Iacopo Sansovino's Contract for the Madonna in Sant'Agostino, RomeAuthor(s): Gino CortiSource: The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 113, No. 820 (Jul., 1971), pp. 394-396Published by: The Burlington Magazine Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/876665 .

Accessed: 21/12/2014 21:50

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

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

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:50:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SHORTER NOTICES

lacopo Sansovino's contract for the Madonna in Sant'Agostino, Rome BY GINO CORTI

A FEW years ago, in the same Capponi archive where Giovan Battista Figiovanni's memorandum' (so important for the history of Michelangelo's career) turned up, I had again the good fortune of finding another interesting document: the commission contract for the ,Madonna del Parto by lacopo d'Antonio Tatti (called Sansovino). This Madonna (Fig.39), one of the most venerated in Rome, has remained in exactly the same spot where it was unveiled more than four and half centuries ago, in a niche inside the facade wall of Sant'Agostino in Rome. Upon finding the document, I transcribed it and set it aside, intending to pursue further research for an eventual publication of it. Relying too much on memory, I neglected to note down the file in which the contract was preserved. Some time elapsed, and then in 1966 the flood struck Florence. The Capponi palace stands beside the Arno, and the section of the archive which included the document was hastily moved from the ground floor to an upper storey of the building for safe keeping. Although this section of the archive escaped damage from moisture, the papers by force of circum- stance were stacked up hastily until they could be rearranged in a more orderly manner on the shelves. When I was able to return to the archive, however, despite repeated searches through the papers, I was unable to find the contract or any of the business papers which I remember accompanied it. Although there is still a chance that this document may one day be re-traced, it seems advisable not to postpone publication of it any longer.

The contract makes it possible to establish the terminus post quem for Sansovino's Madonna as 1516, and also provides the probable terminus ante quem as 1518. The reason for caution in stating the latter date is that Renaissance artists were notorious for rarely observing the deadlines stipulated by the contract, or allogagione, for completion of the work. Indeed, time-limit clauses appear to have been a means for avoiding excessive procrastina- tion.2 Nevertheless, failing evidence to the contrary, we can assume that the statue and tabernacle were finished around 1518, even though Adolfo Venturi and Hans R. Weihrauch believed that this was the year of the commission.3 Laura Tittoni and Giovanni Mariacher have stated that the work was begun in 1521.4

The contract is in the form of a private deed, and conforms to other such commissions to artists. However, there is a striking anomaly here: although the contract states that both parties must sign at the bottom, only the signature of the patron (and, at that, only in the form of a proxy) appears. As a rule, the absence of signature of one of the contracting parties made such a docu- ment incomplete and subsequently rendered it invalid. Here, however, this was not the case, because the work of art, which is

extant, shows that it was in fact fully carried out. It might be argued that the document in the Capponi archive is a contem- porary copy of the original preserved by the Martelli family. Even if this is the case, it is still difficult to explain why the entire text was copied, including the later appraisal, but the artist's signature is not given. In the present state of our knowledge, this missing signature remains a mystery.

The document informs us that the Madonna del Parto was not commissioned, as has commonly been stated, by Giovan Fran- cesco Martelli, but by his heirs. The date of Martelli's death is unknown, but it seems likely that this occurred shortly before 1516. From the tomb inscription on the pavement in front of the Martelli chapel in Sant'Agostino, we are informed that Giovan Francesco died suddenly, leaving seven young children.5 So far, no testament has been found, and probably the suddenness of his demise prevented its composition. Giovan Francesco di Niccol6 d'Ugolino Martelli was a wealthy Florentine merchant, who after many years spent in Lyons, moved to Rome, where he enjoyed the favour and protection of Pope Julius II, who ap- pointed him apostolic abbreviator." The only branch of the Martelli which survives today descends from Giovan Francesco.7

The proxy elected by Giovan Francesco Martelli's heirs, Lodovico di Gino di Lodovico Capponi, was also a Florentine merchant, who went to Rome in his youth to gain experience in business. In 15io he married Marietta, one of Giovan Francesco Martelli daughters, and joined his father-in-law's mercantile and banking house.8

