-
black chalk, 44 tion by, 60–61, 63, 282n168
sources of, 321n2 vernacular literary culture and sonnets by,
Verrocchio’s use of, 44, 50, 152–155, 26–27, 29, 34, 260n135, 260n136,
163–164, 267n27, 271n68, 321n5 260n139, 260–261n140, 262n158,
Blessed Andrea Gallerani, 180 263n167
Boccaccio, Giovanni, 28, 163, 195, 259n126 Bruni, Leonardo, 28–29, 74
Amorosa visione by, 163, 327n74 Buca di San Girolamo, 176–178
Decameron by, 25, 163, 182, 195, 258n116, Buggiano (Andrea di Lazzaro Calvalcanti), 82
259n124 Buonaccorso di Montemagno, 29, 101
Esposizioni sopra la Comedia by, 259n129 Treatise on nobility by, 101
Geta and Birria, attributed to, 263n167 Buonaiuto, Andrea di, 129
Bonaventure [Saint], 133–134, 138, 143, 145, Buoninsegni, Domenico, 112
309n77, 309n78, 309n79, 312n91, Buono, Marco del, 67
316n136 Buonomini of San Martino, 176–177
INDEX 345
Burchiello, 26–29, 33, 102, 175–176, 261n151 Colleoni, Bartolomeo, 24

Butterfield, Andrew, x, 15, 37, 122, 138, Colonna, Francesco, 95
247n21, 247n23, 247n27, 255n71, commonplace books, see zibaldoni
257n107, 265n8, 270–271n62, Compagnia dei Magi, 94, 194
289n10, 289n14, 290n28, 290n31, Compagnia di Gesù, 178
291n46, 291n47, 291n49, 293n66, Compagnia di San Luca, 21, 53, 257n93,
293n78, 300n177, 304n18, 304n22, 275n98, 283n188, 284n190
305n25, 308n22, 315n122 confraternities, crucifixes for, 176–178,
Bynum, Caroline Walker, 193–195 193–195
Conrad of Offida, 180
Cadogan, Jean, 69 consumption, in Renaissance Italy, 101–102
Caglioti, Francesco, 80, 257n106, 310n186, copper,Verrocchio’s palla made from, 2–5,
338n100 246n13, 320n168
Calandri, Pier Maria, 3 Corti, Gino, 97–99
carta lucida technique, 47 Coscia, Baldassare, 88
cartolai, 29, 33, 53 Costa, Lorenzo, 152
cartolaio,Verrocchio as, 33 Covi, Dario, 14–16, 25–26
Catherine of Siena [Saint], 180 Credi, Lorenzo di, 52–54, 122, 247–248n27,
Cavalca, Domenico, 179–180, 334n53 271–272n69, 264n3, 267n30,
Trattato della pazienza by, 179–180 273n84, 274n92, 276n105, 276n110,
Cavalcanti, Giovanni, 102 277n111, 277n113
Cavalcanti, Guido, 165 cristo vivo concept, 168–169, 172–174
Cellini, Benvenuto, 111, 116, 149, 190, in vernacular literature, 168–169, 195
271n62, 283n188, 300n183, 319n161, Cropper, Elizabeth, 152–154, 159–161
324n47 Crucifixes
Cennini, Cennino, 47, 153, 187 Florentine confraternities possession of,
Libro dell’arte by, 156, 267n27, 322n24, 176–178, 193–195
322–323n25 limewood, 265–266n16
Cento novelle, 25, 258n116 mixed materials in production of,
chapbooks, see zibaldoni 329–330n8, 330n10, 331n26
Cherico, Francesco d’Antonio del, 33 moveable parts on, 177–178, 331n30
Christ, body of, processions, use in, 128, 176
Eucharistic transformation of, 193–195 ritual use of, 128, 177, 194, 332–333n35
mystical experiences with, 179–182 touch and, 128–129, 181–182, 306n43
Verrocchio’s interpretation of, 149–151, Culex, 25
169–176
Chrysoloras, Manuel, 116 d’Andrea, Giuliano, 55
Ciai, Giovanni, 182–183 Dante, 144–145
Cioni, Michele de Francesco, 16 on animation, 186
Cioni, Simone di Michele di Francesco, artists’ ownership of books by, 259n124,
45–46 259n125, 259n126
Cioni, Tommaso di Michele di Francesco, Classical Antiquity, ideas from, 26,
22–23, 53, 122, 187, 255n69, 255n72, 259n129
257n106, 288n5, 289n14, 328n91, Divina Commedia, 26, 28, 144–145, 186,
338n100 292n54, 327n68, 341n146
Civitali, Matteo, 67, 193–194 on marble, 161
Ciborium for the Host by, 193–194 oral readings of, 28
Clare of Montefalco, 180 Purgatorio by, 186, 337n94
Clark, Kenneth, 34 Rime petrose by, 161–162
cognition on transformation of matter, 161–162
perception and, 156–158 Vita nuova by, 165
through artistic practice, 158–161 on women, love and poetry, 165
Cole, Andrew, 251n46 Dati, Leonardo, 28–29, 175
Cole, Michael, 10 death masks, 72–73, 187–188, 338–339n105
346 INDEX
Dei, Benedetto, 21, 48 David by, 18–19