As for the artist, the contract should demonstrate his presence in Rome at the date written in the heading of the document, but the missing signature is somewhat puzzling. Instead of Sansovino's signature, there is that of the appraiser, who declared how much additional money had to be paid to the artist, after having certified the good quality of the work's execution. The appraiser of Sansovino's work was the eminent Florentine, life-long resident in Rome, Bindo d'Antonio Altoviti (Fig.4o), the great banker, friend and patron of all the most celebrated artists of his age: Michelangelo, Raphael, Cellini, Vasari and Sansovino himself.9

Let us examine briefly the clauses of this commission contract. Lodovico Capponi, acting as a power of attorney for the heirs of Giovan Francesco Martelli, commissioned a work in sculpture from master lacopo d'Antonio Tatti, to be executed in freshly quarried marble for Sant'Agostino in Rome. The piece was to be placed next to the Martelli tomb, immediately to the right of the main portal as one enters the church. The work was to consist of a tabernacle with columns, friezes, architraves and other ornaments, according to a drawing made by the artist and shown to Lodovico. The tabernacle was to contain a statue of the Madonna, approximately three braccia high (nearly six feet). Since the figure was to be sitting, the Madonna was over life-size. She was to be accompanied by one or two putti, at the artist's discretion. Actually, he executed just one, that of the Holy Child.

1 GINO CORTI: 'Una Ricordanza di Giovan Battista Figiovanni', Paragone, XV [ 1964], No. 75, PP-24-31; re-published by ALESSANDRO PARRONCHI: Opere giovanili di Michelangelo, Florence [1967], pp.168-171. 2 HANNELORE GLASSER: 'The Litigation concerning Luca della Robbia's Federighi Tomb', Mitteilungen des Kunsthistor. Institutes in Florenz, XL [June 1969], p.6. 3 A. VENTURI: 'Iacopo Sansovino', Enciclopedia Italiana, XXX, Rome [1949], P-759; HANS R. WEIHRAUCH: 'Iacopo Tatti', Thieme-Becker, Allgem. Kunstler Lexikon, XXXII, Leipzig [1938], p.466. 4L. TITTONI: lacopo Sansovino Scultore, Venice [1909], p. Io7; G. MARIACHER: II Sansovino, Verona [1962], p.I78. The same date is given in Touring Club Italiano's Guida d'Italia. Roma e dintorni, Milan [1965], p.213; also in GASPARO CELIO: Memorie delli Nomi delli Artefici delle Pitture che sono in alcune Chiese, Facciate e Palazzi di Roma, ed. by EMMA ZOCCA, Milan [ 1967], p.5o, note 14.

I'loanni Francisco Martello Florentino nobili/genere oriundo Apostol. Abbrev./Iulio 20 Pont. Max. gratissimo fortunae/ingeniique bonis abunde ornato/repentina morte erepto septem/impuberes liberi patri piissimo/ac benemerito et dulcissimo fratri Nicolao/natu Max. Apostol. subdiacon. et suis pos./sacellumque cum dote DD'. VINCENZO FORCELLA: Iscrizioni delle Chiese e d'altri Edifici di Roma dal Sec. Xlfino ai nostri Giorni. Vol.V, Rome [1874], p.82, No.249. 6 POMPEO LITTA: Famiglie Celebri Italiane, Series I, No.42, Milan [1833]: Martelli di Firenze, Table III.

ROBERTO PALMAROCCHI: 'Martelli', Enciclopedia Italiana, XXII, Rome [1934], P-43 .

8 Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale. MSS. Passerini, 48 (Genealogia e Storia della Famiglia Capponi. 1852), p.278.

A9 . STELLA: 'Bindo Altoviti', Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, II, Rome [1960], PP-574-575; DOMENICO MORENI: Illustrazione storico-critica di una rarissima medaglia rappresentante Bindo Altoviti, opera di Michelangelo Buonarroti, Florence [ 1924].