Memorie Istoriche by, 21, 48 Deposition of Christ by, 56, 59
della Robbia, Andrea, 177 Horse’s head, attributed to, 66–67
della Robbia, Luca, 1, 88, 90, 147, 176 humanist influence on, 34, 130–131
books owned by, 26, 259n126 Joshua by, 63
Buca di San Girolamo, member of the, judgment through practice, defense by,
176–177 159
Christ and Saint Thomas, model for, 121, Judith and Holofernes by, 61, 66, 70
147, 256n77, 303n16 Mercanzia commission and, 121–122
Crucifix by, 177–178 “non-finito” in works by, 71
humanist contact with, 131 painter, 67
Mercanzia commission and, 121–122 Saint Louis of Toulouse by, 35–36, 58, 70, 120
sculpture by, 67, 119–120, 283n189 sculpture by, 56–71, 120, 148
Stemma for Mercanzia at Orsanmichele by, spiritelli by, 189–190
120, 303n7 technological innovation and experimen-
tabernacle by, with bronze relief by tation by, 56–71
Verrocchio, 141, 315n122 tomb of Baldassare Coscia by, 88–89
technological innovations by, 60, 67, 69–70 Donati, Lucrezia, 165–166
Del Puppo, Dario, 29 Verrocchio’s portrait of, 21, 165–166
Dempsey, Charles, 165–167, 188–191 drawing, see also disegno
Dent, Peter, 71–73 as defense of sculptured relief, 154–156
De rerum natura, 103, 108, 131 developments in Quattrocento of,
De Robertis, Domenico, 176 152–154
Desiderio da Settignano, 17, 54, 67, 71, 190, metamorphosis in,Verrocchio’s rep-
265n9, 285–286n201, 287n213, 291n46 resentation of, 161–163
Tabernacle of the Sacrament designed by, Verrocchio’s skill in, 42–45, 152, 154–156,
82–83, 91, 150 266n24
technological innovation and experimen- Dunkerton, Jill, 15, 46
tation by, 67, 71
De statua (Alberti), 50 effigies,Verrocchio’s production of, 187–188,
devotional practices, objects linked to, 338–339n105
128–130, 181–184 Ekirch, Roger, 130
touch in, 128–130, 162 Epiphanius the Deacon, 143
diamonds, in Verrocchio’s Medici tomb, 76, Eucharist
78, 93, 95, 112–114, 293n67, 293n68 as means to salvation, 142
Didi-Huberman, Georges, 187–188 confraternities taking of, and discussing
Diebold, William, 137–138 nature of, 194
Diogenes Laertius, 146–147 nature of change and transformation in,
disegno, Renaissance theories of, 153 193–195
perception and cognition in, 156–158 Verrocchio’s Crucifix as meditation on
Dolce stil nuovo poetry, 165 nature of Christ in the, 193–194
Dolphijn, Rick, 12–14 Eucharistic tabernacles, 141–142, 193
Domenico, Bartolomeo di Guido, 33–34 Euclid, 131
Dominici, Luca, 129, 177, 181 extramission theory of vision, 131, 139
Donatello, 5, 55–56
abacus of, 159–161 falling in love, Renaissance theories of,
bronze casting by, 61–63, 66, 148, 281n154, 162–163, 165
283n181, 285n201, 319n162 Fiamma, Galvano, 101, 104
bronzes by, 61–63, 66–67, 70–71 Fichard, Johannes, 112, 301n186, 301n188
Cavalcanti altarpiece by, 189–190 Ficino, Marsilio, 95–96, 112–113, 194–195
Chellini Madonna by, 67 Filarete (Antonio di Piero Averlino), 96–97,
Christ and Saint Thomas, commission given 99–100, 103–105, 106–107
to, 121 on marble, 161
Crucifix by, 61, 172, 177–178 Trattato di architectura by, 95–96
INDEX 347
Filippino Lippi, 268n36 Commentaries by, 132, 134, 285n201

books owned by, 26, 259n126 drawings and models for other artists,
workshop of, 279n135 285n201
Filippo Lippi, 273n77 Gates of Paradise by, 144, 148
Findlen, Paula, 99–100 humanist influence on, 130–132
Finiguerra, Maso, 29, 63 life casting in workshop of, 300n177
Finiguerra, Stefano (Lo Za), 29 light, manipulation of, on bronze,
Fiorentino, Niccolò, 166 314n114
Fioretti or The Little Flowers of Saint Francis, North Doors by, 66, 148
180–181 painter, 67, 248n32, 283–284n190
Florence reliquary of Saints Protus, Hyacinth,
artistic experimentation in, 56–73 Nemesius by, 91, 103
oral literary culture in, 28 Saint John by, 64–66
vernacular culture in, 25–34 Saint Matthew by, 64, 286n205
Florentine Baptistery, 16, 23, 40, 66, 88, 91, Saint Stephen by, 64–66
131, 144, 148 sculpture by, 148
Florentine Duomo tomb of Maso di Luca degli Albizzi,
Brunelleschi’s design for the cupola of attributed to, 87
the, 63 on touch, 134
Verrocchio’s palla for, 1–5, 52, work across media by, 67, 283–284n190
245n10 workshop of, 273n77
Formigli, Edilberto, 61–63 Ghiberti,Vittorio, 121
fornaciaio, 16, 254n60 Ghirlandaio, Davide, 98
Forteguerri, Niccolò, 23 Ghirlandaio, Domenico, 6, 24, 53–54, 274n92,
Forteguerri cenotaph, 23, 48, 54, 169 278n127, 280n147
Fourth Lateran Council, 143 Giacomo da Lentini, 161–162, 325n60,
Fra Angelico, 191 327n72
Franceschi, Franco, 28–29 Gilbert of Hoyland, 162, 327n69
Francesco di Giorgio Martini, 71, 154, Giordano da Pisa, 133
282n171, 286–287n213 Giovanni d’Antonio, 285n200
Francia, Francesco, 7 Giovanni di Bartolomeo, 1
Fruosino, Bartolomeo di, 1 Giovanni di Ser Giovanni, 24
Fusco, Laurie, 97–99 Giovanni Gherardo da Prato, 26, 260n135
Giovio, Paolo, 82, 95, 289n15, 294n85
Galen, 131 goldsmithing
Gauricus, Pomponius, 6, 21 artists’ experimentations with, 63, 69–71,
De Sculptura by, 21, 48 116, 285–286n201
on Donatello, 148, 159–161 Verrocchio’s training and work in, 9,
on Leonardo da Vinci as Verrocchio’s 16–17, 23, 40–42, 49, 51, 91,
pupil, 275n97 113–116, 174–175
on Verrocchio, 6, 21, 49 Goldthwaite, Richard, 101
Gentile da Fabriano, 129 Gombrich, Ernst, 97
Pilgrims Visiting the Shrine of Saint Nicholas Gospels, story of Thomas in, 125–126,
of Bari by, 129 135–136, 139, 146
Gentilini, Giancarlo, 70–71 government, Mercanzia’s function in,
Geta and Birria, 29–33, 128, 157–158, 122
260n140, 263n167, 324n35 Gozzoli, Benozzo, 56, 277n112
Gherardo di Giovanni di Miniato, 33 Gregory the Great (Pope), 135
Ghiberti, Buonaccorso, 245n6 Grosseteste, Robert, 131, 307n58
Ghiberti, Lorenzo, 69–71, 153, 273n77 Guadgni, Alessandro, 278n132
and bronze casting skills of, 64–66, 148, guilds of Florence, 24–25, 35, 69, 119,
283n181 122, 254n60, 257n109, 283n187,
Christ and Saint Thomas, commission given 283n189, 284n190, 286n202,
to, 121 305n26
348 INDEX
guilds of Florence (cont.) Landucci, Luca, 2, 122

bankers’, 64 Langedijk, Karla, 187–188
Cloth Merchants’ (Arte di Calimala), 40, Le Murate convent, 102
120 Leonardo da Vinci, 6–7, 16, 33–34, 193,
painters’, 21, 24, 248n32, 257n93, 283n187, 268n36
283n188, 283n189 on animation, 186–187
Guido, Antonio di, 28–29 Codex atlanticus by, 134, 311n88
on drawing, 157
Hamburger, Jeffrey, 132 drawings by, 153–154, 321n6
hardstones Geta and Birria, owner of copy of, 33
collections of, 95–100, 105–106, 113–115, hardstone collection of Medici and,
294n91, 295n99 105–106
meanings of, 95–96, see also porphyry influence of Verrocchio on, 6–7, 9, 34, 144,
techniques of working with, 116, see also 153, 155, 266n24, 322n9
porphyry on the palla, 4, 246n15, 246n16
"house of the dead" tomb type, influence on on sculpture, 148, 318n159
Florentine tombs, 87 sfumato technique and, 43–46, 154–156
humanists on touch and sight, 132, 134
contact with artists, 1, 34, 63, 130–131, 176, as Verrocchio’s apprentice/associate, 4, 6–7,
260n139, 263n172 9, 34, 44, 46, 52–53, 193, 268n36,
patrons of Verrocchio, 1, 130–131, 176 271n68, 275n97, 275n98, 275n99,
sermons at confraternity meetings by, 182, 321n5
193–195 Leoni, Massimo, 35–37
vernacular culture and, 27–29, 101, 175 life casting technique, 39, 72, 108, 187–88,
Hutcheson, Francis, 106–108 299–300n177
Hyman, Isabelle, 106 lineamenta, Alberti’s concept of, 157, 323n28,
323n29
incarnation of Christ, as theme in linen
Verrocchio’s works, 186, 193–195 Flemish paintings on, 48, 270n47
intagliatori, 105–106 Verrocchio’s paintings on, 46–48, 50,
147–148, 170
Jacopo da Voragine, The Golden Legend literacy, in Florence, 25–27
(Legenda Aurea) by, 107–108, 128, literature and translation, vernacular, in
131, 135, 162, 305n32 Florence, 25–27
Jacopone da Todi, 132, 180, 259n126, 309n68, Lombard, Peter, 146
336n64 Sentences by, 146
John the Scot, 143 Lucian, 25–26
Jones, Lars R., 178–180 Mosca by, 25, 258n118
Lucretius, 131
Kent, Dale, 28–29
knowledge Magi, Medicis’ association with, 92, 94–95
artistic patronage as expression of, 103 magnificence
senses as source of, 128–135, 156–158 artisanship as expression of, 100–102,
through artistic practice, 158–161 104–117, 296n122
Kress Madonna, 70–71 attitudes to in Renaissance Florence,
Kumler, Aden, 193–195 100–108, 296n119, 296n120,
296n122, 297n133, 298n150
laboring class Medici family’s conceptions of, 102–117
books owned by, 26 Maiano brothers, 26, 55, 259n124,
literacy rates of, 25 333n35
oral culture of, 28–29 Maiano, Giuliano da, 181, 277n116, 285n200,
Landino, Cristoforo, 28–29, 175, 194, 259n124 285n201, 333n35
Lando di Pietro, 190–191 Malatesta, Francesco, 105–106
INDEX 349
Manetti, Antonio, 27, 63, 260n135, 260n136, Verrocchio’s tomb for, 10, 23, 38–39,
282n169, 282n170 74–117
Manetti, Giannozzo, 29 Medici, Giovanni di Bicci de’, 80, 82
Mantegna, Andrea, 152–154 Medici, Giuliano de’, 18, 21, 23
marble patron of Verrocchio, 18, 22–23, 76, 92–93,
beliefs about, 49, 161 255n69
Verrocchio’s use of and allusions to, 9–10, Medici, Lorenzo de’, 1–2, 10
17, 23, 38–39, 48, 55, 74, 76, 78, Ambra by, 162, 326n67
82–84, 93, 96–97, 108, 114, 152, art patronage and political ambition, 10,
155–156, 159, 161, 163, 167, 187, 197 297n136
Marbode of Rennes, 95 collections of, 95–100, 105–106, 291n46
Marsuppini, Carlo, 28–29, 63–64, 189–190 colors and symbols used by, 93
Martini, Simone, 161–162 Mercanzia, control of, 122–123
Masaccio, 67, 283n187 poetry of, 161–162, 163–167, 295n105
Maso di Bartolomeo, 90 political upheaval faced by, 85–86
materiality Raccolta Aragona by, 162
in Bargello Crucifix (Verrocchio), 176–195 as ruler, 85, 92–94, 122–123, 290n36,
as Christian metaphor, 112–113 290n37, 294n89, 295n100
defense of wealth and, 106–108 as sacred personage, 92
of devotional practices, 149–150, 178–193, San Lorenzo parish church and, 84
320n170, 320n174 Selve d’amore by, 93–94, 99
mystical encounters and, 180–186 tomb materials and inscriptions on hard-
scholarly research on, 10–14, 251n46 stone vases ordered by, 95–96
transformation of matter and, 161–163, vernacular literature and, 27, 94, 162–167,
193–195 293n78, 326n87, 326n66, 326n67
materials as metaphors for the Medici, in Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas and,
Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni 122–123, 304n22, 304–305n25
and Piero de’ Medici, 92–100 Verrocchio’s David and, 18, 255n69
Matthias (King of Hungary), 130–132 Verrocchio’s palla and, 1
media Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni and Piero
artists’ technological innovation and mix- de’ Medici, 23, 74, 76, 84–85, 92–
ing of, 61–63, 67–73, 248–249n31 117, 196, 291n46, 292n65, 293n74
Crucifix of Verrocchio and mixing of, Verrocchio’s work for, 21–23, 74, 76,
169–176 84–85, 92–93, 165–166, 187–188,
Verrocchio’s work between and across, 328n91, 338n100, 338n104,
10–16, 48–51, 169–176 338–339n105
Medici, Bernardo d’Alamanno de’, 194 wax votives of, 187–188
Medici, Cosimo de’, 17–18 Medici, Lorenzo di Giovanni di Giovanni di
attitudes about spending of, 99, 101–102, Bicci de’, 80, 91, 289n12
104, 296n122 Medici, Piero de’, 17–18, 22–23
collecting practices of, 97, 187, 294n91 artistic tastes and collection of, 93, 96–97,
dedication to Saint Thomas, 122 99, 103–105
in Florentine government, 122–123 death and burial of, 85, 95, 103, 290n33,
palace, plans to connect to San Lorenzo, 106 290n37, 292n65
patronage at San Lorenzo, 82–84 defense of wealth accumulated by,
vernacular poetry, interest in by, 28 106–108
Verrocchio’s tomb of, 37–38, 83, 88, 99, Filarete’s description of scrittoio of, 96, 99,
103 103, 105, 107
Medici, Giovanni de’ magnificence and, 103, 107
collecting practices of, 96, 104, 294n91 Orsanmichele project and, 119–120
death of, 292n65 porphyry, punning reference to and use of
funeral of, 290n32 in commissions of, 93–94, 293n74
vernacular poetry, interest in by, 28 as sacred personage, 91–92, 116
350 INDEX
Medici, Piero de’ (cont.) Michelozzi, Niccolò, 105

San Lorenzo and, 84 Michelozzo, 55, 88, 106
Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas and, Balustrade around the tabernacle protect-
120, 304–305n25 ing the miraculous image of the
Verrocchio’s David and, 18, 255n69 Annunciation by, 88
Verrocchio’s tomb for, 23, 38–39, 74–117 mixed media, see media
Medici, Piero di Lorenzo de’, 93–95, 102–103 Montaigne, Michel de, 2–3
Medici family Montecatini, Antonio da, 100–102
collections, 95–106, 113–114, 268n41, Montefeltro, Federico da, 100–102
270n49, 285n200, 294n91, 302n194 Monte Giovanni di Miniato, 33
colors and symbols used by, 93 Morelli, Giovanni, 181–184
Flemish paintings collected by, 48 Ricordi by, 181, 334n51
Golden Age, associated with by, 93 Moschus, vernacular translation of, 25–26,
magnificence and, 100–117, 296n112, 258n119
296n122, 299n174 Most, Glenn, 135–136
Mercanzia, control of by, 122–123 mystical encounters, objects as source of,
palace of and links to San Lorenzo, 98–99, 180–186
106, 116
porphyry, use of in commissions by, 88, Naldi, Naldo, 84, 92–93
93–94, 96, 111–112, 291n47 Nancy, Jean-Luc, 135–136
political upheaval faced by, 85–86, 102–117 "Nanni Grosso", 53–54
sacred authority claimed by, 92 Natali, Antonio, 46–47
San Lorenzo, patronage and control of, neo-Platonic metaphor, 112–113
78–84, 91, 288n7, 288n8, 289n13, Neri di Bicci, 53
290n28, 291n47 Ricordanze of, 52, 273n76, 277n116
technological innovation encouraged by, Nesi, Giovanni, 182–183, 193–195
105–106 Niccoli, Niccolò, 25–26, 130–132
usury, see Medici family, wealth and Niccolini, Giustina, 101–102
spending, concern about by Novellino, 26
vernacular literature, interest in by, 28–29,
94, 162–163, 293n78, 305n33, objects, mystical encounters inspired by,
326n60, 326n66, 326n67 180–181
Verrocchio’s work for, 17–18, 74, 254n63 oil-based painting, by Verrocchio and artists
wax votives of, 187–188 in his workshop, 45–48
wealth and spending, concern about by, oil-based painting, experiments in by fif-
10, 101–102, 107, 116, 196–197, teenth-century artists, 56, 280n147,
299n174 280n150
wealth transformed into positive by oral culture in Florence, 28
Verrocchio, 74, 102–117, 196–197, Orcagna, 26
302n198 Origen of Alexandria, 141, 146–147
meditation, crucifixes linked to, 178–180 Contra Celsum by, 146, 315n119, 317n145,
Meditations on the Life of Christ, 128–130, 135 317n146
Megli, Antonio, 29 Orsanmichele, façade decoration of, 35,
Canzone alla Vergine by, 29 119–120
Mercanzia, see Università della Mercanzia Our Lady of Impruneta (miraculous painting),
Mesarites, Nikolaos, 150–151 183
metal materials, artistic production using, Ovid, 188–189, 195
106–108, 145–147, 318–319n161 Heroides by, 25, 195, 341n147
metamorphosis, theme in Verrocchio’s Metamorphoses by, 188–189, 195, 339n110,
art, 107–108, 116, 145–151, 152, 341n146
161–163 vernacular translations of, and influence
Methodius of Olympus, 146 on vernacular literature, 25–26,
Michelangelo, 53 188–189, 195
INDEX 351
Phaethon intaglio, 105 porphyry

painting in tombs, 87–88
devotional practices and mystical experi- in Verrocchio’s Medici tomb, 93–95,
ences and, 184–186 111–112
technological innovation and exper- Verrocchio’s use of, 37–38, 93–95,
imentation in, 57, 280n147, 111–112
285–286n201 precious stones, in Verrocchio’s tomb of
Verrocchio’s work in, 6–7, 9, 15, 17, Giovanni and Piero de’ Medici,
21–24, 34, 45–48, 50, 52, 55–56, 73, 113–116, 301n190
147–148, 163, 170, 174, 184–186, printmaking, technological innovation in, 63
188, 192, 271n68 Ptolemy, 130–132
Palmieri, Matteo, 1–2
Pandolfini, Pier Filippo, 193–195 Radcliffe, Anthony, 14–16
Panziera da Prato, Ugo (Hugo Panciera), Razzanti, Piero di Neri, 105
178–179, 186, 192 reliquaries,Verrocchio’s evocation of, see
Trattati by, 179, 334n49, 334n50 Verrocchio, tomb of Giovanni
Paolozzi Strozzi, Beatrice, 14–16, 169–176, and Piero de’ Medici, reliquaries,
176–177 evocation of
paper,Verrocchio’s paintings on, 46–47 repoussé (hammering), 4, 5, 40, 266n23, see
Parte Guelfa, 35, 118–120, 302n4 also Verrocchio, repoussé (ham-
Pasquino da Montepulciano, 90 mering) in work of
Passavant, Günter, 14–16, 50, 147–148 Ricci, Guido di Piero dei, 29
patrons Ricci, Piero dei, 29, 262n157
technological innovation for and expecta- Riccio, Agostino del, 95
tions of, 64, 67–70, 71–73, 104–105 Richard of Middleton, 106–108
wealth accumulation and spending pat- Riemenschneider, Tilman, 138–139
terns and, 103–104 Altar of the Holy Blood by, 138
Penny, Nicholas, 71–73 Rinuccini, Alamanno, 193–195
perception Zibaldone of, 21
cognition and, 156–158 Roberts, Sean, 61–63
through artistic practice, 158–161 Rossellino, Antonio, 71–73, 176–177
Petrarch, 28, 93–95, 161–162, 163–165 Rossellino, Bernardo, 67
Trionfe (Triumphs) by, 25 Rucellai, Giovanni, 18–22, 28–29, 49
vernacular translations of, 25–26 Rustici, Giovanni Francesco, 53–54
Piero da Vinci, 54
Piero della Francesca, 130–132 Sacchetti, Franco, 28, 126–128, 168–169, 195
Pitti, Luca, 95 Trecento novelle by, 28, 168, 195, 258n116,
Planctus Mariae et aliorum (The Lament of 329n1
Mary and Others), 178 sacre rappresentazioni (sacred performances),
Platina, Bartolomeo, 99, 101–102 177–178, 333n42
De optimo cive by, 99, 102 crucifixes used in, 193–195
Pliny, the Elder, 163, 328n81 Saltarelli, Jacopo, 54
Polcri, Alessandro, 101–102 San Francesco Poverino confraternity,
Poliziano, Angelo, 105 176–177
Orationes by, 105 Sangallo, Giuliano da, 111–112
Pollaiuolo, Antonio, 1–2, 21–22, 40–43, 55 Taccuino Senese of, 112
artistic experimentation by, 57 San Lorenzo, parish church of, Medici con-
Pollaiuolo, Piero, 21–22 trol of, 74–92, 106
artistic experimentation by, 57, 248n32, Santa Maria della Pietà confraternity,
275n102, 280n149, 280n150 176–177
David by, 56, 58, 161 Santi, Giovanni, 21, 48
Pontano, Giovanni, 104–105 La vita e le geste di Federico di Montefeltro
De splendore by, 104–105, 298n148 duca d’Urbino by, 48
352 INDEX
Sarto, Andrea del, 26–27 Tabernacle of the Sacrament by Desiderio

Batracomiomachia, attributed to, 27 da Settignano, see Desiderio da
Savonarola, Girolamo, 134–135 Settignano, Tabernacle of the
Scala, Bartolomeo, 182–183 Sacrament
"schiavellatione"(ritual of removing the Taccola, Mariano, 63
nails), 177 talismans, in Medici tombs, 95–96
Schubring, Paul, 121–122 Tanturli, Giuliano, 26–27
sculpture Tazza Farnese, 98, 105
drawing as defense of, 154–156 technological innovation
metaphor used in vernacular poetry, in Renaissance Florence, 56–73
163–167 tempera in painting
technological innovation and experimen- artists’ use of, 56, 58, 280n147
tation in, 57–61, 320n170 Verrocchio’s use of, 45–46, 170, 174,
Verrocchio’s experiments and innova- 247n27, 267n35, 268n39
tions in, 5–6, 10, 35–42, 49, 78, tenzoni (patterned sonnets), 26–27
88, 108–116, 147–149, 158–159, terracotta
169–170, 184–185, 186–188 della Robbia’s technique with, 57–61
Second Council of Nicaea, 143–145 experimentation in, 56, 60, 64, 69–71
seeing Verrocchio’s work in, 49–52
crucifixes as tool for spiritual, 178 Theophilus Presbyter, 149
as knowledge, 128–132, 156–158 Theophrastus, 161
as theme in representations of Christ and Thomas (Apostle and Saint)
Saint Thomas, 123–128 exegesis on, 125, 135, 139–140, 143, 197
as topic in vernacular literature, 130–132 as subject in government halls and law
in Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas, courts, 122–123
136–142 touch and sight in representations of,
Seneca, 29, 261–262n155 123–128, 134–135
Serragli, Bartolommeo di Paolo di Giovanni, vernacular interpretations of story of,
95–96 126–128
Sforza, Galeazzo Maria, 22–23, 28–29, Verrocchio’s interpretation of, 118–119,
100–102 124–128, 134–145, 147–151
sfumato technique, 10 Verrocchio’s sculpture of, 5, 10, 118–119,
Verrocchio’s use of, 10, 44, 152, 155–156, 122, 124–125, 136–145, 147–151,
164, 197 317–318n151
Shearman, John, 17–18 Thomas of Celano, 180–181
silver Torrigiani, Pietro, 53–54
artists’ experimentations with, 69–71 touch and tactility
Verrocchio’s work in, 40–43 exegetical scholarship concerning,
silverpoint drawing, 44–45, 321n6 135–145
Simone Ferrucci, Francesco di, 53–55, in Ideal Head of a Woman, 152, 197
277n113 as knowledge, 128–132, 156–158
Smith, Pamela H., 159–161 in Renaissance art and literature, 119–135
Song of Songs, 132–134, 182–183 in representations of St. Thomas, 123–128,
spending, Aristotelian doctrine of glad and 134–135
generous, 103 in Verrocchio’s Thomas sculpture, 137–138
spiritelli, 188–191 Tractatus parabolicus (Arnald of Villanova), 193
stiacciato relief, 70–71 transformation of materials,Verrocchio’s art
Stiberc, Peter, 61 as expression of, 161–163, 193–195
Strozzi, Alessandra, 47–49 transubstantiation, Renaissance artistic
Strozzi, Jacopo, 86–91 expression of, 193–195
stumping technique in drawing,Verrocchio’s Traversari, Ambrogio, 130–132
use of, 153, 155–156, 164, 321n4 Tribizond, Georg of, 28–29
stylus,Verrocchio’s work with, 44–45, 48–49 Trismegistus, Hermes, 110–111
INDEX 353
turtle symbol, in Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni in Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas,
and Piero de’ Medici, see Verrocchio, 143, 159
tomb of Giovanni and Piero de’ Verino, Ugolino, 18–21, 49, 53–54
Medici, turtles, significance of, in De Epigrammi by, 21, 256n83, 270n55
De Illustratione Urbis Florentiae by, 48, 52,
Ubertino da Casale, 139–142, 145 270n54
Uccello, Paolo, 176–177 Vernacci, Leonardo, 104
Università della Mercanzia, 119–120 vernacular literature and culture
usury, defense of, 106–108 animation in, 186–191
Bargello Crucifix in context of, 174–176,
Valori, Niccolò, 100–102 186–191
Vita by, 100–102 classical literature translated into, 25–29
van Ausdall, Kristen, 139–142 conflation of lady, love, and poetry in,
van der Tuin, Iris, 12–14 161–167
van der Velden, Hugo, 187–188 in Florence, 25–34
Van Eck, Caroline, 157 meditation in, 178–180
Vasari, Giorgio, 2–3 metamorphosis as theme in, 10, 161–169
on apprentices and assistants to Verrocchio, mystical encounters in, 180–181
7, 34, 52–55 perception and cognition in, 157–158
biography of Verrocchio, 2, 6–9, 33, performances of, 28–29
248n29 touch in, 126–135, 162–163, 180–181
on crucifixes by Brunelleschi and touching and seeing in, 130–134, 162–163
Donatello, 57–61 transformation of matter in, 161–162, 193–195
on crucifixes by Verrocchio, 169 Verrocchio, Andrea del
on death masks by Verrocchio, 187 apprentices/assistants/associates of, 4,
on drawing, 156–157, 323n26 6–7, 9, 34, 44, 46, 52–55, 122, 193,
on drawings by Verrocchio, 9, 45–46, 247–248n27, 261–262n155, 264n3,
153–154, 266n24 268n36, 271n68, 271–272n69,
on Fra Angelico, 191 273–274n84, 274n91, 274n92,
on hardstones, 95 274n93, 275n97, 275n98, 275n99,
Libro di disegno of, 45 276n104, 276n105, 276n110,
on Mercanzia commission, 121–122 277n111, 277n113, 321n5
on paintings by Verrocchio, 21, 34, 46, 48 artistic legacy of, 5–9, 196–198, 251n47
on palla by Verrocchio, 2, 245n9 attribution issues with work of, 14–16
on Verrocchio as architect, 9, 80, 270n50 books owned by, 25, 29, 34, 258n116,
on Verrocchio as a painter, 6–7, 21, 34, 47, 258n118
256n89, 268n40, 270n50, 274n94 bottega of, 51–56, 196
on Verrocchio as bronze caster, 148, bronze, works in, by, 2–3, 9, 16, 18–22, 35,
320n166, 320n167 37–40, 48–50, 55, 74–78, 82, 84,
on Verrocchio as goldsmith, 48, 113, 270n50 92–96, 108, 110, 112–113, 118–120,
on Verrocchio as sculptor, 48, 270n50 122–123, 137–138, 142–151,
on Verrocchio moving between media, 9, 158–159, 170, 186, 196–197, 255n71,
56, 249n35 256n83, 264n3, 291–292n50,
on Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas, 292n54, 304n18, 315n122, 320n169
121, 125, 138, 148, 271n62, 305n28, bronze casting by, 5, 18–21, 35–37, 39,
314n112, 318n151 108–111, 118–119, 123, 145–151,
on Verrocchio’s legacy, 6–9 158–159, 170, 190, 255n71, 264n3,
on Verrocchio’s Marsyas, 23, 112, 187, 257n106 271n62, 303–304n18, 304n19,
on Verrocchio’s tomb of Giovanni and 320n167, 320n169, 324n42
Piero de’ Medici, 88, 93, 289n11, career of, 16–25
291n50 defense of Medici wealth by, 106–117
on wax votives by Verrocchio, 187–188 imagination as subject in work of, 163–167
veil, metaphor of inventiveness of, 10, 35–51
354 INDEX
Verrocchio, Andrea del (cont.) David, 18, 255n69, 255n71, 256n73,

inventories of possessions of, 55–56 277n117
life casting by, 39, 108–111, 300n177 drapery studies on linen, 46–48, 50,
marble work by, 17, 23, 159–161 147–148
materials and media used by, 9–16 Executioner, 15, 42, 49, 266n21
Mercanzia commission and, 119–123 Forteguerri cenotaph, 23, 48, 54
repoussé (hammering), use of in works by, modello for, 48–49
3–5, 42, 51 Francesco Sassetti, bust of, 159
transformation of materials in works of, Head of a Woman (silverpoint drawing),
161–163, 193–195 44–45
vernacular literature, knowledge of by, Ideal Head of a Woman, 10, 152–167
25–26, 29–34, 126–130, 174–175, as defense of sculpture, 154–163
178–180, 188–190, 195 as portrait of imagination, 163–167
work between and across media by, 9–14, as representing metamorphosis,
48–51, 67–73 161–163
works by purpose of, 152–154
Baptism of Christ, 6–7, 21, 45–46, 267n33, sculpture and drawing connected in,
268n36, 271n68, 274n91 154–156, 162–167
Beheading of Saint John the Baptist, 15, 16, sfumato,Verrocchio’s use of in, 10, 44,
23, 40–42, 49, 248n28 152, 155, 164, 197, 322n18
candelabrum, 18–21 stumping technique in, 153, 155, 164,
Captain with the Mace, 42 321n4
Christ and Saint Thomas, 5, 35–37, 49–50, touch as knowing in, 156–161
54, 58, 118–151, 152, 169, 197 touching and seeing as equivalent in,
artistic legacy of, 5 152, 156–158, 197
Christ as door metaphor, 139–145, Madonna and Child (stucco, Oberlin),
315n122 attributed to workshop of, 184–186
commission for, 119–123, 304n22 Madonna and Child (terracotta, Bargello,
details and iconography of, 135–145 Florence), 184–186
differences in casting of two figures Madonna and Child with Saints
of, 148 (Budapest), 21, 274n94
drapery study for, 147–148 Madonna and Child with Two Angels
inventiveness in, 35–37, 49–50 (National Gallery, London), 268n39
meaning of bronze in, 145–147 Madonna and Standing Christ Child
niche site for, meaning of, 142–145 (Gemäldegalerie, Berlin), attrib-
pictorial aspects of, 49–50, 118–119, uted to workshop of, 184–186
136–145, 146, 149–151 Madonna di Piazza (Pistoia altarpiece),
technological innovation in work 7–8, 23, 175, 247–248n27, 257n102
on, 35–37 Marsyas, 23, 112, 187, 257n106, 338n100
Verrocchio’s craftsmanship as meta- mounts of Medici vases, attributed to,
phor for Thomas in, 145–151 113–114
Colleoni monument, 5–6, 16, 24, 54, paintings on linen, 46–48, 50
110, 148, 264n3 paintings on paper, 46–47
Crucifix (Bargello) by, 10, 15, 51, 128, palla by, 1–5, 21, 35, 51–53, 55, 63, 148,
168–195 245n3, 245n10, 246n19, 274–
cork used in production of, 331n25 275n96, 275n98, 279n137, 320n168
materiality in, 176–195, 197 Pietà (terracotta, formerly Berlin), 169
as meditation device, 178–197 Pistoia altarpiece, see Madonna di Piazza
techniques used in, 169–174, 191–192 Putto with a Dolphin, 22, 277n117
transformation of materials in as reliquary casket, attributed to, 91
spiritual metaphor, 193–195 Resurrection (terracotta), 169
vernacular literature and culture and, Saint Jerome, painting attributed to,
174–176 46–47
INDEX 355
spiritello on Desiderio da Settignano’s porphyry, meanings of, in, 87–88,

Marsuppini tomb, attributed to, 93–99, 111–112
189–190 reliquaries, evocation of in, 82,
Sportello with Christ the Redeemer, 91–92, 99, 196, 289n13
attributed to workshop of, 141 tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici, con-
standards for tournaments, 23 nections to, 82–83
Studies of Infants, 108–110 turtles, significance of, in, 76, 93,
Tomb of Cosimo de’ Medici, 17–18, 108–111
37–38, 82–83, 88, 99, 103, 255n68, usury, defense of in, 107–117
289n14, 291n47 Verrocchio as Magus, allusions to in,
Tomb of Piero and Giovanni de’ 108–111
Medici, 10, 22–23, 38–39, 74–117, wax votives, 23, 187–188, 338n104,
196 338–339n105
arcosolium tomb type, similarities to, Woman with a Posy, 159
87 Youth with the Salver, 42
artisanship as magnificence expressed zibaldoni made in workshop of, 17, 26,
in, 100–117 29–34, 55, 157–158, 176, 260n140,
as defense of Medici wealth, 102–117 278n128, 307n54
as oration, 74–92 workshop environment of, 14, 54–56
avello tomb type, similarities to, Verrocchio sketchbook, so-called, 54,
86–87 285n200
chapel of SS. Cosmas and Damian, Vespasiano da Bisticci, 28–29
connections to, 80–83 Vespucci, Georgio Antonio, 193–195
colors on as reference to the Medici, Virgil, Georgics, 26
93 vision, knowledge and, 130–132
date of completion of, 84 Vitalis of Blois, 324n35
de rerum natura, metaphors alluding volgare culture, 26–27
to in, 103, 108–111, 116
diamonds, significance of, on, 93–95, wealth, artistic production as defense of,
97 102–117
inscriptions on, 78 William of Auxerre, 107, 116
materials as metaphors for the wood sculpture
Medici in, 92–100 materials incorporated into, 329–330n8
materials used in, 87–88, 93–100, mystical experiences and, 129–130, 180–181
108–113, 196–198 ritual use of, 128–129, 177
Medici as sacred personages in, 82, technological innovation and experimen-
91–92, 116–117 tation in, 60–61, 281n158
Medici collections of objects,
references to in, 93–100, 105–106, zibaldoni (commonplace books/chapbooks),
113–114 25–34
Medici palace, connections to, 78, Verrocchio’s production of, see Verrocchio,
99–100, 106, 113–117 Andrea del, zibaldoni made in
net in, 74, 82, 88–92 workshop of

Practice and Theory in The... NG Art

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Practice and Theory in The... NG Art

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRACTICE AND THEORY IN THE ITALIAN

Verrocchio was arguably the most important sculptor between Donatello

improved my work immeasurably, especially Denise Allen, Colin Bailey, Susan

Figure 1. Filippo Brunelleschi. Cupola, 1420–36, Duomo, Florence.

[Verrocchio] made [the palla] four braccia high, and positioned it on a

As Vasari emphasizes,Verrocchio’s cleverness lay in particular in the engineering

Figure 6. Andrea del Verrocchio. Equestrian Monument to Bartolomeo Colleoni, bronze

Just as influential has been Vasari’s characterization of Verrocchio’s style

what Verrocchio achieved by working in this way.Verrocchio’s practices, it will

exhibition catalogues with an emphasis on techniques.41 A welcome result has

In terms of artworks, . . . a new materialist perspective would be inter-

I.1 VERROCCHIO’S CAREER

Verrocchio was born c. 1435 in Florence to a family of artisans and laborers59

Figure 18. Andrea del Verrocchio. Candelabrum, bronze, 1468, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.

In the early 1480s Verrocchio won the prestigious competition overseen by

of Florence’s guild system allowed Verrocchio to move between media, form-

I.2 VERNACULAR CULTURE IN VERROCCHIO’S FLORENCE

fifteenth century, especially among artisans, shopkeepers, and merchants, who

stories from Quattrocento Florence, which concerns a woodcarver who is

related to those in ms. 1591 (Figures 23–26) that a connection seems certain.

Although Verrocchio appears not to have carried out the decoration of

Throughout his career, Verrocchio demonstrated great inventiveness, evident

Figure 29. Orsanmichele, Florence. Fourteenth century.

a single pour – a feat of which Renaissance bronze sculptors were particularly

Verrocchio’s Beheading of St John the Baptist relief (Figure 13), which he

his workshop.25 In addition, Verrocchio was highly innovative from a techni-

linked to finished paintings or sculptures, others may have been created as

1.1 VERROCCHIO’S WORK BETWEEN AND ACROSS MEDIA

these effects,Verrocchio depended on both two- and three-­dimensional mod-

di Credi,87 Orsino Benintendi,88 Giovanni Francesco Rustici,89 and an artist

recommending in his final testament that Credi be appointed by the Signoria

1.3 EXPERIMENTAL FLORENCE

Figure 51. Alesso Baldovinetti, Annunciation, fresco, c. 1466, Chapel of the Cardinal of

significant problem that Donatello overcame through his assemblage of smaller

particularly idiosyncratic technique.163 Instead of building up his wax model over

Figure 60. Lorenzo Ghiberti. Saint Stephen, bronze, 1427–28, Orsanmichele, Florence.

Verrocchio’s expertise in a wide range of media must be understood in

VERROCCHIO’S MEDICI TOMB: ART AS

2.1 TOMB AS ORATION AT SAN LORENZO

an inscription naming the deceased, followed by the initials of a Roman tomb

Figure 80. Desiderio da Settignano. Tabernacle of the Sacrament, marble, completed 1461,

the Medici heraldry (Figure 36). Desiderio’s tabernacle (Figure 80) served as the

Medici control of San Lorenzo continued after Cosimo’s death in 1464.

Desinat Eneas celebrarier amplius, olim

[Let Aeneas cease to be celebrated so greatly, although he once carried his

With this commission, Verrocchio faced the considerable challenge of

language of materials and nonfigural iconography that avoided the problem

focus of these Eucharistic rites was Desiderio da Settignano’s Tabernacle of

2.2 TOMB AND COLLECTION: A PORTRAIT THROUGH MATERIALS

produced by polishing with diamond abrasives served to emphasize the fine

2.3 ARTISANSHIP AS MAGNIFICENCE

In every kind of magnificence Lorenzo had surpassed not only himself

Valori’s use of the expression “magnificence” in describing Lorenzo’s collec-

Ethics and is used, for instance, by Galvano Fiamma in his fourteenth-­century

Since it behooves a magnificent prince to outlay large expenditures for

Thus, expenditure was celebrated in some circles as a demonstration of a rul-

2.4 MAKING AS A DEFENSE OF MEDICI WEALTH

As a visual statement in a public setting, a tomb had the potential to announce

served as a permanent funerary oration through materials and iconography,

I find we have spent a large sum of money from 1434 up to 1471, as

concerns splendor as distinct from magnificence (splendor is a quality con-

To me it seemed a very artful thing, but then this man to whom it

And in his Orationes (late 1480s–1492), Angelo Poliziano praised Lorenzo’s

these effects,Verrocchio depended on both two- and three-dimensional mod-

Ethics and is used, for instance, by Galvano Fiamma in his fourteenth-century

Verrocchio’s Christ and Saint Thomas is one of the best-documented sculptures

Verrocchio’s drawing shows the head of a woman in three-quarter pose, gaz-

In one of his well-known vernacular tales from the Trecentonovelle, Franco

We get a sense of the flagellant’s experience through a poem by the fifteenth-