395

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:50:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

39. Madonna del Parto, by Iacopo d'Antonio Tatti, called Sansovino. Between 1516 and 1518. Marble. (Sant'Agostino, Rome.)

40. Bindo d'Antonio Altoviti, by Benvenuto Cellini. Bronze. (Musee du Louvre.)

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:50:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SHORTER NOTICES

As for the lower part of the altar, the contract specifies that the legs or feet ('col pid dell'altare') be carved from used marble. Antique spoils come to mind.

As to the fee for the entire work, 250 papal ducats were agreed upon, or a higher sum which Bindo Altoviti would specify at the moment of appraisal. But he was not to exceed the total sum of 300 papal ducats. The sum was to be paid by instalments, as follows: 70 ducats at once, for obtaining freshly quarried marble and to provide for their shipment to Rome; 8 ducats per month, starting from the day of the actual commencement of the work. Included in this fee were all the incidental expenses, which would be required for carrying out the work, excepting those for its installation in the church.

In order to facilitate Sansovino's work in Rome and save him the expense of rent, Lodovico saw to it that a small house belong- ing to the Martelli heirs, located near San Rocco, was put at the artist's disposal for the duration of his work on the Madonna.

For his part, Sansovino promised to finish the commission within two years from the date of the contract. He also promised to come back to Rome to begin the work towards September or October of the same year.

In his signature, Lodovico Capponi added a sentence to modify the currency of the agreed upon fee: he was content to pay Sansovino in Florentine ducats, i.e. in fiorini larghi d'oro in oro

(literally, large gold florins in gold). To a Florentine at this time, ducat and florin were synonymous. Consequently, where papal ducats were stated, it was to be understood as the same figure in Florentine currency. In these months, papal ducats were rated circa 14-2? per cent more than the Florentine ones, or - in other words - circa Io1r-Io02 papal ducats were equivalent to Ioo Florentine ducats.10 Therefore Sansovino succeeded in obtaining a small increase of a few ducats in his fee: instead of a sum be- tween 250 to 300 papal ducats, he was going to receive 250 to 300 Florentine ducats, that is an amount corresponding roughly to

255-306 papal ducats. The signature of Bindo Altoviti, the appraiser, presents the

uncommon feature for a businessman, of being undated. Cer-

tainly it must have been written at least two years later, when Sansovino's work was complete; but if expressed, it would have

given us a precise terminus ante quem for the Madonna del Parto, in lieu of the approximate one of I518. Bindo Altoviti's signature meant that, having carefully examined Sansovino's work, he

adjudged the result worth the maximum provided for in the

contract, which amounted to 300 large ducats.

+ Addi XX di maggio 1516.

Sia noto a chi vedra la presente scritta come Lodovico di Gino Capponi, come prochuratore delli heredi di Giovan Francesco Martelli per ii quali intende [e] vuole essere obligato, s'e convenuto con maestro lacopo d'Antonio scultore fiorentino di fare un'opera di marmi nuovi in Santo Agostino di Roma, acanto alla porta di detta chiesa dove B la sepultura di detti Martelli: quale opera si debba fare secondo il disegno che detto maestro lacopo ha mostro al decto Lodovico, ciod un tabernaculo con colonne, fregi e architravi e altri fini- menti di sopra, col pid dell'altare tutto di marmo e detto pid ha essere di marmi vechi, drintovi in detto tabernaculo unafigura di Nostra Donna, alta braccia 3 in circha, con un puttino o dua secondo parrd megl[i]o al decto maestro lacopo, al quale decto Lodovico liberamente si rimette che facci pits o mancho secondo che giudicherd stia megl[i]o et pii honorevole. Et per pagamento son convenuti et rimasti d'achordo che il decto Lodovico gli dia ducati dugento cinquanta d'oro di camera et piii quel giudichert Bindo Altoviti, non possendo ii detto Bindo passare ducati trecento simili, in questo modo ciok" al presente ducati LXX simili, ii quali dice per comperare detti marmi, ii quali ha a far condurre a Roma a ssuo risigho e spesa, et poi ogni mese ducati otto dal di che comincerd detta opera in Roma. Intendendosi che ii decto maestro lacopo habbi affare ogni cosa a ssua spese di

lavorare etfar lavorare detta opera, salvo che di metterlli su, che questo s'intenda a spese di decto Lodovico. II qual Ii promette darlli una casetta in Roma, di dette rede, appresso di Santo Rocho, per lavorare detta opera. Et il detto maestro lacopo s'obliga haver finito detta opera per da oggi a anni dua proximi, salvo iusto impedimento. Et per tanto observare, ciaschuna delle parte si soscriverra qui appid di sua propria mano, questo di e anno sudetto in Roma. E detto maestro lacopo promette esser qui a settembre o ottobre proximo, per cominciare detta opera.

Io Lodovicho Capponi come prochuratore di dette rede per Ile quali voglio essere ublighato, mi obligho et prometto observare quanto di sopra, et in fede mi sono sottoscrito di mia mano propria questo di detto in Roma. Et sono contento che detti danari siano ducati d'oro in oro larghi, dove di sopra si dice ducati di camera.

Io Bindo d'Antonio Altoviti avendo visto la sopradetta opera e bene examinato, giudicho che detto Lodovico la debba pagharefino alla somma di ducati trecento d'oro larghi, e per fede mi sono sottoscripto di mia propria mano.

Source: Florence, Capponi archive.

o10 Florence, State Archives. Strozziane, V, 92 (Debitori e creditori A, di Lorenzo e Filippo Strozzi di Firenze, I519-I519), fols.II2, 128 left sides.

Recent Museum Acquisitions Greek, Etruscan, Roman Gold and Silver-II: Hellenistic to Late Antique Gold and Silver BY CORNELIUS C. VERMEULE III

THE fourteen single and pairs of examples of jewellery and silver

plate published here range from the so-called baroque phase of Hellenistic art through to the age of the emperor Justinian (527 to 565) in the Eastern Roman Empire. The most important pieces are the goddess with violently wind-blown drapery (perhaps Juno Sospita), the dancer putting on her slipper, the

anniversary plate of Licinius I, and the plate with a scene of a

tigress attacking an ibex. Of these four works of art in silver, the first and the last were shown in the spring of 1970 in the cen- tennial exhibition of the Museum of Fine Arts. The Largitio plate of Licinius I (307/8 to 324) has long been known as the ornament of a private collection in Lucerne, but the Late Antique dancer has, so far as is known, never been published before.

The remaining works of art include those that are important iconographically (the section of Dionysiac box), unusual in terms of classical archaeology as a whole (the gold and iron

spearhead), and simply pleasing to look at (the earrings in the form of golden globes inlaid with coloured glass). As a group the emphasis is on the later periods of antiquity since there is still much to be learned of these centuries, particularly con-

cerning statuary in gold and silver.*

GOLD FINGER RING WITH EMERALD, HELLENISTIC

(Figs.-4I, 42). Two serpents are intertwined in a complex series of

loops and patterns. They support a plain, convex (that is scara-

boid) emerald in a rough, capsular setting with heavy granula- tions all around. Clusters of even heavier granulations, forming rosettes, appear on either side of the stone's setting, on the bodies of the snakes, at the points where these loop down in

* This article continues that appearing in THE BURLINGTON MAGAZINE, CXII

[December I9701, pp.818-826. Mary Comstock, Penelope Truitt, Claire Blackwell, and William J. Young of the Museum's staff have helped in various

ways with the works of art discussed in these pages. The number of statuettes in gold and silver published in both articles has emphasized the need for a

comprehensive study of ancient statuary in the precious metals (excluding

jewellery and utensils, which have been thoroughly covered in the various

books cited in both these articles). An exhibition of such Egyptian, Greek,

Roman, and early Medieval sculpture is planned in several United States

museums, to be accompanied by a full catalogue.

396

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sun, 21 Dec 2014 21:50:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions