The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421 - c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena 9789048556267

Table of contents :
Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s 1491 Tax Declaration (in Italian and English)
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
Preface
Structure of the Book
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Part One Art and Diplomacy
1. The Politics of Journeyman Painting
2. The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ , the Painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei
Part Two Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei: Conflicting Career Options
1. Workshop Training and Neighbourhood Networking
2. Military Action in Defence of Siena’s Southern Territories
Part Three Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Undertake Work for the ‘Chompangnia e Fraternita di San Franciescho posta nel Chonvento di San Franciescho'
1. The Fraternity
2. A New Altarpiece
3. Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’
Part Four Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, ‘Trusted Servant’ Inside and Outside the Walls of Siena
Foreword
1. Arbitrator and Scribe for the Trecerchi
2. Martinozzi Patronage
3. Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino , the Val di Chiana and Vergelle
Part Five The Ponte d’Arbia Project: Preserving the ‘Honour’ of Siena
Introduction
Conclusion
Bibliography
Photograph credits and copyright notices
General Index
Author Index

Citation preview

The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495)

Visual and Material Culture, 1300-1700 A forum for innovative research on the role of images and objects in the late medieval and early modern periods, Visual and Material Culture, 1300-1700 publishes monographs and essay collections that combine rigorous investigation with critical inquiry to present new narratives on a wide range of topics, from traditional arts to seemingly ordinary things. Recognizing the fluidity of images, objects, and ideas, this series fosters cross-cultural as well as multi-disciplinary exploration. We consider proposals from across the spectrum of analytic approaches and methodologies. Series Editor Allison Levy is Digital Scholarship Editor at Brown University. She has authored or edited five books on early modern Italian visual and material culture.

The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495) Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena

Anabel Thomas

Amsterdam University Press

Cover illustration: Anonymous Sienese painter, Builder at Work Inside a Castle, 1440, ‘Tavoletta’ of the Biccherna n. 88, (ex Casseri e Fortezze), tempera on panel, Museo delle Biccherne, Archivio di Stato di Siena. Cover design: Coördesign, Leiden Lay-out: Crius Group, Hulshout isbn 978 94 6372 158 5 978 90 4855 626 7 e-isbn doi 10.5117/9789463721585 nur 654 © A. Thomas / Amsterdam University Press B.V., Amsterdam 2023 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Every effort has been made to obtain permission to use all copyrighted illustrations reproduced in this book. Nonetheless, whosoever believes to have rights to this material is advised to contact the publisher.

For Helen ‘So gladly roll towards the restful night For there will be no fading of your light …’ (QT)

Girolamo Macchi, 1708, Compagnia di Santo Bernardino, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ms. D 107, fol. 155r.

Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s 1491 Tax Declaration (in Italian and English)1 Dinanzi da voi spectabili Citadini Aliratori de’beni ecc: Fassi noto per me Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei gia stato dipentore chome io, so io e la mia dona povari e senza alcuna cossa le qualli noi avevamo. Aviamo date a le due nostre figliolle e nostri nipoti perche m’e stato forza per debitto el qualle noi ci troviamo co’nostri genneri e chon alcune altre persone e scrivargli in comuno. Et per questo a me e forza ora essendo vechio anni setanta e cossì la mia donna e non avendo qua piu nostro bisogno o presso per partito di adarmene a stare a Roma in chassa di miser Sinolffo da Chastello Otieri el qualle e ubrigato a ricevarmi e farmi bene ecc. Per questo io voglio sudisfare a’ vostri chomandamenti a cio io non venga in alcuno pregiudizio e per questa io avisso et dico quanto per me e forza dinuziare le vostre spectabilita de’ mi danni. Sempre prego le vostre spectabilita io vi sia rachomandato. Duolmi asai avermi a partire de la mia patria ecc. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei ss vostro minimo servidore. In the presence of you, most respected officials of the office of taxation of citizens’ holdings, etc., let it be declared on behalf of me, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, previously a painter, that I and my wife are poor and no longer have any of the things we used to have. We have had to give these to our two daughters and to our grandchildren because of the debts we owed to our sons-in-laws and to a number of other individuals, and such things are to be held by them in common. It is because of this that I, being seventy years old (and my wife, likewise), and not having the resources here to sustain our needs, have decided to go and live in Rome, in the house of Messer (the esteemed) Sinolfo of Castello Ottieri, who is under an obligation to take me in and be kind to me, etc. As a result I am anxious to satisfy any instructions you might give me, so as to avoid any blame, and it is for this reason that I am outlining to your illustrious selves what I need to pay and the details of my debts. In the hope that I will find favour with your most illustrious selves, I am very sad to have to leave my homeland, etc. Your most humble servant, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, servant to the Signoria. 1 Transcribed and published in Bichi Borghesi and Banchi, vol. 2, pp. 350–51, no. 181. English translation by Anabel Thomas.



Table of Contents

List of Illustrations 11 Preface 15 Structure of the Book 21 Acknowledgements 25 Introduction 27

Part One  Art and Diplomacy 1. The Politics of Journeyman Painting 2. The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’, the Painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei

37 59

Part Two  Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei: Conflicting Career Options 1. Workshop Training and Neighbourhood Networking 2. Military Action in Defence of Siena’s Southern Territories

113 133

Part Three  Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Undertake Work for the ‘Chompangnia e Fraternita di San Franciescho posta nel Chonvento di San Franciescho’ 1. The Fraternity 2. A New Altarpiece 3. Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’

145 153 173

Part Four  Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, ‘Trusted Servant’ Inside and Outside the Walls of Siena Foreword 189 1. Arbitrator and Scribe for the Trecerchi 191 2. Martinozzi Patronage 199

3. Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino, the Val di Chiana and Vergelle

209

Part Five  The Ponte d’Arbia Project: Preserving the ‘Honour’ of Siena Conclusion 237 Bibliography 245 Photograph credits and copyright notices 263 General Index 265 Author Index 275



List of Illustrations

Frontispiece Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4 Figure 5

Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

Girolamo Macchi, Compagnia di Santo Bernardino, 1708, coloured manuscript, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Ms. D107, fol. 155r.6 Sano di Pietro workshop (previously attributed to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei), Crucifixion, mid fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Museo Civico, Siena.28 Anonymous fifteenth-century Italian painter (previously attributed to the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ and before that to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei), Christ in the Tomb, c. 1435, tempera on wood, Inv. 1183, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon.28 Sano di Pietro, The Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi Preaching in the Piazza del Campo, mid fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo di Siena.31 Torre del Mangia, Palazzo del Comune, Siena.31 Anonymous Sienese painter, Builder at Work Inside a Castle, 1440, ‘Tavoletta’ of the Biccherna n. 88, (ex Casseri e Fortezze), tempera on panel, Museo delle Biccherne, Archivio di Stato di Siena.40 Orlando Malavolti, Pianta dello Stato Fiorentino (Map of the Florentine State), ‘Storia di Siena’, 1599, print, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biblioteca vetrina.42 Aldobrandeschi Territory in the Early Thirteenth Century, line drawing by the author.43 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, Letter written in Asciano on 24 October 1482, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2050, lettera n. 16, 49/2000, fol. 1r.47 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, Letter written in Rigomagno on 24 November 1460, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1999, no. 27, fol. 1r.51 Leonardo Benvoglienti, Letter sent from Rome on 14 April 1458 to Cristofano Felice in Siena, pen and ink on paper, Archivio Storico, Opera della

12 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Metropolitana Onlus, Siena, cosidetto Libro dei documenti artistici, AMOS, 25 (30).60 Figure 11 Sano di Pietro, The Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi Preaching on the Sacrato of San Francesco, mid fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo di Siena.65 Figure 12 Leonardo Benvoglienti, Ambassadorial report drawn up in Venice on 26 March 1454, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1977, lettera n. 1, fol. 1r.80 Figures 13, 14 and 15 Leonardo Benvoglienti, Ambassadorial report drawn up in Venice on 2 November 1453, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro, 1976, lettera n. 3, fols. 1r–3r.81 Figure 16 Gottifredo Descaichi, Siege of Orbetello, 1646, print, private collection.102 Figure 17 Matthäus Merian the Younger, Siege of Orbetello, 1646, coloured print, private collection.103 Figure 18 ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ (also attributed, amongst others, to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro and the ‘Maestro dei monocromi di Monticiano’), The Archangel Michael Fighting the Dragon, July–December 1444, ‘Tavoletta’ of the Biccherna n. 27 (previously Gabella), tempera on panel, Museo delle Biccherne, Archivio di Stato di Siena.117 Figure 19 Anonymous late fourteenth-century or early fifteenth-century painter, The Archangel Michael Enthroned, ‘Tavoletta’ of the Biccherna, tempera on panel, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo di Siena.119 Figure 20 Sano di Pietro and the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, Saint Anthony Abbot and Saint Jerome, mid fifteenthcentury, tempera on wood, Museo d’Arte sacra della diocesi di Grosseto (Grosseto).121 Figure 21 Bonifazio Ottieri, Letter despatched to the Republic of Siena on 19 October 1455, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balia 488, lettera n. 72, 19 ottobre 1455, r.137 Figure 22 Bonifazio Ottieri, Letter despatched to the Republic of Siena on 25 October 1455, pen and ink on paper,

13

List of Illustr ations 

Figure 23 Figure 24 Figure 25

Figure 26 Figure 27

Figure 28

Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balia 488, lettera n. 85, 25 ottobre 1455, r.138 The Oratory of San Bernardino on the Piazza di San Francesco.147 Porticoed entrance to the Office of the Carabinieri on Piazza di San Francesco.147 Engraved stone tablet commemorating the completion of the new hospital and chapel of the Compagnia di Santa Maria degli Angeli e di San Francesco, 1465, Museo Diocesano, Siena.151 Internal staircase, Museo Diocesano, Siena.168 Map of the River Arbia and Its Bridge and Surrounding Territory, 1644, pen and ink and coloured print, Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Corporazioni religiose soppresse dal governo francese, 132 (Religione dei Cavalieri di Malta), n. 184.226 Pietro Petruccini (?and Bernardino Capitelli), View of the Bridge over the River Arbia, 1629, etching, Biblioteca Comunale, Siena.235

Preface An earlier manuscript for this book first took shape as a consideration of the life and career of the little-known fifteenth-century Sienese painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, against the background of his involvement with the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco: a lay confraternity that was associated with the ‘frati minori’ of San Francesco in Siena. According to surviving records, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei accepted a commission to fresco a chapel that was owned by that confraternity, but for some reason reneged on his contract and subsequently abandoned the project altogether. My curiosity was raised as to why Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei should have been selected to work for what appeared to be one of the leading Franciscan confraternities in mid-fifteenth century Siena. This seemed even more puzzling in the light of evidence that two of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s better known contemporaries – Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro – were commissioned around the same time to carry out work for the same group of lay religious on the same site. My initial research focussed on setting the fifteenth-century confraternity in the context of the earliest followers of Francis of Assisi in Siena and the groups of lay religious that were associated with the new conventual complex and basilica of San Francesco that began to rise just outside the city walls during the second half of the thirteenth century. Amongst other things, I was intent on establishing where confraternity members met and how they furnished the spaces in which they assembled or gathered together to offer their religious devotions. One late sixteenth-century record stood out in that context. This document, which was drawn up in January 1578/9 and inserted in a register of what was increasingly referred to as the Compagnia di San Bernardino, concerned an old altarpiece of the Madonna which was at that date displayed on the lower floor of that confraternity’s oratory on the ‘sacrato’ (the original open space or square) of the conventual church of San Francesco. According to the 1579 record, during restoration work it had been noted that an inscription on the altarpiece’s frame had included the date 1277.1 I was curious to 1 Archivio Storico di Siena (hereafter ASSi), Patrimonio Resti (hereafter Patri. resti), 215, old fol. 120r. (new pencil fol. 132r.).

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_pre

16 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

find out more about this old image; and, in particular, to discover why it was that it was apparently being re-modelled in the sixteenth century with the intention of displaying it in one of two oratories belonging to a group of Franciscan lay religious. While the 1579 record made no mention of the artist who had originally painted the altarpiece of the Madonna, its recorded date surely set it in the ambit of Guido da Siena, or of one of his followers, such as Dietisalvi di Speme. The fact that it was clearly revered by a group of lay religious associated with the Friars Minor of San Francesco in Siena, who (in 1579) were assembling under the titulus Compagnia di San Bernardino, also opened up the possibility that it might originally have been produced for the thirteenth-century antecedents of that company. This stimulated me not only to broaden my enquiries about the furnishings and fittings of confraternal spaces associated with the Franciscan friars, but also to revisit the long-standing debate surrounding the so-called ‘Master of San Bernardino’ Virgin and Child that is currently displayed in the Pinacoteca Nazionale in Siena.2 Rather than being painted (as is still argued) in 1262, might the ‘Master of San Bernardino’ Virgin and Child in fact have been produced over a decade later? Could it be that the 1579 record offered an opportunity to lay to rest conflicting opinions that have been in circulation for decades, if not centuries; not only about the date at which the ‘Master of San Bernardino’ altarpiece was painted but also about the space in which the image itself was first displayed? This opened up a much wider field of research: one that took me some distance from the mid-fifteenth-century commission to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to decorate the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Indeed, it seemed that a quite different book was beginning to take shape. That aside, digging beyond the records concerning Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s relationship with the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, I had also begun to realise that there was another field of research that begged consideration: one that set the life and career of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in the context of his association with leading members of Sienese society, including representatives of the central government itself. Not the least of these government officials was the Sienese patrician and diplomat, Leonardo Benvoglienti, who referred to the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei as if he were a personal friend. This invited consideration of how these two men might have met. Given Leonardo Benvoglienti’s position as a career diplomat serving the Republic of Siena, it was also tempting to explore the internal workings and vocabulary of fifteenth-century Sienese diplomacy.3 2 Torriti, La Pinacoteca nazionale, vol. 1, pp. 22–23, no. 16. 3 For an impressive and recent collection of essays in this field, see Azzolini and Lazzarini, eds. Italian Renaissance Diplomacy. See also Lazzarini, Communication and Conflict and “Lettere, minute, registri”.

Preface 

More seams of research ripe for further exploration opened up in the light of evidence that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei himself assumed a number of official government posts from a relatively early stage in his career. As such, he appears to have assumed the role of informer and mediator, monitoring and keeping the peace in communes outside Siena. One record in particular caught my attention. This was a letter in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s hand, which was despatched from Rigomagno in 1460. The contents of this letter showed that the artist was not only involved at that date in government service as ‘vicario’ (secular vicar, officiating deputy, delegate or stand-in head official) in a subject Sienese commune, but that he was already skilled as a scribe and diplomatic mediator. 4 This catapulted me into an analysis of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s employment as servant of the Republic of Siena. Further archival searches revealed how Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may in effect have been serving the Republic’s military machine by carrying out surveying work for them in the far reaches of Sienese territory as an ‘esploratore’ (a term frequently adopted in the context of surveillance or spying). This appeared to support a notion I was developing that the artist’s journeyman painting could have been a convenient mantle to assume whilst engaged in undercover work. Other enquiries indicated that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s familiarity and association with central government officials and other leading figures of his day depended not so much upon his professional training as an artist but on his ability as a scribe. Most curious of all – as the opening quote in the book is intended to illustrate – was the reference in the artist’s own tax declaration in 1491 to a personal debt that was owed him by Sinolfo Ottieri. That individual had not only served as Sienese ambassador to Rome by 1491, but was also a descendent of the powerful Ottieri clan that had only recently been persuaded into alliance with Siena. Indeed, as a direct result of that, the Ottieri’s eponymous castle and seat of power – Castello Ottieri, to the south of the city – was ferociously besieged by forces hostile to Siena during the 1450s. While it thus remained clear that setting the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in its historical context constituted an important part of an analysis of Francesco di Bartolomeo’s life and artistic career, there were other factors that were not only intriguing, but invited more in-depth analysis. Key earlier publications in the same field include Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy and Frigo, ed. Politics and Diplomacy. For an overall introduction to Leonardo Benvoglienti, see Bartolomei Romagnoli, “Lo spazio simbolico”, pp. 474–78. 4 ASSi, Concistoro 1999, no. 27.

17

18 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Setting the detailed research on the lay religious of San Francesco and the origins and history of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco on one side, I began to investigate how the life and art of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might better be understood in terms of his involvement in political diplomacy and military strategy as an agent of the fifteenth-century Republic of Siena. In terms of editorial niceties, the title of the present book might thus more appropriately have been The Government Service and Art of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. However, as I attempt to show, these two threads of activity were not only interchangeable but inextricably entwined. As it stands, the book explores in detail how Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei embarked on a number of different kinds of activities, following the aborted Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco commission: on the one hand, employed to carry out relatively low-key and roving decoration work on the walls and public spaces of the Republic’s subjugated territories, as well as acting as a surveyor, mapping territorial confines; on the other, assuming fixed-term employment as a government official (during which he was apparently relieved of the brief to carry out journeyman painting). But in each case, there is evidence to show that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei felt obliged to despatch formal reports back to the central government in Siena, detailing how matters stood locally in a particular commune and more generally in surrounding districts. A wide range of documents hitherto lying virtually undisturbed in the State Archives in Siena are analysed: from formal records that were drawn up by the Consiglio Generale (the General Council) and other off icial bodies in Siena concerning Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s government service; to the hidden and frequently coded messages embedded in neatly written ambassadorial reports despatched by Leonardo Benvoglienti from Venice and Rome. From hastily written words of warning about imminent attacks on Siena and its allies that were sent by unknown supporters of Siena (at times dashed off on mere scraps of paper); to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s own personal papers (including tax declarations and reports sent back to Siena whilst he was engaged in service outside the city). This archival material shows how throughout his life Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei sought and accepted a number of official roles ranging from ‘vicario’, to ‘capitano’ (military captain) to ‘castellano’ (castle governor, castellan or overseer), to ‘esploratore’. This latter office – which Francesco di Bartolomeo assumed on several occasions – involved charting territorial limits and the lie of the land, as well as the production of panoramic views and carefully orientated maps. Whilst no doubt useful to central government for the general purpose of taxation and the extraction of customs dues, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s surveying work must

Preface 

also have been helpful for the fifteenth-century Sienese military machine. Indeed, and as the book makes clear, the painter was engaged on several occasions in that guise in areas of active conflict between Siena and hostile forces to the south, west and east of the city. The 1460 letter from Rigomagno offers precious testimony of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s direct involvement at an early date in establishing order and keeping the peace in one of Siena’s subject communes to the northeast of the city. In his official guise as ‘vicario’, the artist not only outlined the unrest in Rigomagno and the various factions operating there, but also identified the main miscreant, thus providing central government with the means to restore order. In carrying out official duties like this, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei clearly kept his ear to the ground; attending to the counsel and advice of local officials and in doing so establishing his own diplomatic credentials. The Rigomagno letter prompted a number of questions. Was the profession of journeyman painter adopted by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei following the aborted commission to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in Siena a reflection of the artist’s inability to complete the work the confraternity had asked him to do? Or was journeyman painting itself a cover for another kind of activity? The parallel image of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei perched on top of scaffolding, covertly looking down on the comings and goings of daily life below – whilst on other occasions engaged in specific and official duties as a government servant – prompted the present assessment of the ways in which such an artist could contribute to and become intricately involved with Siena’s propaganda and diplomacy.

Bibliography Azzolini, Monica, and Isabella Lazzarini, eds. Italian Renaissance Diplomacy: A Sourcebook. Durham Medieval and Renaissance Text and Translations 6. Durham, UK: Institute of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, Durham University; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2017. Bartolomei Romagnoli, Alessandra. “Lo spazio simbolico: Politica della santità e agiografia a Siena tra duecento e trecento.” In Beata civitas: Pubblica pietà e devozione privata nella Siena del ’300, edited by Anna Benvenuti and Pierantonio Piatti, 473–516. Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2016. Frigo, Daniela, ed. Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy: The Structure of Diplomatic Practice. Translated by Adrian Belton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Lazzarini, Isabella. Communication and Conflict: Italian Diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350–1520. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

19

20 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Lazzarini, Isabella. “Lettere, minute, registri, pratiche della scrittura diplomatica nell’Italia tardomedievale fra storia e paleograf ia.” Quaderni Storici, new series 51, no. 152 (2) (August 2016): 449–70. Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1954 (and Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955). Torriti, Piero. La Pinacoteca nazionale di Siena. 2 vols. Genoa: Sagep Editrice, 1977–1978 (later editions, 1980–1981 and 1999).



Structure of the Book

The book is divided into five interconnected parts, in which previous analyses of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s life and art are set against what can now be established about the different types of government service he became involved in, as well as his workshop training and the circle of acquaintance and patronage he established inside Siena and beyond the city’s walls. In Part One I attempt a reassessment of the artist’s life and career against what can be established about his involvement in the visual propaganda, surveillance and diplomacy of the Republic of Siena during the second half of the fifteenth century. I pay particular attention to the politics of journeyman painting and newly discovered evidence of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s direct involvement in government service from the 1450s onwards. I include here an analysis of the territorial hostilities and military engagements Siena faced around the middle of the fifteenth century and how Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became involved in such conflict. I also consider the nature of the alliance that was forged between the Ottieri and the Republic and how the government duties assumed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have brought him into contact with that family, laying the ground for a future relationship with Sinolfo Ottieri. Centre stage in Part One is a consideration of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s relationship with the Sienese diplomat, Leonardo Benvoglienti. In this part of the book I offer a detailed analysis of Leonardo Benvoglienti’s diplomatic engagements and government postings in Venice, Montalcino and Rome. This includes a consideration of the content and nature of ambassadorial reports, fifteenth-century espionage and the duties and rates of payment of individuals assuming government service; ranging from couriers and undercover agents, to mayors and deputy officials. In Part Two I evaluate the conflicts of interest Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may have faced, as he attempted to balance the pressures of establishing himself as an artist (achieving fame through fresco painting undertaken for the Franciscan confraternity inside Siena) against the demands of other kinds of activity that led him beyond the city walls in government service. Based on recent findings about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s training as a painter, I consider how the young artist could have established a variety of career openings for himself inside Siena through neighbourhood contacts, family links, workshop connections and networking within the official government machine. Two specific themes are developed here: Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement with the office of the Biccherna (the chancellery of finance) through his father-in-law Meo di Lorenzo and his marriage to the latter’s daughter some time towards the end of the 1440s; and the workshop relationship the young Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is thought to have established

22 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

around the fifth decade of the fifteenth century with Sano di Pietro. In an attempt to understand the links between these two artists, I also include here an analysis of two panels that are thought to have originally formed part of an altarpiece that was at one time displayed in the church of San Francesco in Grosseto. In parallel with that, I consider how Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s purported association with Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo during the fifth decade of the fifteenth century might have influenced the commission to him to carry out fresco work for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Part Two concludes by illustrating how only a few years after initiating (but subsequently abandoning) the confraternity project, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was already involved in serving the military machine of the Republic of Siena, in the guise of ‘esploratore’ – in effect, as an undercover agent or spy. I argue that this, along with a number of other recorded undertakings on behalf of the central government, not only compromised completion of the confraternity contract inside the walls, but also impacted the artist’s way of life until he was well into his seventies. In effect, government duties trumped the wishes of the Franciscan lay religious. In Part Three I focus more specifically on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s connections with the Friars Minor of San Francesco: the emphasis there being an analysis of the reconstruction and refurbishment work that was initiated by the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco around the middle of the fifteenth century. In that context I offer a detailed description of two projects that were under way around the same time: a new altarpiece that was commissioned from Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro and subsequently recorded as displayed on that company’s altar; and the fresco work that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was asked to carry out in the same company’s chapel. Apart from providing archival evidence to establish a clearer chronology for the carrying forward of both projects, the main aim in this part of the book is to distinguish the various confraternal spaces and furnishings that existed in the conventual complex of San Francesco at that time, as well as to demonstrate the growing significance of the confraternity itself. In this context I consider the involvement of two particular sponsors – Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei and Antonio di Francesco di Giacomo (Jacopo) di Lapo. I attempt to show how the donations of the first sponsor not only benefitted the confraternity’s finances, but also increased its standing through the construction of a new hospital on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco. At the same time I analyse the part played by the second sponsor in financing the completion and furnishing of that hospital complex; laying the ground for yet further refurbishments and ultimately the grandiose sixteenth-century Oratorio di San Bernardino. In Part Four, I turn to the circle of acquaintance and patronage that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei established inside and beyond the city walls in the aftermath of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco

Struc ture of the Book 

project. I concentrate in particular on the artist’s association with members of the Trecerchi and Martinozzi families in Siena. In that context I attempt to evaluate the significance and location of the Trecerchi and Martinozzi properties with which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was associated during the 1460s and 1470s. I consider how involvement with key patrons and prestigious sites enabled the artist to achieve the status of trusted servant: not only within Sienese society, but also inside government circles (one example of the latter being when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was officially despatched by the Republic of Siena to the Marche in the spring of 1473). I conclude Part Four with a detailed analysis of the government postings Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei assumed in Montalcino, the Val di Chiana and Vergelle between 1464 and 1489. In Part Five I return to the question of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s development as a professional fresco painter and the extent to which this was associated with his activities as a government servant. Based in the main on new archival findings, I show how, towards the end of the 1450s, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became involved with a project to repair, reconstruct and then refurbish the bridge over the River Arbia, south of Siena. According to these new findings, the artist’s brief appears to have been to fresco the walls of a new chapel that was to be built on the reconstructed bridge. In this context, I outline the relationship that was established between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the individual who was put in charge of the project some time around 1457 – Agostino delle Bombarde, Siena’s official engineer and canon maker. I attempt to show how despite having abandoned the prestigious confraternity commission in Siena only a few years previously, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not only still active in the field of fresco painting at the end of the 1450s, but was formally engaged in work that was being overseen by the central government. I also offer evidence suggesting that the artist was well paid for his work; earning more pro rata than his contemporaries, Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro had done when producing the new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. I argue that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement in the Ponte d’Arbia project must at the very least contradict claims that following incompletion of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco project, he was condemned to a long career as an impoverished and relatively insignificant journeyman painter. Indeed, the conclusion I draw is that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei should be reassessed on a number of fronts: not only in the context of the commissions for fresco work we can now show he received, but also because of what emerges about the different kinds of service he offered to the fifteenth-century Republic of Siena.

23

Acknowledgements This book has been some time in the making, but I extend the most grateful thanks to the many who have helped me along the way: including, and most particularly Mario Ascheri; and for many acts of kindness, help and encouragement: Azelia Batazzi, Duccio Benocci, Stefano Cinelli Colombini, Alessandra Dami, Holly Flora, Roberto Farinelli, Erika Gaffney, Don Enrico Grassi, James Hawkins, Alison Levy, Carlo Lisi, Nicola MacGregor, Emma Molignoni, Grazia de Nittis, Cristina Paccagnini, Alberto Paggetti, Annibale Parisi, Ettore Pellegrini, Elena Pinzauti, Laura Ponticelli, Veronica Randon, Maria Assunta Ceppari Ridolfi, Lyn Rodley, Felicia Rotundo, Fulvia Sussi, Paolo Toti, Patrizia Turrini and Carla Zarrilli. I would also like to thank Cinzia Cardinali and the entire staff of the Archivio di Stato in Siena who, through the difficult times of the Covid pandemic, provided constant assistance during the final stages of preparing the manuscript for publication. Particular thanks go to Holly Flora for her detailed and considered peer reviewing; to Erika Gaffney for her persistent support as Senior Editor for Early Modern History at Amsterdam University Press in steering the manuscript forward; and to General Editor of Amsterdam University Press, Allison Levy – together with the editors of the Amsterdam University Press Visual and Material Culture, 1300–1700 series – for their judgement that a reassessment of the life and career of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is not only appropriate, but opens up numerous further paths of enquiry.

Introduction Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei has for long been considered a somewhat peripheral figure in analyses of mainstream fifteenth-century Sienese art; relegated to the margins of a greater artistic community that included contemporaries of his such as Sassetta, Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro. Regarded at best as a relatively minor player, no works have been firmly attributed to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, although several paintings belonging to the Museo Civico in Siena and elsewhere have in the past been listed under his name.1 (See Figures 1 and 2.) That said, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was more recently somewhat precipitously thrust into the limelight (only to be just as rapidly despatched back into his box by leading experts in the field) in re-considerations of the identity of the so-called ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ and questions about the authorship of the altarpiece of the Birth of the Virgin which was originally displayed in the Collegiata at Asciano.2 It is perhaps no coincidence, therefore, that an earlier attribution of the predella panel of the Resurrection of Christ in Dijon (now referred to as Christ in the Tomb) was 1 See, for example, a Crucifixion, a Martyrdom of St Bartholomew and a Madonna and Child recorded as belonging to the Museo Civico in Siena; a Resurrection of Christ in the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Dijon and a St Anthony Abbot at Mass in the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin. I am grateful to Alessandra Dami, direttore, Museo Civico e Diocesano, Montalcino and Veronica Randon, Museo Civico, Siena for help in initial attempts to track down works by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. According to Veronica Randon, the only work surviving in Siena which might qualify for an association with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is the Crucifixion in the Museo Civico with the seated figures of the Virgin Mary and John the Evangelist at the base of the cross and a kneeling figure in black and white robes in the background (tentatively identified as Saint Ambrose), which was undergoing restoration in the Palazzo Comunale in Siena in 2017. For a résumé of documented works by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, see Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 29. See also, Garollo and Hoepli, Dizionario biografico, p. 60. 2 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, and Falcone, “La giovinezza dorata di Sano di Pietro”. Alessi and Scapecchi’s assertions concerning the involvement of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in the production of the Asciano altarpiece of the Birth of the Virgin gave rise to a number of different responses, many somewhat critical, if not incredulous. Regardless of the several questions about chronology and/or artistic competence raised by critics disputing Alessi and Scapecchi’s claims, there can be little doubt that the artistic style of those few works that have been attributed to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (one obvious example being the Museo Civico of Siena Crucifixion) is comparatively softer and shadier by comparison with both the Birth of the Virgin triptych at Asciano and the wider oeuvre assembled around the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, or indeed the work of Sassetta or Sano di Pietro, two other ‘contenders’ in the context of the Asciano triptych.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_intro

28 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 1  Sano di Pietro workshop (previously attributed to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei), Crucifixion, mid fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Museo Civico, Siena.

Figure 2  Anonymous fifteenth-century Italian painter (previously attributed to the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ and before that to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei), Christ in the Tomb, c. 1435, tempera on wood, Inv. 1183, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon.

Introduc tion 

changed from Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, before receiving its current attribution as by the hand of an anonymous Italian painter.3 Previous assessments of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei have depended in large part on the archival research carried out by Gaetano Milanesi and Count Scipione Borghesi and Luciano Banchi in the second half of the nineteenth century. 4 In the eyes of Milanesi, in particular, it would seem that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might best be described as a painter of little note and lesser interest. According to the handful of references that were included by that author in his Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese, the artist was more often than not engaged as a journeyman painter in the Sienese ‘contado’(Siena’s surrounding rural area) and elsewhere, rather than in any significant artistic commissions inside the city itself.5 None of the former activities apparently brought much financial advantage. Indeed, on the basis of Milanesi’s account, the artist frequently found himself out of work and in straightened circumstances; with many mouths to feed; several daughters to find dowries for and rarely producing anything of artistic merit that might have boosted his finances. Nevertheless, it seems that Francesco di Bartolomeo’s apparent poverty was occasionally eased by his seeking and obtaining employment from the Sienese government to act as one of their officials both inside and beyond the city. When filing his tax declaration in 1465, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei referred specifically to the fact that he had seven children, that his wife was unwell, that his mother-in-law was old and that he was barely able to support them all, so small were his earnings. According to the artist, had the ‘Signoria’ not appointed him on several occasions as ‘vicario’, he would have landed up in prison.6 It seems that in 1465, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was burdened with a debt of 120 lire (about 30 florins), consisting of different sums of money (each of two or three lire) that were owed to a number of people. Interestingly, in his 1453 ‘denuncia’, the artist had declared a very similar debt (of 30 florins, owed to a number of people).7 It is possible, therefore, that this was a financial burden that the artist had carried for over a decade and was still unable to resolve despite the government postings he cited. As Mario Ascheri and Petra Pertici point out, no individual could hope to be included in the electoral selections for either a major or a minor role as a government official, unless already a partial or full member of one of the ‘Monti’.8 Being eligible for consideration was thus a significant first step in seeking out

3 Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, Inv. 1183. 4 See Milanesi, Documenti and Bichi Borghesi and Banchi, Nuovi documenti. 5 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 227–29, 238–39, 299–300, 327, 329, 355–56 and 421. 6 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 129. 7 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 121. 8 Ascheri and Pertici, “La situazione politica senese”, p. 996.

29

30 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

government service. On that basis alone, I argue that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei merits further attention. According to Milanesi, whilst assuming various government duties, Francesco di Bartolomeo offered on occasion to ply his own trade, by painting the coat of arms and insignia of Siena on the portals and other public spaces of subject Sienese towns lacking such associative identifications. Thus, reflecting those so prominently displayed inside the city in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s own time and which are still visible today on the Palazzo del Comune and elsewhere.9 (See Figures 3 and 4.) Milanesi noted that such work was to be carried out on the understanding that it would not form part of any official duty that was at the same time assumed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the financial recompense associated with that (‘salario et altri emolumenti’). Indeed, while engaged in journeyman painting, the artist would assume that he was exempt from his official government business. It seems that roles such as ‘vicario’ or ‘castellano’ were not only financially beneficial, in that they offered a salary and other benefits such as bed and board.10 They also provided opportunities in which individuals like Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei could practise their own particular profession. However, an hypothesis raised and considered here is that – in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s case at least – government service also opened up opportunities to practise very different kinds of skills. Not the least of these being to promote the cause of the central government in Siena through visual propaganda, diplomacy and undercover agency work. Nineteenth-century historians such as Gaetano Milanesi appear to have concluded that because Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was engaged in apparently menial painting work by the time he was middle-aged, any earlier success he might have enjoyed must have seeped away. A contrary argument is raised here: that it was Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s success in carrying out what was in effect visual propaganda on behalf of the Sienese Republic that led to him turning his back on what were apparently more significant commissions inside Siena. In any event, and as the following chapters will show, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had clearly achieved sufficient renown by the time he reached his early thirties to be entrusted with an artistic project of some significance: to fresco the company chapel of the 9 For a recent analysis of titles associated with the Palazzo Pubblico,in Siena and the suggestion that it should more appropriately be referred to as the Palazzo del Comune, see Ascheri, “Il palazzo del Comune”. 10 For a consideration of the salaries and conditions of service enjoyed by ‘vicarii’, ‘commissarii’ and ‘podestà’, see Bratchel, “Vicars and Citizen Off ice-Holding”. See also, ASSi, Concistoro 2388, 2389 and 2391 – three registers dating to 1453, where salaries for the role of ‘podestà’, ‘vicario’, ‘castellano’ and ‘viarii’ are listed, commune by commune. I am grateful to Mario Ascheri for pointing out that ‘podestà’ were normally appointed in those centres that were regarded as more significant, whereas ‘vicari’ were established in what were esteemed to be less important centres. This must inevitably have impacted on the amount size of salary received.

31

Introduc tion 

Figure 3  Sano di Pietro, The Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi Preaching in the Piazza del Campo, mid fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo di Siena.

Figure 4  Torre del Mangia, Palazzo del Comune, Siena.

Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco – a group of lay religious that was synonymous with the so-called Compagnia di San Francesco.11 Although some historians have claimed that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei never began the fresco work in the confraternity’s chapel, a number of records confirm that he did indeed commence work there: running up a number of debts procuring materials and colours, as well as receiving an initial payment for work already undertaken.12 No clear date has yet emerged, however, as to when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei actually received this commission, or when he abandoned it. Reconsidering the surviving records in the fondo (archive) of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, I believe I can now offer a plausible time scale for this. 11 See Ceppari Ridolfi, ed. Le pergamene, p. 37. For a detailed discussion of the origins and history of this confraternity, see my forthcoming publication on foundation images and confraternal spaces. 12 See, in particular, ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 19r. This ‘entrata’ page – headed 17 December 1454 and which appeared to remain open – was dedicated to the affairs of ‘Francescho d(i) bartalomeio d(i) francesco d(i)pentore’. Listing payments made on the artist’s behalf by third parties, it notes the outstanding debt owed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to the confraternity amounted to 32 lire, 3 soldi and 4 denari.

32 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The dispute between the Fraternita degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to have rumbled on for several months. Milanesi noted in a brief aside (but without further analysis and as if that was the end of the matter) that by December 1454 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was being chased by Lorenzo di Giusa – ‘notaro agli Ufficiali de la Merchantia’ – for not having continued the fresco work he had undertaken in the chapel of the ‘Compagnia di San Bernardino’ (sic).13 But my own reading of the dedicated ‘entrata’ page in question indicates that Lorenzo di Giusa received a number of payments in connection with his being employed (along, possibly, with other officials) to persuade Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei through several ‘proteste’, ‘richieste’ and ‘comandamenti’ to come back to continue his work for the confraternity.14 It seems clear that this was no ordinary commission. The officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco appear to have gone to considerable lengths to persuade the artist to complete the work in hand. There is also evidence to suggest not only that some complaints and requests had been made before December 1454, but also that the issue remained unresolved. That individual negotiations were protracted is confirmed by the fact that one of the payments made to the notary by the confraternity included what were referred to as interests and damages. However, despite Lorenzo di Giusa’s several attempts to persuade Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to return to the work he had left unfinished, he appears to have been unsuccessful. There is no evidence either that the artist ever paid back the debts he had accumulated in connection with the project. In clashing horns with both the Mercanzia and the lay religious of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei must have found himself under the powerful glare not only of the city’s leading trade officials, and in consequence representatives of the central government, but

13 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 421, no. 299 (note). Interestingly, the record published by Milanesi includes the phrase ‘protestai de’ danni et interessi’, indicating that the dispute had been going on long enough for an associated penalty to be placed on the cards. For the workings of the Mercanzia, see Chiantini, La Mercanzia di Siena. Milanesi also records in an unpublished note in his Miscellanea, but without giving a documentary source, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had ‘painted’ the confraternity’s chapel in 1454 – see Biblioteca Comunale, Siena (hereafter, BCS) Ms. P.III.44, Gaetano Milanesi, Miscellanea, vol. 15, fol. 384r. See also Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 125. 14 The dedicated page for the painter headed 17 December 1454 details first a ‘protesta’, or complaint that had been lodged with the artist by the officials of the Mercanzia and which had been recorded in the books of the notary Lorenzo di Giusa. This complaint was apparently then followed by ‘piu’ richieste’ (several requests) made by the same Lorenzo. Yet further requests followed for which payment was recorded in respect of two individuals other than Lorenzo di Giusa. It was only after this, that a ‘comandamento’ (command) was lodged by Lorenzo di Giusa, with an ensuing payment of 2 soldi (in fact entered as 2 soldi, 8 denari in the marginal figures) that was paid to him on 23 May.

Introduc tion 

also of the friars of San Francesco.15 Yet, and on the basis of Milanesi’s published findings, it is as if Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei moved seamlessly and without recrimination from initiating work on the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco confraternity chapel to journeyman painting work outside the city, engaged by officials in central government to apply the Sienese coat of arms on the walls of subject communes in Sienese territory. In fact, evidence I consider in this book indicates that the commission to work for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco was not the last significant piece of fresco work Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was involved in during his very long career. I argue that – rather than indicating a decline in the artist’s fortunes – Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s journeyman painting and other undertakings on behalf of the central government around the middle of the 1450s opened up a lifetime of new opportunities for him; not least in the context of the military and political strategies in which the Republic of Siena was embroiled during that time.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Ascheri, Mario. “Il palazzo del Comune e il Campo: É tempo per una proposta.” La Voce del Campo 1 (21 January 2020): 10–11. Ascheri, Mario, and Petra Pertici, “La situazione politica senese del secondo Quattrocento (1456–1479).” In La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico: Politica economia cultura arte. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Florence, Pisa, Siena, 5–8 November 1992. 3 vols. Vol. 3, 995–1012. Pisa: Pacini Editore, 1996. Bichi Borghesi, Count Scipione, and Luciano Banchi. Nuovi documenti per la storia dell’arte senese: Appendice alla raccolta dei documenti pubblicata dal comm. Gaetano Milanesi. Siena: E. Torrini, 1898. Bratchel, Michael. “Vicars and Citizen Office-Holding in the Dominions of Fifteenth-Century Lucca, 1430–1501.” Urban History 42, no. 2 (May 2015): 183–203. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, ed. Le pergamene delle confraternite nell’Archivio di Stato di Siena (1214–1785). Siena: Accademia Senese degli Intronati, 2007. 15 In this context, see Chiantini, La Mercanzia and, in particular the point made by Mario Ascheri in presenting that volume that the Mercanzia as an institution was separate from the state (or commune of Siena), but linked to it ‘in a million ways’. Indeed, Ascheri’s reference to the Mercanzia as an ‘ente pubblico, di governo dell’economia e centro corporativo, di convergenza e di unificazione delle associazioni imprenditoriali’, places it fair and squarely between an independent trade union body and government department.

33

34 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Chiantini, Monica. La Mercanzia di Siena nel Rinascimento: La normativa, 1376–1475. Siena: Cantagalli, 1996. Falcone, Maria. “La giovinezza dorata di Sano di Pietro: Un nuovo documento per la ‘Natività’ della Vergine’ di Asciano.” Prospettiva 138 (2010): 28–34. Garollo, Gottardo, and Ulrico Hoepli. Dizionario biografico universale. Milan: Libraio della Real Casa, 1907. Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856.

Part One Art and Diplomacy

1.

The Politics of Journeyman Painting Abstract: Previous assessments of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (including the aborted commission to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in Siena and disputed claims about the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ and the altarpiece of the Birth of the Virgin in Asciano) provide the background to an analysis of the politics of his journeyman painting, applying the symbols of Sienese power in subject communes. This chapter outlines the artist’s early involvement in government affairs from the mid 1450s onwards; from service in Rigomagno to the east of the Via Francigena near the unsettled borderlands of the Val di Chiana, to Monte Orgiali in the south towards the Maremma and the old stronghold of the Aldobrandeschi. Keywords: visual propaganda; Sienese territory; political alliances; the Aldobrandeschi; journeyman painting; surveillance and intelligence.

The earliest record of a petition by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei for government employment that was published by Gaetano Milanesi dated to 10 April 1466.1 Describing himself there as ‘dipentore vostro cittadino’, Francesco di Bartolomeo informed the ‘Signori’ and ‘Capitano di popolo’ of his understanding that the majority of Sienese possessions in the ‘contado’, and particularly those in the Maremma, lacked painted signs containing the Sienese coat of arms on their entrance gates. The artist asked that, in return for painting four or six such signs in the Maremma region (or wherever directed in other parts of the territory by Sienese officials), he should be offered the post of ‘vicario’ of Monte Orgiali (to the east of Grosseto) for the period of one year, starting the following July. He also asked that in painting such signs, officials in the individual communes should be obliged to provide him with the scaffolding and materials for the plaster (‘calcina’) and any other necessary items (‘altre cose bisognevoli’). Francesco di Bartolomeo would in consequence be required only to offer his own expertise and provide the necessary colours (‘per 1 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 227–29, no. 137. See also ASSi, Consiglio Generale (hereafter CG) 231, fols. 112r and 112v.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_I_ch01

38 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

modo che lui v’abbi a mettere se non el magisterio et colori di suo’). Alfei added that, if assigned to that post, he should not be expected to attend to his official duties whilst engaged in any painting work. Presumably, his allotted salary as ‘vicario’ (no doubt with board and lodging included) would in the meantime continue. To modern eyes, such an arrangement might seem curious, given that as ‘vicario’ Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei must at the very least have been expected to assume a position of oversight on a regular basis in the commune in which he was posted.2 A notion pursued here, however, is that journeyman painting of the kind proposed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei would have allowed him to continue to provide just that kind of service: surveilling and reporting back on what he saw. Keeping his head close to the ground, even when perched above it painting the Sienese coat of arms on a subject commune’s entrance gate or on the walls of the town hall, the artist would have been in an ideal position both to observe daily happenings and humours and to note the comings and goings of both locals and outsiders. Interestingly, in his 1466 petition, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei noted, almost as if in passing but no doubt with intent, that the application of the Sienese coat of arms in subject communes would impress those ‘foreigners’ that ‘praticano et usano nel vostro contado’ (who practised in or passed through Sienese territory). The implication being not only that application of such signs in the public areas of subject communes would serve to advertise that those places had sworn allegiance to the Republic of Siena and could thus count on the protection of Siena, if threatened by foreign forces, but also that such visual propaganda would act as a powerful regulator of the behaviour of ‘outsiders’ when passing through or establishing themselves in a new place.

Establishing Fealty in the ‘Contado’ and Impressing ‘Foreigners’ Passing through Sienese Territory There is clear evidence of the emblematic significance of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s work in the ‘tavoletta’ Casseri e Fortezze, dated May 1440, which is now housed in the Museo delle Biccherne in Siena.3 (See Figure 5.) The accompanying inscription ‘QUESTO E’ LI(B)RO DELL’ALLOGAGIONI DEGLI HEDEFITI ET MURAGLIE DE CASSARI PONTI FONTI ET MURA (C)HE SI FARANNO A FARE PER LO MAGNIFICO COMUNO DI SIENA NEL MCCCCXXXX DI MAGIO’ leaves no doubt, either, about the comprehensive nature of the building work that was to be 2 See Bratchel, “Vicars and Citizen Office-Holding”. 3 (ASSi no. 88) Currently unattributed. Tomei (Le Biccherne di Siena, p. 84), suggested that this Tavoletta image should be placed in the ambit of Giovanni di Paolo. Other attributions have included Sano di Pietro.

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

carried out in the name of the ‘magnificent’ commune of Siena. Not just castles and their walls, but also bridges, fountains and internal sections of wall were included: providing numerous possibilities for the application of the Sienese coats of arms. The details of the image itself are also significant for the implication that the builder depicted there was engaged in reconstruction work. Whilst the ‘tavoletta’ depicts an oversized black and white ‘balzana’ (coat of arms of Siena) which is centrally positioned on the upper level of the wall of a fortified building inside the walls – presumably the ‘palazzo comunale’ (although the incomplete tower behind might indicate that it had originally functioned as, or was intended to represent a castle structure) – a much smaller ‘balzana’ is visible on what appears to have once functioned as an external tower or entrance portal. The fact that this gateway and another apparently crumbling structure inside the walls is painted grey, whereas the builder is engaged in constructing what appears to be a second set of walls, new towers and internal buildings in a different colour – pink – implies that this particular town or hamlet had either fallen into disrepair, or had been devastated by war. That the outer portal still carries the symbol of the ‘balzana’ would suggest the latter. The underlying message of the ‘tavoletta’ cover was clearly that enemies of the Sienese Republic should not count on the permanence of any victory, when damaging or razing to the ground the communities of those faithful to Siena. That an even larger ‘balzana’ than that depicted on the pre-existing outer structure is emblazoned on the newly constructed building inside the walls could only have compounded that message. It seems that the government officials in Siena were in complete agreement with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei concerning the political aspects of his art. Following approval of the artist’s April 1466 petition (and its accompanying stipulations), the officials of the Concistoro (the supreme organ of government) drew up a letter on 29 May 1466 in which the artist was charged with painting images of the white lion against a red background and the black and white ‘balzana’ wherever such signs were missing in territories belonging to the Sienese Republic.4 The point was made that the application of such signs and symbols should be taken as proclaiming the fidelity of the individual communities. The 29 May letter, which the artist was commanded to carry with him, required that the officials of the individual communities and subject territories should assist Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in every way necessary in the course of carrying out such work and in any way that the artist might request (‘prestino ogni appropriato favore come da lui saranno richiesti’). Despite such an official ruling, the ‘vademecum’ that was drawn up by the Concistoro was not always honoured by the local officials with whom Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei came into contact. However, and as I illustrate here, in citing 4 ASSi, CG 231, fols. 112r and 112v.

39

40 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 5  Anonymous Sienese painter, Builder at Work Inside a Castle, 1440, ‘Tavoletta’ of the Biccherna n. 88, (ex Casseri e Fortezze), tempera on panel, Museo delle Biccherne, Archivio di Stato di Siena.

Concistoro stipulations and guidelines and the extent to which they had or had not been honoured, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei seized the chance to inform the Sienese ‘Signoria’ of areas of unrest and a number of individuals they might wish to keep an eye on. In effect, he was acting as a government spy. Milanesi noted that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei travelled around producing signs of Siena’s dominance in a number of subject castles and particularly in the Maremma, although not always combining such work with an official government post. As such, Francesco di Bartolomeo must on many occasions have been regarded as a comparatively unimportant travelling painter. However, the significance of such work was clearly not lost on local authorities within individual communes. Milanesi cites one letter (but without recording its date) that was addressed to the Concistoro from the priors and local officials of Montepescali (to the north of Grosseto), in which it was reported that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had not only carried out work in their commune but that it had been done in accordance

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

with the conditions laid down by central government.5 It seems that the priors’ observations did not apply solely to the quality of the work done. On the one hand, the Montepescali authorities noted that the artist had diligently (‘honoratamente’) painted an image of the Sienese lion and ‘balzana’ above the town’s main gate (‘la porta della terra’) and that he had in addition painted a beautiful and ‘dignified’ (‘degna’) image of a she wolf in the middle of the ‘balzana’, as well as another such image above the commune’s ‘casa’, or meeting house. On the other hand, they proclaimed that in producing such work, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had fulfilled the wish of the Sienese government that the commune of Montepescali should be seen to be offering the Republic their unequivocal support and devotion. In effect, in carrying out this work, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had not only lived up to his own professional standards as an artist, but had at the same time become officially involved in the Sienese propaganda machine. In a very real sense, his journeyman painting had a political punch. A handwritten note in Gaetano Milanesi’s unpublished Miscellanea confirms that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was involved in visual ‘propaganda’ work of this kind on at least one other occasion during the 1460s. Thus, according to a letter sent from the commune of Batignano to Siena on 18 June 1468, the artist had been active there, painting both the Sienese coat of arms and the lion, as well as the ‘she wolf’.6 Application of Siena’s coats of arms on the walls of subject communes was, in fact, a well-established custom. The covert propaganda and diplomacy underlying such work was also clearly understood. In honouring the people of Asciano as newly established citizens of Siena, an edict of the Consiglio Generale della Campana del Comune di Siena dated 17 August 1369, declared: ‘The men of Asciano must swear absolutely to stand by their alliance with the people of Siena; undertaking to have the coats of arms of the ‘popolo di Siena’ painted on all their houses’.7 As we shall see, it seems that on occasion, such draconian edicts were not accepted kindly. One theme I pursue in that context is that the location of the individual communes in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was recorded as having worked during the 1460s is particularly significant in the context of Siena’s territorial interests during that period. For Siena, Batignano (further over to the north-east of Grosseto than Montepescali) must have been considered an important and strategic gateway to the whole of the Maremma, positioned as it was between the plains of Grosseto and overlooking the main road north to Montalcino and beyond. (See 5 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 229. 6 BCS, Ms. P.III.44, Miscellanea di Milanesi, fol. 384v. 7 Lucatti, Asciano, pp. 12–13. For the original Latin text, see Liberati, “Asciano”. For Asciano, see Barlucchi, Il contado senese. See also, Ascheri and others, Asciano.

41

42 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 6 Orlando Malavolti, Pianta dello Stato Fiorentino (Map of the Florentine State), ‘Storia di Siena’, 1599, print, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Biblioteca vetrina.

Figure 6.) Historically, all of the areas in which (according to Milanesi) Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was seeking work during the 1460s had earlier formed part of the fiefdom of the Aldobrandeschi.8 There may thus have been ongoing suspicions on the part of the Republic about the degree of loyalty subsequently offered to them by the people of those communes. Batignano had in fact been taken over by Siena as early as the fourteenth century.9 Montepescali by contrast had only recently achieved autonomous status under the Republic of Siena.10 Against that background the letter addressed to the Concistoro in Siena by the priors and local officials of Montepescali assumes even greater significance. As newly established Sienese citizens, the people of Montepescali had fallen in line with the edict directed at Asciano in 1369. In pointing out Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s role in effecting that, the priors were not only confirming their own oath of fealty but also acknowledging the artist’s agency. The Aldobrandeschi had for centuries been formidable neighbours of Siena. At the beginning of the thirteenth century, their territory had dominated areas to the west, south and southeast. Confronting Acquapendente, Radicofani and Montalcino to the northeast and nudging up to Siena itself through their ownership of Rosia and Monteguidi, the Aldobrandeschi had also blocked the city’s access 8 For the Aldobrandeschi, see Ascheri and Niccolai, Gli Aldobrandeschi. See also, Marrara, Storia istituzionale della Maremma (especially chapter 3, “Il feudalesimo laico: Gli Aldobrandeschi”) and Corridori, Gli Aldobrandeschi. See also, Farinelli and Pellegrini, “Casseri e fortezze”. 9 Bowsky, “A New Consilium of Cino of Pistoia”, p. 432, footnote 3. 10 In this context, see Oliveti and others, Statuti e Regolamenti.

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

Figure 7  Aldobrandeschi Territory in the Early Thirteenth Century, line drawing by the author.

to the sea off the Maremma coast. (See Figure 7.) By the mid fourteenth century, however, and following the waning of Aldobrandeschi power, the political map of the Maremma had changed radically. Apart from the independent bishoprics of Grosseto, Massa and Sovana, Siena had established a neighbourly agreement with the ‘contea’ (county, duchy or earldom) of Pitigliano, Santa Fiora and Castell’Ottieri (but excluding the actual power base of the Ottieri in their eponymous castle and the castle of Montorio), whereby – although legislatively independent – those three duchies recognised Siena’s sovereignty and could be considered their allies.11 But not all of these were necessarily bankable. At one time owning a considerable amount of land in the vicinity of the present-day commune of Sorano, the Ottieri had at first maintained a position of power, thanks to an historical alliance forged with the Aldobrandeschi. However, while initially forming an alliance with the Farnese against the advance of Sienese troops laying siege to Pitigliano and Sorano during the early years of the fifteenth century, the Ottieri had subsequently been persuaded to change sides, turning instead to the Republic of Siena for protection.12 Like the people of Montepescali, the allegiance of the Ottieri needed to be heard and seen. 11 For the early history of the Ottieri, see Biondi, ed., Il Castello di Montorio, pp. 7 – 47. For the ‘contea’ of Pitigliano, see Bruscalupi, Storia della Contea. See also, Morelli and Germogli, Castell’Ottieri. 12 Biondi, “Le alleanze matrimoniali”.

43

44 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

By the mid 1450s, tensions had once again arisen between Siena and its southern neighbours – most specifically, through incursions into what was regarded as Sienese territory by the ‘condottiere’, or semi-independent mercenary, Count Jacomo Piccinino.13 It may be no coincidence therefore that the central government was content to accede to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s request concerning the vicariate of Monte Orgiali, or that they focussed on two such strategically positioned communes as Montepescali and Batignano to be embellished with the Sienese coat of arms and other Sienese symbols. In effect, Francesco di Bartolomeo’s activities on behalf of the Republic during the second half of the 1460s established a semi-circular shield of painted propaganda: a pictorial pattern of allegiance to the Republic of Siena in the Maremma between Grosseto and Siena – from Monte Orgiali, inland from Grosseto, to Montepescali and Batignano in the north and north-east. In terms of propaganda – visual or otherwise – affixing the Sienese coat of arms and symbols on the main gates of those places and on the walls of their communal offices would have provided a powerful reminder not just to ‘foreigners that passed through Sienese territory’, but also to individual residents. Living under such signs, the assumption must have been not only that the locals themselves were loyal to Siena, but also that they had been co-opted to the wider cause of the Republic of Siena in confronting hostile outsiders.14 It seems that the artistic activities proposed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei when petitioning for the government post at Monte Orgiali in 1466 did not mark the first time he was engaged in such work. Milanesi refers to a much earlier payment to the artist – on 31 December 1456 – for painting the coat of arms of the vicariate of Castelmuzio, to the east of Lucignano d’Asso.15 Milanesi does not indicate whether Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was involved in any other kind of work in that commune. However, a Balia register covering 1455 and 1456 does indeed refer to ‘Francisci bart pictor’ in the context of his being posted as ‘capitano’ at Castelmuzio in a list of such postings dated 27 December 1455.16 It seems likely therefore that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was involved in government business at Castelmuzio before carrying out journeyman painting work there. Indeed, it is possible that the two activities were linked; the painting following on from the posting. As examples cited elsewhere in the book show, this was common practice.

13 See Ferente, La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino, p. 48. See also, Banchi, “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena”. 14 In this context, see Torriti, ed., Castelmuzio. See also, Cammarosano, Torriti and others, Le campagne senesi. 15 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 421, no. 299 (note). See Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 29, where reference in the text is by error made not to Castelmuzio but to Castelnuovo and the date of such work is recorded as December 1458. 16 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 246r. The office of the Balia served as the government tribunal.

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

The 1455/6 Balia register also contains interesting details about Leonardo Benvoglienti’s own involvement with that particular government department in the mid 1450s. In the same section of records as the list of new officials that was drawn up at the end of December 1455 and witnessed by the current prior Messer Bartolo, Leonardo Benvoglienti’s name appears under the heading ‘Deputatio per loratori’, where he is described as having held the office of prior shortly before.17 As such, he must surely have been made aware of Francesco di Bartolomeo’s subsequent posting to Castelmuzio. He may even have played some part in that appointment. December 1455 was not the only time that reference was made to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in records of the Balia, the Sienese government tribunal.18 Nor does it seem to have been the only occasion when he came into contact with Leonardo Benvoglienti. A couple of years after the reference to his appointment in Castelmuzio, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was referred to once more by the Balia officials – this time, in accounts covering the month of July 1458. At this date the painter appears to have been involved in collecting dues owed to the Republic, rather than in promoting their authority through an official posting as captain or through the application of painted signs on the walls of that subject commune.19 Thus, only a few years after reneging on the confraternity project in Siena, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had not only assumed a military posting in Castelmuzio, but was in effect also acting as a customs officer. According to the records, during the summer of 1458 he was also moving around under armed escort. The same Balia register also contains references to the condition of the Ponte d’Arbia to the south of Siena and (of particular significance to present enquiries) to Leonardo Benvoglienti, who was once again assuming the role of prior within that particular government department. The office of the Balia was thus a significant vector through which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Leonardo Benvoglienti could have come across each other whilst the artist was engaged in different kinds of government business. There is, in any event, evidence to show that a close relationship had been established between the two men by the end of the 1450s. Milanesi does not indicate whether or not in the context of Castelmuzio the artist had combined his painting work with official government business, but the December 1455 record confirms that this was indeed the case. While no reference was made to any particular 17 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 245v and fol. 243v. 18 For the office of the Balia, see Prunai and De’ Colli, Archivio di Balia. 19 ASSi, Balia 398, fol. 106r. – under grouping of days in July X, XI, XII and XIII – ‘Franciscus Bartholi Alfei missus adexigendum den pascuor… incomitatu habuit lras ex adtorias e …favoris adoes officiales Ite q habeat Soldi unumper qualib. … libra den exadore …’.

45

46 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

duties expected from Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei when assuming the post of captain at Castelmuzio, the fact that the office of the Balia was involved must surely indicate a military context. It seems likely, that Castelmuzio – to the east of the Via Francigena and between Buonconvento and Trequanda – was regarded as a hotspot in the context of the defence of Siena’s eastern territories during the mid 1450s. The mercenary soldier Simonetto da Castelpiero, supported by Milan and Florence, had indeed been menacing the territory to the east and north-east of Siena from the early years of the sixth decade. As a result, the whole of the Val d’Orcia and the road south from Siena must have been regarded as vulnerable and under threat.20 What does seem clear, and as the following chapter will show, the art of journeyman painting remained a constant throughout Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s life. A report despatched back to Siena in 1482 by Francesco di Bartolomeo from Asciano (to the west of Lucignano d’Asso) confirms that the artist continued to be involved in journeyman painting into his old age. It also shows how engagement in such work provided a perfect opportunity for undercover surveillance and the reporting of potential unrest and disobedience in Siena’s subject communities. Moreover, more often than not there is evidence to show that such work also had a political agenda. Indeed, shortly after abandoning the project to carry out frescoes for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in Siena and several months prior to painting symbols of Sienese authority on the walls of Castelmuzio, there is evidence to show that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was despatched on what might best be described as surveillance work, mapping the area around Orbetello (at that time under threat by the armed forces of Jacomo Piccinino). Recent research also reveals that well before the 1466 petition for the post of ‘vicario’ at Monte Orgiali, the artist was reporting back to the Sienese ‘Signoria’ from a similar posting in Rigomagno. It seems, therefore, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement in visual propaganda and official government business as well as undercover surveillance and diplomacy was already well established by the end of the sixth decade of the fifteenth century. I analyse the 1482 Asciano letter in detail here, not only because it illustrates well how journeyman painting could involve undercover surveillance work; but also because it indicates an intimacy between the artist and his government employers. Although signing off as the Signoria’s ‘humble servant’, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei nevertheless counts on their love and support. I argue that despite much being left unsaid, the implications are clear. Even in old age, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was acting as a kind of undercover agent and informer. (See Figure 8.)

20 In this context, see Banchi, “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena”.

47

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

Figure 8  Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, Letter written in Asciano on 24 October 1482, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 2050, lettera n. 16, 49/2000, fol. 1r.

Local Intelligence: A Letter from Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to the Sienese Signoria, Despatched from Asciano on 24 October 1482 Magnificent and powerful Signoria, my most esteemed Signori, with my humble and very best wishes I am letting you know in this report how, having completed the work at Asciano and being on the point of going to Rapolano, in order to carry out what was ordered in carrying forward the said signs, and discussing with the ‘Vicario’ some of the things concerning this work, he did not reply in a satisfactory manner. He offered me scant respect, not wishing to obey what was laid down in the letter presented by you, the Signoria. Most significantly, he advised the priors not to give me any money for my expenses, as had been the custom in those other places in which I had carried out such work. He remained resolute on this point. So I now have to let you know that I’ve both wasted time and am losing further time as well as covering the cost of my colours myself. As laid out in your letter, it shouldn’t be the case that I should have to cover the cost of my lodging myself. But he, as was already demanded in Lucignano di Val di Chiana, wanted to replicate the way in which I was treated there. As a result, and counting on your love and support, I am letting you, the Signoria, know how things stand. In

48 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

the hope that you will respond as you think appropriate and agree that I should not go backwards and forwards losing time; that others should not be able to behave in this way; and that I should be able to proceed as commanded by you, the Signoria. I would also like to advise you, the Signoria, that in several places, I have in fact been offered expenses by particular individuals (‘uomini particolari’), separately from commune officials, in order for me to be able to carry out the painting of arms and in such instances my work has been much appreciated. Now and for always I recommend myself to you, the Signoria, in the hope that God will guard you and keep you safe. Written in Asciano on the 24 of October 1482. From your humble servant, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, painter.21

This letter, which was transcribed into modern Italian by Ettore Romagnoli in his early nineteenth century Biografia cronologica de’ bellartisti senesi 1200–1800, illustrates how Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei assumed a role akin to that of an undercover agent on behalf of the central government in Siena, albeit apparently engaged in routine journeyman painting. It seems that the artist had been keeping his ear to the ground in the small commune of Asciano. Whilst ostensibly lodging a complaint over nonpayment for work completed there, he was in effect filing a diplomatic report about how things stood not only in that commune, but also in Lucignano and elsewhere. In particular, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei seems to have been intent on reporting back on the unsatisfactory behaviour of one specific individual, the ‘vicario’ – no doubt the official currently in the position of greatest authority in Asciano, but who was almost certainly obstructing communications between the artist and the local priors. In Asciano – in contravention of stipulations drawn up by the Sienese ‘Signoria’ in the spring of 1466 and as specifically laid down by officials of the Concistoro in the 29 May ‘vademecum’ carried by the artist as he moved from one place to another engaged in journeyman painting work – Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been compelled not only to pay for his own lodging, but also for other items necessary for his official work there. In reporting that the ‘vicario’ of Asciano (presumably put in place by the central government itself) had been personally disrespectful in not responding to the artist’s legitimate request for payment of certain expenses, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was clearly intent on marking 21 ASSi, Concistoro 2050, no. 16. English transcription of the original, by Anabel Thomas. For an Italian transcription published by Ettore Romagnoli in the early nineteenth century, where the historian mistakenly refers to an individual named Ignazio, see Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, pp. 141–43. Romagnoli cites in this context a ‘copia lettere’ no. 103, dated September 14, 1482 in the Riformagioni archive, which refers to the edict that the individual communes should be held responsible for paying for the coats of arms produced by Alfei. See also, Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 396–97, no. 274, where it is clear that Francesco di Bartolomeo was referring to the ‘vicario’ of Asciano.

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

this individual as a potential troublemaker. By, in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s opinion, dishonestly underestimating the value of the work that had been carried out in Asciano, the deputy official’s own trustworthiness was clearly under scrutiny. It was that individual’s negative stance (again, in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s opinion) that (in marked contrast to the relationship apparently established with the priors and commune of Montepescali) had enabled him to persuade the priors of Asciano not to honour the stipulations laid down by central government. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei clearly felt aggrieved on a number of counts: refusal on the part of the ‘vicario’ of Asciano to honour what the artist regarded as legitimate expenses owed to him, combined with the indignity of having his work questioned. But there was further indignation that this deputy official’s personal lack of respect had been the tool by which the locally elected priors in Asciano had been encouraged to ignore the authority of the central government in Siena. While in some senses a begging letter (that the Signoria should intervene on the artist’s behalf), the 1482 missal thus constituted a kind of ‘denuncia’ or assessment of the loyalty of a particular government servant in one of Siena’s subject communes. Engaged in detailing his dissatisfaction about the response he had received in Asciano, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei also took the chance to draw a comparison between this recent affront and what he clearly regarded as the equally offensive treatment meted out previously by an individual (or possibly the whole commune) in nearby Lucignano. Lucignano, to the east of Rigomagno, north-east of Asciano and strategically positioned in the Val di Chiana between Siena and Arezzo, was historically hotly contested not only between those two cities, but also between Siena and Perugia.22 Moreover, although firmly under the jurisdiction of Siena by the latter part of the fourteenth century (its walls and three gates being constructed by the Sienese in 1371), Lucignano was subsequently vulnerable to a number of intrigues, including those fermented by Florence and Perugia.23 It was probably no coincidence, therefore, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was commissioned to carry out journeyman painting in Lucignano in the late 1470s or early 1480s. Nor, perhaps, would the officials of the central government in Siena have been surprised to hear that their artist had run into local difficulties there. It seems that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was prepared to stand his ground as well as stand up for his rights, following his run in at Asciano. If needs be, he implied 22 In this context, see Pellegrini, Fortificare con Arte and Pannilunghi Castore Ciapetti, Alcuni documenti storici, pp. 9–11, Document I (?1386) where it is firmly attested that Lucignano was never subjected to Arezzo. See also Zoi, “Profilo storico”. 23 In this context, see Pannilunghi Castore Ciapetti, Alcuni documenti storici, pp. 13–15, Document II (21 December 1460), where Battista di Magio di Michele di Lucignano petitions the General Council in Siena, alluding amongst other things to the pact of submission to Siena that had been agreed by his father, Magio, several decades earlier.

49

50 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

that he was prepared to walk away from any further commissions of ‘that’ kind. Indeed, it seems that he was wondering whether he would, after all, complete the mission in the next commune, Rapolano. With this uncertainty apparently in mind, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei requested that the ‘Signoria’ should intercede to prevent his ‘going backwards and forwards’ and avoid his being treated with further disrespect whilst engaged in similar work elsewhere – so that he might after all carry out the instructions handed down to him by central government. It was at this point in his report that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei added a curious comment about the ways in which his journeyman painting had been received and remunerated elsewhere. This was clearly not the first time that the artist’s work painting Sienese coats of arms in subject communes had been disrespected and questions raised over payment. However, it appears that in some instances, unnamed individuals had stepped forward to intervene on the artist’s behalf. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei described how on occasion, he had in fact been offered expenses by ‘certain individuals’ (‘uomini particolari’). While far from explicit, this aside would seem to confirm the notion pursued here, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s journeyman painting in Siena’s subject communes was not only recognised as advertising the power and authority of the Republic but – and as a direct result – was not always welcomed; especially in those communities where there was historically a degree of unrest. The inclusion of such a comment in the 1482 report from Asciano would also seem to confirm that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei himself was not only fully aware of the significance of the work he was charged to do in terms of its political implications, but also of his own role in carrying out such missions successfully. Indeed, in recognising the part he himself played and had played in re-enforcing local allegiance and impressing foreigners passing through Sienese territory, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei no doubt felt emboldened to adopt the robust tone he did, when reporting back to Siena from Asciano. There is, however, an element of the servile in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei assuring the officials of the ‘Signoria’ that having let them know how things stood, he was now counting on their good will and support to resolve the situation. He does not seem, therefore, to have been seriously considering walking away from the tasks allocated to him: just confident enough to express his irritation. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that by the time Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei filed his report from Asciano in October 1482, he had at least twenty years of what may have been very similar correspondence with the Sienese ‘Signoria’ under his belt. One such exchange I recently came across concerned Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s posting as ‘vicario’ to Rigomagno in 1460. This report, which was despatched by the artist to the ‘Signoria’ in Siena on 24 November 1460, indicated that despite only being in post in that commune for a relatively short time, he had already identified and attempted to resolve key sources of unrest there. The 1460 despatch

51

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

Figure 9  Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, Letter written in Rigomagno on 24 November 1460, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1999, no. 27, fol. 1r.

shows that government officials had full confidence in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei by the end of the sixth decade. Rigomagno was clearly neither a tranquil nor a subservient commune at that date. Nor, indeed, does there appear to have been much sign of local officials there establishing fealty and impressing foreigners passing through their territory, or of their undying allegiance to Siena. This was hardly the place to set in post an inexperienced Sienese official. Writing only a few weeks after his arrival in Rigomagno, it appears that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had found himself catapulted into dangerous chaos. Yet he had apparently already established some kind of order and, despite in effect being under siege, had managed to bring at least some of the warring factions together. (See Figure 9.)

Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Reports Back to Siena as ‘Vicario’ of Rigomagno on 24 November 1460 Magnificent and powerful Signoria of Siena, my Signori. I offer you my humble explanation for the reasons why I have only been able to let you know briefly and as far as I was able about matters here. Specifically, that the men of your region here have been divided into two factions for a long time and have all taken up arms so that this very day they have threatened to cut each other to pieces, citing their grievances. I have only become part of this situation recently but from the

52 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

feast of Saint Martin (11 November) onwards I have given advice about certain behaviour (happenings?). I had ordered them to end this conflict and I had spoken to each group in such a way that each of them had faithfully promised to resolve their differences. Through the grace of god and good planning and with a great deal of effort and in so far as I was capable I achieved at great cost a truce for the whole of today and then immediately sent to the ‘podestà’ of Torrita (?di Siena) in order to provide further reinforcements. I also immediately sent out the notary with several messengers (‘famuli’) in order to let you, the Signoria, know in detail all that I was unable to advise you of previously – being unable to send anyone from here because of the threat that any messenger would be cut to pieces. I had wanted to send two messengers because I am anxious that you, the Signoria, should be well informed about all the background to this situation through the agency of two gatini (?agents?) who could better inform you by word of mouth and offer information about one particular individual that I think you, the Signoria, should punish, both in this instance and for several other reasons. He has already demonstrated several times against our community and on several occasions has disobeyed my orders not to bear arms. I have issued commands to him on several occasions and several times he has not respected the ‘bandi’ (legislation concerning the carrying of arms). I urge the Signoria therefore to issue orders that the two local heads here should present themselves in front of you (each one with two witnesses), and that one of them should escort the person who is the root cause of this problem as well as of many others: Mariano di Nanni, nicknamed Scuricino. As a result of his misdoings he is held in disgrace by his father and all of his brothers and by all of the men here for many other crimes and ‘mancamenti’ (?failures) to the ‘rist’ (?to adhere to the law) … and when he is in your hands I will write to you in greater detail about ‘suoi gatini (? cattivi) portamenti … damecho.’ (?his heinous behaviour towards me). I thus beg you, the Signoria, that you provide two good men from here through whom I can write more fully in order to better inform you how things stand. And above all I beseech you, the Signoria, to forgive me for not having written more fully or provided you with better information. As ever, I recommend myself to you the Signoria on 24 November 1460 in Rigomagno. The said two heads of the two factions are (?)Giuliano di Giovanni di Cinigiano and Battista di Piero di Buono Drarmaiollo. From your humble Servant Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, Deputy Official of the said land that belongs to you. (Note in another hand at the bottom of the page–received 26 November).24 24 ASSi, Concistoro 1999, no. 27 (‘Magnifici e potenti S.S. mei Sng(nori) doppo le humili raccomadationi … p(er) questa e la chagione che avisso le S.V. ibrevita quanto anne e posibille Come gliomini di questa Vostra

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

As with the report despatched from Asciano some twenty years later, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not backward in coming forwards when it came to informing his masters in Siena how matters stood on the ground in Rigomagno and which individual merited their particular attention. The November 1460 report also reveals how Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had gone to considerable lengths – both through consultation with the warring factions within Rigomagno and by himself setting a good example in that commune as official representative of the Republic of Siena. Although the two letters in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s hand included here are separated in time by more than twenty years, I would argue that in both cases the artist assumed a similar role: identifying a prime troublemaker in a subject commune and then reporting their misdeeds back to the central government in Siena. In the report despatched from Rigomagno in 1460, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (at that date barely forty years old) appears to write with all the authority of an trer si sono partite i(n) due parti dmote tempo e ano tuti p…rnveduto alarmi i(n) modo che ogi questo di ausunno(n) (?avevamo) ordinato si volgienno (crossed out) tagliare a pezi Sitondo le loro dimostratizioni e…inquesto io eronuovo salvo che dala festa di sto martino i(n) qua avevo p(r)sentite alcune parolle di cierte Gachare (crossed out) co(m)portamenti di dove e avevo(?) ordinato predicti?pdi …di facere fine e avevo a ognuna dele parti palato i(n) modo che ongni ?imo…maveva bene promisso ura i(n) nusubito stato questo p(er)tanto Io prima p(er) la grazia di dio e p(er) buono provedimento riparai con grande fadiga i(n) modo che quanto io o potuto fare o fata fare la tregua p(er) tuto di ogi con grande fadiga da poi di subito mandai p(er) podesta di torita p(er) meglio provedere armi e di subito mandato el notaio co p(i)u famigli siche p(er) tanto aviso la S.V. di tuto nono potuto avistivi p(i)u presto p(er)che nono potuto mandare nisuno di questa trra p(er)che disubito eraminaciato di tagliallo a pezzi p(er) due ch…io cio veluto mandare a correzione scrivo ale S.V. p(er)che prego le S.V. avolere essere bene i(n)formati di tuto il fondameto di questi?o punto (?porto) p(er) due gatini p(er) li quali a bocha precise meglio avistati e p(er) giongnire…ladrls…usciia duno gatino che a me pare che la S.V. debino fare gastigare si p(er( questa si p(er) p(i)u altre chagioni a lato dimostratizioni gia p(i)u volte contra ala nostra corte e di p(i)u volte mano disubidito di no volere last…re…di no portare larme e ame…p(i)u e p(i)u volte … io fato comandamento e p(i)u volte nomandati e bandi siche p(er) tanto prego la S.V. mandiate p(er) due capi di queste pa(?t)riti ongnuno con due testimoni e luno di loro mennia con secho quelo che de capo di questo malle e di molti p(i)u altri el qualle anome Mariano di manni decto Scuricino p(er) qualle lui ein(n)disgrazia di suo padre e di tuti i suoi frategli e di tuti elgliconii?.(huomini?).(per) molti altri gativi mancamenti a …iriste … e per quando sara nele mani de le S.V. scrive di avistati di p(i)u suoi gatini portamenti…damecho(?d amico) … prego le S.V. che mandiate p(er) due buoni huomini di qui p(er) quali scripte… a pieno meglio e informati E di tutto questo prego le S.V. mi perdonino quando nonavarssi… meglio scrito o proveduto Sempre mi racomando ale S.V. S(cr)ita adi 24 novembre 1460 i(n) Rigomagno e deti due capi dele dete parti sono questi Glian.o (?Giuliano) di giovanni di cingnano e Batista di pietro buono drarmaiollo … dalatra parte P(er) lovost(r).o minomo SS(er)vidore Franfol.o dibart.o alfei vifol.o deladeta vist(ra) tera p(rese)nti? … die XXVI novemb(re). In this context see Bowsky, “The Medieval Commune”, and in particular pp. 5, 7 and 12–16 where, amongst other matters, the author discusses legislation concerning the carrying of arms and various methods adopted in bringing culprits to justice.

53

54 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

experienced government official; aware of his responsibility to report back to the ‘Signoria’ in Siena and eager to carry out that duty to the letter. He was scrupulous in describing the various pockets of unrest on the ground in Rigomagno; identifying the leaders of two different factions – Giuliano di Cinigiano and Batista di Piero di Buono Drarmaiollo. But Francesco di Bartolomeo also appears to have wanted to go further in rooting out the principal problem in that commune. Referring to a key troublemaker, Mariano di Manni nicknamed ‘Scuricino’, or ‘little dark face’, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was clearly intent on bringing this troublemaker to justice. By revealing that Mariano di Manni had been rejected by his own family, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was also indicating to his masters in Siena that it would be comparatively easy to take this individual in for questioning and due process. Mariano di Manni’s relatives, as well as many other people in that commune, could be counted on not to interfere. They would not be springing to Mariano di Manni’s defence. Indeed, they might be glad to see him removed. Local knowledge of this kind must have been indispensable to the officials of the central government in Siena. That aside, it is interesting that, by November 1460, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei felt himself on familiar enough terms with the Sienese ‘Signoria’, to report so candidly. He also apparently felt sufficiently confident to offer his own advice to his masters in Siena as to how the miscreant at Rigomagno should be brought to justice. These are not the words of an insignificant journeyman painter. Rather, they suggest that this middle-aged artist had found himself a comfortable niche in which to operate as an agent in the service of the Sienese Republic. It is also worth noting that although Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was clearly ready to identify the ringleaders of the two factions in Rigomagno, his primary objective was not to set about dismantling their individual power bases. The tenor of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s 1460 report indicates that he had been more interested in arbitration and effecting resolution between the troublemakers. On that basis, alone, it seems that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had gained considerable diplomatic expertise by the time he assumed the post of ‘vicario’ in this small commune to the east of Siena. A number of similarities can be drawn between the 1460 report and the letter that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei despatched twenty years later from Asciano. Reporting back to the Sienese ‘Signoria’ in October 1482, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was clearly not just attempting to claim back what he regarded as unjustifiably withheld payment. The ‘vicario’ fingered by the artist could have had no idea of the bile and criticism that would drip from this apparently insignificant journeyman painter’s pen following his own ill considered lack of respect (when responding to the artist’s legitimate request that his expenses should be covered by the commune of Asciano). He might otherwise have chosen to act differently. He might certainly have thought twice before involving the local ‘priori’ in what would most likely have

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

been seen as an unhelpful, if not openly disobedient response, by the ‘Signoria’ in Siena. The fact that this deputy official acted otherwise suggests that he was either unaware of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s significance, or that he was sufficiently confident about his own position in Asciano to interfere openly in the day-to-day activities of the local officials there. Twenty years previously, whilst himself assuming the post of ‘vicario’ at Rigomagno, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in his role as an official sent from central government may well have expected to assume a similar position of authority in that commune. He might indeed have expected to be met with respect and civility. Yet, as the 1460 letter shows, even when envoys from Siena found themselves in positions of power in subject communes – especially those with a history of insubordination – they often had to toe a delicate line, managing the individual local factions, as well as complex webs of information, disinformation and intrigue. In 1482, the ‘vicario’ of Asciano, in establishing his own parallel power base there was (at least in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s eyes) ‘out of line’. Managing internal politics, whilst ostensibly keeping the peace, no doubt required a degree of sophisticated diplomacy. But, as both letters under consideration here show, government officials were not averse to resorting to the use of the blunt, if not brutal instrument of naming and shaming. As with the report filed from Rigomagno, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to have been intent in 1482 on fingering the one individual in the commune of Asciano who had caused him particular difficulties. It was the deputy official, the officially appointed Sienese servant, not the current ‘priori’ in Asciano, who was specifically singled out and brought to the attention of central government. Indeed, in reporting the disrespect of the ‘vicario’ in questioning the value of the work he had undertaken in Asciano, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may have hoped that the officials of the ‘Signoria’ would make it their business to root him out of that commune and bring him to heel, whilst perhaps diplomatically leaving the locally elected priors in place. As ‘vicario’ in Rigomagno, it seems likely that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been made aware of local divisions and factions, as well as homegrown conspiracies, through information furnished by local informants as well, perhaps, as from his own aides. In his official position as representative of the Republic of Siena, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was obviously expected to address such issues himself. But, as a single elected representative, sent in from Siena, he must have found himself in a somewhat vulnerable position. This much is made abundantly clear in the 1460 report. When facing unrest in Rigomagno, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, unable to call up help immediately from Siena, had been forced instead to turn to the ‘podestà’ of nearby Torrita di Siena. It seems that in doing so, he had also had to rely on local officials and messengers. It was clearly such trusted individuals that Francesco di Bartolomeo had in mind when he informed the ‘Signoria’ that he hoped to provide them with more

55

56 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

detailed information through the agency of a notary and ‘famuli’ despatched to Siena during the day of truce he had bartered. It seems that at Rigomagno, it was not just a matter of heading off potential civic disorder within that commune. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had also had to deal with the very real threat of personal violence towards himself and members of his inner circle, including his own deputed messengers. Local troublemakers were not only making their views known loudly. They were also resorting to the carrying of illegal arms and were prepared to prevent any messages the ‘vicario’ attempted to despatch to Siena with force. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s letter from Rigomagno illustrates how government employees, when confronting individuals in subject communes who were openly engaged in flouting the authority of Siena, must have been forced – not least because of the distance between them and security forces back home – to use their own initiative. On many occasions, as the 1460 report indicates, the individual official must have had to seek help from other officials in nearby communes, rather than seeking immediate backup from Siena. It was clearly vital on such occasions not only that mutual trust had been established between the one who sought help and the one who was asked to provide assistance, but also that the messengers employed as go-betweens in such communications were themselves trustworthy. On many occasions, it seems that requests for reinforcements were cut off ‘en route’, following information supplied by unfriendly and local spies. These were dangerous and unsettled times. Calling upon central government forces to help quell unrest in one unruly or besieged outpost must frequently have been hampered by the potential violence of local dissidents and their informants. There is clear evidence of this in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s plea for clemency in respect of his delay in getting information back to Siena from Rigomagno. Citing a thwarted attempt to send two messengers of his choice out from that commune, Francesco di Bartolomeo reported that he had held back because of the real danger of their being ambushed and ‘cut into pieces’. Although clearly conscious of his obligations to report back to central government, Francesco di Bartolomeo was also pragmatic enough to recognise that caution was the better part of valour. The correspondence despatched by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei from Rigomagno and Asciano illustrates well the various ways in which local reporting played an essential part in helping to maintain the distanced authority and power of the central government in Siena. The fact that both reports appear to have been drawn up and penned by the artist himself also shows that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not only literate but a skilled scribe. Both reports reveal his competence in communicating just the right amount of detail, whether in fingering a particular miscreant, or offering an analysis of potential cracks in local law and order. More specifically, the account despatched from Rigomagno shows that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s skills in surveillance and diplomacy were well honed by the

The Politics of Journeyman Painting 

beginning of the seventh decade. One conclusion must be that he had already been involved in such agency before assuming the post at Rigomagno – one obvious opportunity being at Castelmuzio between 1455 and 1456. That being the case, one might argue that other diplomatic letters had already been despatched by the artist several years before the 1460 report. In any event, there seems little doubt that he was a skilful and competent communicator by the time he reached middle age. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s expertise as a scribe was in fact raised as a point in his favour in a letter of recommendation that was penned on his behalf by Leonardo Benvoglienti, at that date one of the Republic’s leading diplomats. How that individual was in a position to provide such information, and the circumstances under which he and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became acquainted, forms the basis of detailed discussion in the following chapter.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Ascheri, Mario, and Lucio Niccolai, eds. Gli Aldobrandeschi: La grande famiglia feudale della Maremma Toscana. Arcidosso: C&P Adver Effigi, 2002. Ascheri, Mario, and others. Asciano e le sue terre fra Tre e Quattrocento: Per i 650 anni della cittadinanza senese. Sinalunga, 2019. Banchi, Luciano. “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena e la Lega Italica (1455–1456).” Archivio Storico Italiano serie Quarta 4, no. 112 (1879): 44–58 and serie Quarta 4, no. 113 (1879): 225–45. Barlucchi, Andrea. Il contado senese all’epoca dei Nove: Asciano e il suo territorio tra due e trecento. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1997. Biondi, Angelo. “Le alleanze matrimoniali tra Sforza, Farnese, Orsini, Ottieri e la figure di Costanza Farnese.” Tracce 14 (2009): 47–61. Biondi, Angelo, ed. Il Castello di Montorio: Dalla Contea degli Ottieri alla rinascità di Carlo Goria. Pitigliano: Editrice Laurum, 2010. Bowsky, William M. “The Medieval Commune and Internal Violence: Police Power and Public Safety in Siena 1287–1355.” American Historical Review 73 (1967): 1–17. Bowsky, William. “A New Consilium of Cino of Pistoia (1324): Citizenship, Residence, and Taxation.” Speculum 42, no. 3 (July 1967): 431–41. Bratchel, Michael. “Vicars and Citizen Office-Holding in the Dominions of Fifteenth-Century Lucca, 1430–1501.” Urban History 42, no. 2 (May 2015): 183–203. Bruscalupi, Giuseppe. Storia della Contea di Pitigliano. Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 1986. Cammarosano, Paolo, Elio Torriti, and others. Le campagne senesi dalla fine del secolo 12,13. e 14.: Dinamica interna e forme del dominio cittadino la proprietà fondiaria in Castelmuzio agli inizi del secolo 14. Castelmuzio: s.n., 2000.

57

58 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Corridori, Ippolito. Gli Aldobrandeschi della Storia Maremmana. Pitigliano: Editrice Laurum, 2004. Farinelli, Roberto, and Michele Pellegrini. “Casseri e fortezze senesi a Grosseto e in altri centri della Toscana meridionale (secc. XIII–XIV).” In Castelli e fortezze nelle città italiane e nei centri minori italiani (secoli XIII–XV), edited by Francesco Panero and Giuliano Pinto, 161–96. Cherasco: Centro Internazionale di studi sugli insediamenti medievali, 2009. Ferente, Serena. La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino: Storia dei bracceschi in Italia 1423–1465. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2005. Liberati, Alfredo. “Asciano.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 8, no. 3 (1937): 292–323. Lucatti, Renato. Asciano: Racconti storici sul “Paese del Garbo.” Florence: Edito a cura della Cassa Rurale ed Artigiana, 1987. Marrara, Danilo. Storia istituzionale della Maremma senese: Principi e istituti del governo del territorio grossetano dall’età carolingia all’unificazione d’Italia. Siena: Meini, 1961. Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856. Morelli, Emanuela, and Roberto Germogli. Castell’Ottieri: Pitigliano, Sovana, Sorano e la civiltà del tufo. Polistampa, 2007. Oliveti, Luigi, and others. Statuti e Regolamenti: Statuti del Comune di Montepescali (1427). Collana “Quaderni degli Usi Civici e dei Demani Collettivi” 2. Ospedaletto, Pisa: Editrice Universitaria Litografia Felici, 1995. Pannilunghi Castore Ciapetti, Avv. Girolamo. Alcuni documenti storici di Lucignano di Val di Chiana. Siena: Tipografia Sordo-Muti di L. Lazzeri, 1877. Pellegrini, Ettore, ed. Fortificare con Arte: Vicende storiche ed architettoniche di quattro castelli senesi: Torrita di Siena, Sarteano, Lucignano della Chiana, Caldana di Maremma. Accademia dei Rozzi. Monteriggione, Siena: Il Leccio, 2009. Prunai, Giulio, and Sandro De’ Colli. Introduction to Archivio di Balia: Inventario. Archivio di Stato di Siena. Rome: s.n., 1957. Romagnoli, Ettore. Biografia cronologica de’ Bellartisti senesi dal 1200 al 1800. 13 vols. Edizione Stereotipa. Florence: SPES, 1976. Tomei, Alessandro, ed. Le Biccherne di Siena: Arte e finanza all’alba dell’economia moderna. Exhibition catalogue, Rome–Washington–Siena, 2002–2003. Rome: Retablo CulturaArte-Immagine, 2002. Torriti, Elio, ed. Castelmuzio: Storia di un piccolo castello fortificato con notizie storiche su: Confraternità di S. Bernardino, Pieve S. Stefano in Cennano e omonimo distretto plebano, S. Anna in Camprena, Petroio, Abbadia Sicille. Cortona: Calosci, 1991. Zoi, Piero. “Prof ilo storico di Lucignano.” In Fortificare con arte: Vicende storiche ed architettoniche di quattro castelli senesi: Torrita di Siena, Sarteano, Lucignano della Chiana, Caldana di Maremma, edited by Ettore Pellegrini, 131–37. Accademia dei Rozzi. Monteriggione, Siena: Il Leccio, 2009.

2.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’, the Painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Abstract: Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s expertise as a scribe was raised in a letter of recommendation sent by Leonardo Benvoglienti to the head of the Cathedral Works in Siena in 1458. Chapter Two considers how this career diplomat was privy to such information, and how the two men met (including the possibility that they crossed paths at San Francesco in Siena during attempts to canonise the Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi). The question is raised whether the friendship expressed by the diplomat resulted from the painter being an undercover agent. Leonardo Benvoglienti’s diplomatic career in Venice, Montalcino, Rome and Naples is outlined along with a consideration of the language and format of ambassadorial reports and the roles adopted by couriers in delivering their despatches. Keywords: Sienese diplomacy; ambassadors; ambassadorial reports and couriers; military tactics; espionage and undercover agency; Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi.

One of the earliest records cited by Gaetano Milanesi in connection with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei concerns the letter of recommendation written on the artist’s behalf by Leonardo Benvoglienti (at that time acting as ‘orator senensis’ in Rome), which was despatched on 14 April 1458.1 (See Figure 10.) Somewhat curiously, though, Milanesi opined in an appended note that the ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo, dipentore’ – subject of the 1458 letter of recommendation – was the painter ‘Alfei da Montalcino’. There is continuing discussion as to whether Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei could claim any close association with Montalcino; attention on occasion being drawn to the reference in the artist’s 1465 Lira to ‘Uno pezo di tera prativa ne la corte di Montalcino’.2 However, none of the documents I have considered indicate anything 1 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 299–300, no. 210. 2 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 129.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_I_ch02

60 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 10 Leonardo Benvoglienti, Letter sent from Rome on 14 April 1458 to Cristofano Felice in Siena, pen and ink on paper, Archivio Storico, Opera della Metropolitana Onlus, Siena, cosidetto Libro dei documenti artistici, AMOS, 25 (30).

other than that Francesco di Bartolomeo himself and his father, Bartolomeo di Francesco, were citizens of Siena. Unlike some tax records, where reference was made to a particular individual’s origins or birth place, in the case of Francesco di Bartolomeo and other identifiable members of his family, there are references only to Siena; whether in tax records, reports of the Consiglio Generale, ‘copia lettere’ in the Concistoro, or in the artist’s own correspondence. There is, however, clear evidence that in later life Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei assumed a number of official posts both in Montalcino and in its surroundings. It may thus have been on one of these occasions that he acquired the piece of meadowland that was declared in his 1465 tax declaration. Thus, not only Gaetano Milanesi in the nineteenth century, but also more recent historians may have been justified in claiming an association between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and this particular commune to the south of Siena. Leonardo Benvoglienti, for his part, penning his letter in Rome in the spring of 1458, was concerned only with how matters stood in Siena: specifically in the Cathedral Works there. It was in the context of employment within that environment that Leonardo wrote in support of the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. The details of this letter reveal that only a few years after reneging on the contract to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had established himself on good footing, if not intimate terms with one of Siena’s leading government officials.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

Interconnecting Threads of Patronage Leonardo di Bartolomeo di Niccolò Benvoglienti barely figures in studies of the art and artists of fifteenth-century Siena.3 Yet, for historians of the city’s civic and religious affairs, he looms large. He was in fact a career diplomat, assuming the role of ‘oratore senese’ for Siena at the papal court in Rome as early as 1440. He subsequently assumed similar duties on behalf of his Sienese masters (including posts as ambassador, ‘commissario’ and ‘podestà’) in such far-flung places as Venice, Montalcino, the Maremma, Florence, the Val di Chiana and the Val d’Orcia. He was, at one time or other, occupied in both the north and the south of the peninsula, as well as in the west and in the east of Siena’s territory. Indeed, in his biography of Leonardo Benvoglienti, Giovanni Antonio Pecci not only refers to Benvoglienti as having assumed diverse offices in the service of the Republic of Siena (while noting at the same time that he had written the Life of San Bernardino), but also opines that Benvoglienti might have become involved in many other kinds of intellectual pursuits, had it not been for his constant immersion in the political affairs of his native city. 4 Born during the early years of the fifteenth century into a patrician Sienese family associated with the ‘Monte dei Riformatori’, comparatively little is in fact known about Leonardo Benvoglienti’s early life. However, as Giulio Prunai notes, the young Benvoglienti had already taken up a post in the Concistoro in Siena in 1428.5 Giulio Prunai lists a number of official roles assumed by Leonardo Benvoglienti (apart from his ambassadorships) over the course of f ifty years: starting with services rendered to the office of the Concistoro in 1428, 1430 and 1440 and then tracing Benvoglienti’s further involvement in the city’s affairs as an official of the Mercanzia (in 1431, 1442, 1448, 1469 and 1478); as ‘provveditore’ of the Biccherna (1440, 1443, 1449); as ‘gonfaloniere’ of the Terzo di città (1442, 1464 and 1474); as ‘capitano del popolo’ (1450, 1460, 1465 and 1471); as ‘commissario’ during the war 3 For a recent survey of the connections between religious and civic life in fifteenth-century Siena, and Leonardo Benvoglienti’s role both in the canonisation of the Beato Bernardino and as emissary on behalf of the Sienese government, see Smith and Steinhoff, Art as Politics and in particular, Norman’s “Santi cittadini”, pp. 118–19. 4 BCS, Ms. A.VII.34–36, no. 53 – Giovanni Antonio Pecci, Scrittori Sanesi A–E, new pagination 66v – ‘dotato di talento e di scientifiche cognizioni, se non fosse stato continuamente impiegato in tanti affari politici …’. See also, BCS, Ms. A.VI.5: new pagination 88–90 (old 81–83), where the first reference under the Benvoglienti del Monte dei Riformatori (with a cross-reference to Ugurgieri Azzolini’s Le pompe sanesi) concerns the Vita di S. Bernardino written by Leonardo in 1446. This source also lists various civic roles assumed by Leonardo Benvoglienti from 1454 onwards, including governorship of Città di Castello in 1462 and being appointed ambassador to Florence in 1477. For Benvoglienti’s Life of Bernardino, see Ortroy, “S. Bernardin de Sienne”. 5 Prunai, “Benvoglienti”.

61

62 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

against the Orsini of Pitigliano (1454); as ‘esecutore’ of the Gabella (1463); and as ‘ufficiale’ of Sale e Paschi (1475). By the time Leonardo Benvoglienti set about writing his letter on behalf of the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo, he had completed almost a decade in the service of the central government in Siena as their ambassador or ‘orator’ in Rome. He had also served two terms as ambassador to Venice and – more recently – had assumed the posts of ‘commissario’ and ‘podestà’ at Montalcino. By the spring of 1458 Benvoglienti had thus been established in a number of prominent positions, not only in the north of the peninsula, but also in the south, as a diplomatic emissary on behalf of the Sienese Republic. Moreover, some years prior to 1458, he had been engaged in a special mission to Naples, seeking help in the hostilities that had arisen between the Sienese and Count Jacomo Piccinino.6 By 1458, Leonardo Benvoglienti must have been regarded as a particularly safe pair of diplomatic hands. Someone who could be positioned with complete confidence in one or other of the hot spots where events on the ground might appear to constitute a threat to the well being of the Sienese Republic. This was an individual who could be trusted with administrative duties in some of the highest offices of the central government. Moreover, and as I attempt to show, Leonardo Benvoglienti’s ambassadorial reports carried particular weight. In analysing those records, I owe a great debt to Isabella Lazzarini’s research into the political, social and cultural history of late medieval Italy; most particularly her coverage of Italian diplomacy between 1350 and 1520.7 From the tone of the 1458 letter it seems likely that Leonardo Benvoglienti had already formed a close relationship with the individual he referred to as ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo dipintore’.8 Addressed to the current head of the ‘Opera del Duomo’ in Siena, Cristofano Felice, and adopting his official title of ‘orator senensis’, Leonardo Benvoglienti requested that Francesco di Bartolomeo should be put forward for the role of ‘fattore’ at the Cathedral Works, if the grave ill health of the incumbent official forced that individual out of his post.9 Assuring Cristofano Felice that Francesco di Bartolomeo was keen to offer his services in that role (‘desiderrebbe con vostra buona gratia essere ine a li vostri servigi’), Leonardo Benvoglienti was clearly intent on promoting Francesco di Bartolomeo’s career and appeared to bend over backwards to provide a good character reference for him. 6 See, amongst other sources, BCS, Ms. A.VI.54, new pencil pagination fols. 88–90. 7 See Lazzarini, Communication and Conflict. See also, and especially for an updated bibliography, Azzolini and Lazzarini, Italian Renaissance Diplomacy – and particularly Lazzarini’s “The Conduct of the Embassy”, pp. 42–56 and “The Final Report”, pp. 57–72 and Lazzarini, L’ordine delle scritture. 8 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 299–300, no. 210. 9 For an analysis of the various ranks of officialdom established in the cathedral works, see Causarano, La cattedrale e la città, pp. 163–64. See also Giorgi and Moscadelli, Costruire una cattedrale.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

This was clearly no flash in the pan recommendation. It seems as if Benvoglienti was anxious to show that he knew Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei personally. Somewhat curiously, though, there was little emphasis, if any, on the painter’s artistic skills. Leonardo Benvoglienti described Francesco di Bartolomeo as of ‘buona conditione, et buono sentimento, sollecito et diligente et buono scriptore’ – basically, of good character, efficient, diligent and a good scribe. Benvoglienti ended his recommendation by expressing his fervent hope that in the event of Francesco di Bartolomeo being appointed to the role of factor, his friend would look after the interests of the Opera del Duomo in Siena and satisfy the officials there in every way they might wish. Against the background of his own diplomatic career, Benvoglienti’s sponsorship of the young and virtually unknown painter Francesco Bartolomeo to the post of ‘fattore’ of the Cathedral Works in Siena seems curious. How might these two individuals have met? And what was it about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei that, in Leonardo Benvoglienti’s opinion, rendered him an ideal candidate for that particular post? One avenue I explore here (apart from their links via the office of the Balia) is that the two men may have met in Siena, a couple of years before Francesco di Bartolomeo’s involvement in work at Castelmuzio in 1456. In that context, a working hypothesis raised and considered here is that shortly after embarking on the project to paint the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei accepted an engagement in the service of the Sienese Republic – possibly as a personal secretary or aide to Leonardo Benvoglienti himself. This could explain why his work for the Sienese confraternity was interrupted. It might also explain why Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s failure to follow through on the confraternity commission did not appear to land him in any great trouble. Under the protection of Leonardo Benvoglienti and/or the Republic of Siena itself, the artist may well have found himself in an unassailable position. Another possibility is that the two men’s paths had crossed whilst Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was actually working on the confraternity project. Perhaps best known now in art historical circles for his account of the life of the Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi, Leonardo Benvoglienti was in fact closely associated with the ‘frati minori’ of San Francesco in Siena from the mid 1440s onwards. He clearly played a significant part in the canonisation of Bernardino following the latter’s death in Aquila on 20 May 1444: not only making several attempts to bring Bernardino’s body back to Siena, but also going to great lengths to establish the Beato’s credentials in Rome by recounting details of his saintly life and miracles.10 A month after Bernardino’s death, Leonardo Benvoglienti (along with other officials) 10 Norman, “Santi cittadini”, p. 118, footnote 29 and p. 119.

63

64 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

assumed the responsibility of drawing up an inventory of the books and objects that Bernardino was in the habit of carrying around on his travels and which, following his death, had remained in Aquila. In the same month, and no doubt on the back of that research, Leonardo Benvoglienti was selected to accompany Bartolomeo di Pietro Pecci to Rome to solicit the interest of Pope Eugenio IV and the papal court in the cause of Bernardino’s canonisation. Most significantly, Leonardo Benvoglienti was one of a group of individuals charged to preside over the funeral honours in the Beato Bernardino’s name, which took place in Siena on 7 June 1444 and in which the friars of San Francesco were intimately involved.11 As we shall see, shortly before that date, Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro had been engaged to work on a new altarpiece that was being produced for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. It was around this time also that the young Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is thought to have formed a relationship with Sano di Pietro as a workshop trainee. There are thus good reasons why it may have been through the lay religious of San Francesco that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei first became acquainted with Leonardo Benvoglienti. In fact, it seems that Leonardo Benvoglienti had formed a close relationship with the Franciscan order at an early age. In 1428 and as a comparatively young man, he assumed the role of ‘operaio’ (or building overseer) during the construction of the Convento di Capriola, southeast of Grosseto.12 Such work may have fallen to him following his election to government service in the office of the Sienese Concistoro. But in the course of such duties Benvoglienti must not only have become intricately involved in the affairs of the mother church of San Francesco in Siena, but also have come into contact with Bernardino Albizzeschi himself, given the latter’s own involvement with the ‘frati minori’ and his established reputation as an open-air preacher. Sano di Pietro’s depiction of the ‘Beato’ holding forth from a raised wooden pulpit erected on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco suggests it may have been common for a hundred or so individuals consisting of both men and women to attend such sermons. (See Figure 11.) The tonsured figures scattered amongst the men of various religious denominations (but in the main grey-robed Franciscans) and the black and white, brown, as well as grey mantled female figures (indicating the presence of both Clarissans and Third Order Secular and Conventual women) kneeling on the other side of the curtained off ‘sacrato’, also confirms that it was not only the townspeople who gathered to hear Bernardino Albizzeschi’s words. In effect, such events must have brought a large part of the Franciscan family together, cheek by jowl, albeit segregated. No wonder, perhaps, that the main entrance to the enlarged 11 Norman, “Santi cittadini”, p. 118. See also, Ortroy, “S. Bernardin de Sienne”, pp. 53–54. 12 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 30.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

Figure 11  Sano di Pietro, The Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi Preaching on the Sacrato of San Francesco, mid fifteenth century, tempera on wood, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo di Siena.

new basilica church of San Francesco is depicted as opening into the interior there, as if to welcome the flock. In this context it is significant that Benvoglienti’s Life of the Beato concentrated specifically on Bernardino’s early years. This must have been the period when the two men were most closely connected, for in 1433, Bernardino Albizzeschi is said to have retreated to Capriola to meditate and write, before being elected Vicar General of the Observant Franciscans. The Latin text of the Life, which is said to be in Leonardo Benvoglienti’s hand and which is now housed in the Vatican archive in Rome (Vatican 7735), appears to have been commissioned by a close follower of the Beato, Fra Giovanni di Capestrano (referred to in Vatican 7735 as ‘ordinis minor vicar generali’ – the vicar general of the order of Friars Minor).13 The preface is dated 8 May 1446 indicating that the author must have begun compiling his text shortly after Bernardino’s death. Indeed, Francis Van Ortroy suggests that Vatican 7735 may have been one of the earliest accounts

13 Ortroy, “S. Bernardin de Sienne”, p. 53. See also, Bartolomei Romagnoli and Solvi, eds. Le vite quattrocentesche.

65

66 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

of the Beato’s life, along with one written by the Sienese humanist Barnabò, which was presented to the new King of Naples, Alfonso of Aragon, on 1 April 1445.14 Describing in great detail Bernardino Albizzeschi’s early life and in particular the period up until his taking religious orders in 1402 at the age of twenty-eight, Vatican 7735 indicates that its author had a close knowledge of the Franciscan friar’s personal life: recording, for example, how Bernardino was a member of the ‘disciplinati’ (lay religious who practised flagellation) of the Virgin Mary in the hospital of Santa Maria della Scala, and how he also spent some time in the house of Ildibrandino di Manetti.15 The fact that Vatican 7735 also makes reference to the death of Pope Eugenio IV on 23 February 1447, indicates that the author of the text was still involved in writing the Life at that date and must thus have maintained links with the ‘frati minori’ of San Francesco until well into the second half of the 1440s. Given such time lines, it is not impossible, therefore, that Leonardo Benvoglienti became involved in the affairs of the group of lay religious assembling under the titulus Compagnia di Santa Maria degli Angeli e di San Francesco who, during the first half of the fifteenth century, were not only closely associated with the ‘frati minori’, but also with a project to construct a new hospital complex (the Ospedale delle Stimmate di San Francesco) under the sponsorship of Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei. As we shall see, at the end of the third decade of the fifteenth century and under the sponsorship of a new patron (Antonio di Francesco di Giacomo (Jacopo) di Lapo), the officials of what was referred to as the Compagnia di San Francesco were intent on completing this project under the titulus Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco. It may be no coincidence that just as a new Franciscan retreat was being constructed at Capriola in 1428 under the authority of Leonardo Benvoglienti, a new sponsor of the Compagnia di San Francesco in Siena stepped forward to promote the completion of a project that had (under a previous sponsor and at an earlier date) been planned in close consultation with the same Franciscan friars of San Francesco. It was for the same Compagnia di San Francesco that Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were commissioned to produce the new altarpiece which was finished at around the same time that Vatican 7735 was being completed and strenuous efforts were being made to canonise the Beato Bernardino. Moreover, it was for the same group of lay religious on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was commissioned to carry out fresco work some time before December 1454. The notion that Leonardo Benvoglienti and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei crossed paths under the auspices of the Franciscan friars of San Francesco depends 14 In this context, see Mormando, The Preacher’s Demons, pp. 25–45. 15 The text does not, however, make any reference to the fact that Bernardino had at an earlier date been associated as a ‘fraticello’ with the oratory of Ravacciano, outside the city walls of Siena – see Pellegrini, “Vita religiosa”.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

in large part upon such coincidental threads. But there were a number of other ways in which these two individuals may have met prior to the despatching of the April 1458 letter of recommendation. The fact that Benvoglienti drew particular attention to the painter’s handwriting skills does indeed indicate that they had corresponded with each other or that they had already come across each other in a professional capacity, and that during that time Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had assumed the duties of a scribe. Might the young painter have assisted Leonardo Benvoglienti when the latter was drawing up his inventory of books owned by Bernardino Albizzeschi, in the aftermath of the Beato’s death in May 1444? That task must no doubt have required the help of some additional scribes, if only in collating the various volumes. Moreover, these records must have provided a useful source of information for Leonardo Benvoglienti when he set about writing his life of the Beato Bernardino. Had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei assisted in the preparation for that work, Leonardo Benvoglienti might have had good reason not only to praise his skills as a scribe but also to be grateful to him. Leonardo Benvoglienti’s emphasis on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s skills as a scribe when putting his name forward for the post of ‘fattore’ of the Cathedral Works in Siena is notable on a number of other counts. In some ways this testimonial would have seemed more appropriate had Benvoglienti been intent on procuring a desk role for his painter friend. Diligence and the ability to write well would obviously have been essential to the role of ‘fattore’, in the drawing up of accounts or issuing written instructions. It might follow, then, that Benvoglienti’s respect for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei resulted from both men having been mutually involved in just those kinds of activity. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei certainly demonstrated his writing skills when reporting back to central government in 1460, whilst ‘vicario’ in Rigomagno. There are, moreover, references to his ability and experience in that particular field throughout his career, including when he offered his services at a comparatively elderly age as a scribe in the office of the Gabelle of Montalcino in 1481, a year before his posting to Asciano.16 Indeed, the 1481 petition indicated not only that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was confident in his own skills as a scribe but also that others knew of his accomplishments in that field. On one reading, it would seem that by the age of sixty or so, Francesco di Bartolomeo had gained a particular reputation for such work. It seems unlikely that the post of scribe in Montalcino’s tax offices would have been allotted to an untested individual: even less so, to an insignificant journeyman painter. It may also be relevant that, while still referring to himself as ‘a painter from Siena’ (‘dipinctore da Siena’) in the 1481 petition, Alfei appears to have played 16 Bichi Borghesi and Banchi, Nuovi documenti, pp. 260–61, no. 163.

67

68 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

down his painterly credentials at that date. Indeed, he claimed in his tax declaration of that year that he had for many months been unable to work as an artist, or ‘in any other field’ (‘ne in alcuno altro exercitio exercitare’) because of ill health. The ‘ne’ preceding ‘in alcuno altro exercitio exercitare’ adds further support to the argument that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had indeed been involved in other kinds of professional activity prior to that date. There is little doubt that Leonardo Benvoglienti’s dedicated service and success in Rome – in some senses the pearl in the crown in terms of political and diplomatic intrigue – must have added considerable ballast to any future aspirations he might have entertained in the context of government posts back home in Siena. That said, it appears that Benvoglienti was adept at holding down a number of official positions at the same time. We know, for example, that between January and December 1457 – the year before Benvoglienti penned his letter of recommendation for Francesco di Bartolomeo and presumably whilst he himself was still actively engaged in Rome – he assumed the office of ‘cancelliere’, or chancellor, of the Sienese Balia.17 As already noted, Benvoglienti had in fact been listed as one of the officials of the Balia a couple of years prior to that date; in records of deliberations and decrees that were drawn up in Siena between 16 July 1455 and 2 May 1456.18 But this did not necessarily mean that he was permanently in residence in Siena. Indeed, it was during 1455, whilst acting as one of the five serving officials of the Balia in Siena, that Leonardo Benvoglienti was recorded as having been posted to Naples on a special mission. It seems that on that occasion Benvoglienti (together with two other high-ranking individuals – Galgano Borghese and Enea Silvio Piccolomini, shortly to assume the papal tiara as Pope Pius II) had been engaged in a number of diplomatic exchanges in the ambit of the court of the Aragonese King Alfonso, in an attempt to resolve the issue of Siena’s southern port of Orbetello, after that town had fallen into the hands of Count Jacomo.19 Coincidentally and shortly before the end of that same year, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was recorded as spending several days in the Maremma region, working on a panoramic view of Orbetello and Monte Argentario. Even if not personally connected with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei by the end of 1455, Benvoglienti must surely have been made aware of that individual’s involvement in territorial mapping in this sensitive part of the Republic’s territory. He may even have personally requested such work, anticipating that it might serve Siena’s interests in the event of military confrontations with Piccinino. In fact, and as will become clear, Leonardo Benvoglienti must himself have been well acquainted 17 See ASSi, Concistoro 2336, fols. 2v–3v. 18 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 1. 19 Prunai, “Benvoglienti”, p. 704.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

with the area around Orbetello and Argentario, as a result of the official duties he had undertaken in Montalcino during the first half of 1455. There were a number of ways, therefore, in which Leonardo Benvoglienti and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s paths may have crossed, whilst separately engaged on government business. However, a further hypothesis that forms the central core of this book is that the specifics of their relationship were formed at a deeper and more covert level. Leonardo Benvoglienti’s April 1458 endorsement of Francesco di Bartolomeo is intriguing for the fact that one of the terms he used – ‘amico’ – can be interpreted in a number of different ways. This term has not elicited much interest; and certainly not in the context of what at first sight appears to be a somewhat unequal friendship between an established diplomat and a little-known painter. Although Cecilia Alessi and Piero Scapecchi do for example note the close professional association that had been formed between Leonardo Benvoglienti and Cristofano Felice several years before the 1458 letter of recommendation, they do not attempt to explain in any detail the nature of the friendship that existed between the former and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. In the context of Leonardo Benvoglienti and Cristofano Felice, surviving records show that they had assumed office alongside a number of other officials in the office of the Balia a couple of years previously, in 1455. We also know that a formal relationship had been established between just the two of them at an even earlier date, when they were jointly elected to oversee the construction of a reliquary urn for San Bernardino in the summer of 1454.20 Other information proffered by Alessi and Scapecchi shows that the two men remained in close contact thereafter: for example, Benvoglienti intervening personally in a letter to Cristofano Felice (in the same year as his recommendation of Francesco di Bartolomeo as potential ‘fattore’ to the Cathedral Works) in the matter of a statue of San Callisto. The friendship that is said to have existed between Leonardo Benvoglienti and Cristofano Felice can thus easily be explained in terms of the public office they jointly undertook: in the context of, for example, the funerary rites of the Beato Bernardino or, more generally, in assuming responsibility for the embellishment of key sites in the city of Siena itself. The friendship between Benvoglienti and what appears to have been a comparatively unknown fresco painter is more puzzling. Despite the hypotheses raised here, no records have so far emerged to confirm a formal association between Leonardo Benvoglienti and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei prior to April 1458. However, there may have been another, less transparent way in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei could have become Leonardo Benvoglienti’s friend some time before April 1458. One, moreover, that might not necessarily have been officially commented on. The case I construct here is that Leonardo Benvoglienti had built 20 See ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 1 and Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 30.

69

70 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

up a relationship with the young artist as a result of the latter’s becoming involved in work in a rather particular field: that of undercover agent.

The Language of Undercover Agency As both Aldo Settia and Aude Cirier have shown in precisely targeted research, the term ‘friend’ was frequently adopted in the context of undercover agents or spies in Early Renaissance Italy.21 ‘Friends’ were those individuals who, in the guise of employees, reported on sensitive material they came across in the course of their work to their immediate employers or to higher authorities. In many cases, also, ‘friends’ were those individuals – sometimes referred to as ‘famuli’ or ‘servants’ – who carried messages backwards and forwards under the guise of being simple couriers. As we shall see, a number of different titles were assumed in that context during the fifteenth century: varying from ‘fante’ to ‘corriere’. For the thirteenth century and in the particular context of the Battle of Montaperti in 1260, Aude Cirier discusses an equally wide range of terms that were allotted to informers, as well as discussing the differences between them and providing detailed information about their different walks of life.22 Away from the battlefield, government officials assuming the office of ‘podestà’ in subject communes were also known to have their own personal ‘friend’ or ‘friends’.23 That this was already a well-established practice in early thirteenth-century Siena is confirmed by Aldo Settia’s analysis of the military espionage that was documented in records drawn up by officials of the Biccherna between 1229 and 1231. Thus, when Alberto di Montaguto took up the post of ‘podestà’ of Siena at the end of 1229, the commune of Siena was recorded as assuming two agents (or friends) – ‘amici di Alberto nostro podestà’ – for the period of one year.24 One of these, Ranieri di Arezzo, who was also described as ‘fancello’, or ‘servitore’, received a verbal agreement that he would be paid 20 lire for his year’s work (less than half a lira a week). But in fact he appears to have received monthly payments in small amounts and in 21 See Settia, “‘Pro novis inveniendis’”, pp. 9 and 10; and Cirier, “La face cachée”, “Diplomazia e rettorica comunale”, “Un altro aspetto della battaglia” and “De l’informateur à l’agent”. For an exhaustive study of the development of espionage throughout the ages, but with a particular emphasis on Venice, see Preto, I servizi segreti. 22 See, in particular, Cirier, “Un altro aspetto della battaglia”, pp. 126–29, where the author draws attention to the role of artists, students and clerics as informers on the basis of their mobility, and p. 130, where Cirier refers (amongst other matters such as the meaning of the terms spia, -ae; spio, -onis and explorator, -oris) to the role of the rural nobility and their women folk in furnishing information to the ‘collegio’ of the defensores comunis. 23 Settia, “‘Pro novis inveniendis’”, p. 15. 24 Settia, “‘Pro novis inveniendis’”, p. 9.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

recompense for individual missions. Thus, in June 1230 he was recorded as having gone to Florence and to what was presumably his hometown, Arezzo, together with the other ‘amico’, Orlando, in search of information about enemy movements (‘significat nova inimicorum’). It seems likely that both these individuals reported in the first instance to Alberto di Montaguto, despite the fact that they were employed by the central government and theoretically paid from the public purse. Aldo Settia suggests that it was the ‘podestà’ who, in each case, co-ordinated the activities of undercover agents and organised their salaries. Quoting Iohannes Viterbiensis’ Liber de regimen civitatum, Settia draws our attention to sections there headed ‘Ut potestas sibi precaveat a pecuntatoribus et spionibus’ (that the ‘podestà’ himself should be responsible for the payment of spies).25 However, it is worth noting that it was not only the ‘podestà’ who assumed responsibility in the matter of espionage. Aldo Settia argues that many agents were directly employed by the commune as spies and paid informants. He also makes the point that there was quite a complex web of interchange between spies and their spymasters. Individuals engaged in surveillance and other forms of undercover work frequently assumed convincing cover stories about their day-to-day activities as a way of disguising the profession they were actually involved in. Listing such diverse professions and trades as friars, monks, caskmakers, builders, winemakers and muleteers, Settia suggests that undercover agents were often selected from the ranks of individuals who could move about from place to place without attracting attention. In her magisterial Communication and Conflict: Italian Diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350–1520, Isabella Lazzarini picks up and develops this theme under the heading ‘cultural’ diplomacy.26 Lazzarini makes the point that the movements of well-known artists travelling around Europe in the company of princes and ambassadors, engaged in their own professional activities, whilst occasionally assuming diplomatic roles, are relatively easy to track. The lesser-known individuals who were involved in similar activities leave less obvious traces. However, as Lazzarini says, ‘When they emerge from the ocean of diplomatic correspondence … their experience is even more revealing, because it unveils the existence of trends, in itself more significant for the analysis of diplomatic practices than a few famous exceptions’. Drawing on the example of the Sienese Matteo Mariano Tommasi who was listed as a musician among the salaried members of the Este court in 1476, Lazzarini shows how this individual was drawn into diplomatic missions on behalf of Ercole d’Este, as well as assuming public office in Siena. She also notes that Matteo Mariano Tommasi continued to keep the Ferrarese chancery informed about Sienese affairs over a number of months, if not years. 25 Settia, “‘Pro novis inveniendis’”, p. 9. 26 Lazzarini, Communication and Conflict, pp. 137–39.

71

72 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Lazzarini considers in detail how such information was gathered, ordered, transmitted and checked; noting that the whole process could be somewhat circular; in that the most up-to-date news often required careful checking.27 One of the letters I came across in the Concistoro fondo in the State Archives in Siena provides a perfect example of what Lazzarini describes as a ‘sophisticated range of different activities’ required in ‘information-gathering’. A letter sent to Siena in the summer of 1451 from Giovanni Massi, the incumbent ‘podestà’ of San Quirico, not only contains details about the individuals who carried out surveillance work and the ways in which they were expected to be paid, but also about how information provided by undercover agents was received and double-checked.28 On this occasion, at least, it seems that double-checking resulted in a whole new chain of surveillance and undercover activity. According to the San Quirico ‘podestà’ he had recently been approached by a friar from Sant’Agostino in Montalcino who had reported that he had seen ‘Simonetto’ and his ‘brighata’ (brigade, or troops) in Montepulciano and that this hostile group had been advancing towards Cortona.29 Giovanni Massi reported that because he had some doubts about the veracity of the friar’s account he had himself immediately sent out his own man from San Quirico to Montepulciano. This individual, Giuliano d’Agnolozzi, described by Massi as ‘persona assai inte(n)dente’ (well informed and reliable) and also as ‘fante’, had returned that day about midnight with the news that the said Simonetto was indeed in the vicinity of Montepulciano, encamped in the woods near Torrita. Giuliano d’Agnolozzi had in addition reported that a number of ‘fanti’ from Castiglione della Pescaia were also there and that Simonetto was apparently in the pay of the Duke of Milan, but was awaiting payment from Florence before advancing further. Massi’s man had also discovered that a treaty had been struck with Cortona, apparently whilst Simonetto was in the Val d’Orcia. Massi finished his report by saying that Giuliano d’Agnolozzi would be reporting all this in person to the authorities in Siena. He also asked the Sienese officials to pay the ‘fante’ for his journey to Siena as well as his journey to Montepulciano – ‘because he (Massi) had promised him (Giuliano d’Agnolozzi) that this would be the case’ (p(er) che cosi gli … promissi). Although, as this case shows, the names of individual agents were on occasion recorded, they were more often than not identified solely in terms of their particular mission or errand. The titles allotted them also varied enormously. Thus, we 27 Lazzarini, Communication and Conflict, pp. 78–85. 28 ASSi, Concistoro 1969, dated 7 July 1451. 29 This Simonetto was presumably Simonetto da Castelpiero, one of the mercenary soldiers Jacopo Piccinino attempted to draw on his side when mounting an attack on Cetona in the summer of 1455, see Ferente, La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino, p. 48. See also, Banchi, “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena” (no. 112), pp. 48–50.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

find references to ‘nuncius’, ‘explorator’, ‘currerius’, ‘balitor’, ‘scudiero’, ‘servitore’, ‘fanciullo’ as well as ‘amico’. Settia argues that the actual word ‘spy’ was rarely used in the thirteenth century, drawing attention to one specific example only: that involving the payment in 1231 of 40 soldi (equivalent to 2 lire) to a judge named Granno for information about Florence that had been brought back by his ‘spy’ (‘quis solvate cuidam spie qui inveniebat nove Florentie’).30 Cirier, for her part, notes that one of the earliest ‘uffici sopra le spie’ was that established in Siena in 1252. Consisting of five officials whose duties (exercendo ufficio) were to oversee the letters of undercover agents, this office was also responsible for paying the spies’ salaries. Cirier notes that by the end of the fifteenth century individual spies were reporting directly to the chief ‘spy master’ of the office of spies in Siena. Indeed, and as Settia suggests, by the fifteenth century, there appears to have been greater transparency about such undercover work. Thus, on 24 October 1456, a marginal note ‘sup(r) Spiis’ (about the spies) in the records of the Balia refers to a specific individual, Niccolò di Marciano Cecchi di Marcio, who had been nominated to take charge of the affairs of both spies and expeditions.31 Records drawn up by officials of the Concistoro a couple of decades later, in 1477, not only list payments made to various named individuals (invariably described as ‘fante’, ‘famiglio’, ‘famiglio del palazo’ or ‘famiglio di soto in palazo’; but on occasion identified also by their trade – as a barber, a clothworker, etc., and even on occasion as a friar) – but also note the nature of their business and the precise length of time they took.32 Most instances involved the carrying of letters backwards and forwards by lone couriers. Indeed, the register is headed ‘tutti li fanti per lo Magnifico comune di Siena overo veranno daluno Luogo con lettere alli Magnifici S(igno)r(i) dSiena al tenpi’ (details of all the individual messengers of the magnificent commune of Siena and their journeys from one place to another carrying the correspondence of the magnificent leaders of Siena). But on occasion, it seems that messengers went in pairs. Very often it seems that couriers were away for only a couple of days. The recompense for the simple delivery of a missal appears to have been comparatively high – often in the region of 3 or so lire. On occasion, though, it seems that a tip of a single lira was regarded as sufficient payment.33 This no doubt rested sometimes on the assumption that the individual responsible for despatching the courier would be footing his expenses. On occasion, however, comparatively small payments seem to have been made even when the information received regarded significant enemy action that might seriously threaten Sienese interests. Thus, when Santi di 30 Settia, “‘Pro novis inveniendis’”, p. 15. 31 ASSi, Balia 2, fol. 50r. 32 ASSi, Concistoro 2472. 33 ASSi, Concistoro 2472, fol. 28r.

73

74 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Matteo ‘dela villa a Sesta’ went to Siena on 30 July 1477 and informed the Sienese officials about an armed cavalcade in the vicinity, he was recorded as receiving a mere 1 lira for his pains. At other times, and especially when a mission appears not only to have taken more time, but also to have been more demanding – involving, for example, a degree of undercover work – an individual ‘famiglio’ might hope to receive two to three times what appears to have been the going rate of 3 lire for simple delivery work. Thus, when Michele di Barto(lomeo) went to Genoa on 3 May 1477 ‘per sentire novelle di que luoghi’, he was paid 12 lire and 8 soldi.34 Presumably, that mission involved a degree of personal risk. Likewise, when Giovanni Lippi ‘famiglio de N.M.S.’ was commanded by the Signoria to travel to the Marche region in May 1477 ‘per sentire novelle e andamenti delle genti darme’, for what was in effect a comparatively short mission (involving an absence of only three days), he was recorded as receiving a payment of 8 lire.35 Settia suggests that in the thirteenth century, when it came to the question of payment, paymasters often passed themselves off as simple administrators, although they were in fact acting as intermediaries between individual agents and the treasurer of the Biccherna. Thus, payment for what was in effect surveillance work was often recorded in connection with some quite different activity. Such creative accounting might well have underpinned arrangements that were made in connection with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s painting of signs on the walls and gates of Siena’s subject communes. It is worth recording that the artist seems to have been inordinately incensed when reporting back from Asciano in 1482, about having to pay some of his own expenses. It seems unlikely that this was simply a case of artistic expertise denigrated or recompense denied. As Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei himself noted, the most important issue as far as he was concerned was that he had been unable to carry out ‘what was ordered’ or ‘to proceed as commanded’ by the Sienese Signoria. The ‘uomini particolari’ who – according to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei – had offered him expenses in communes elsewhere, when similar disputes arose, may thus have been acting as undercover intermediaries associated with the ‘ufficio delle spie’: settling up for the hidden services provided by the artist, over and above his official journeyman painting work. There is in fact evidence to show that as early as the middle of the thirteenth century specific account books were on occasion set aside for recording the various payments made to undercover agents. Thus, in one register drawn up between July and August 1253 we find entries recording the expenses that had been incurred during that period in sending out letters from Siena, as well as remunerations that had been made on behalf of ‘exploratores et spiones pro comuni Senarum’ (surveyors 34 ASSi, Concistoro 2472, fol. 9v. 35 ASSi, Concistoro 2472, fol. 9v.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

and spies working on behalf of Siena).36 Interestingly, though, in the case of that particular register, it was only the money disbursed that was recorded: no names or specific errands being specified. Much was thus left unsaid. During the fifteenth century, it seems that surveillance work had assumed a more public face since by that date, as the 1477 register drawn up by officials of the Concistoro shows, an official employment centre for spies appears to have been established in the ‘Palazzo di Sotto’ under the Palazzo del Comune on the Campo.37 That individual employees were being referred to as ‘famigli’ or ‘famuli’ of the ‘Palazzo di Sotto’ at least two decades earlier is confirmed by the 1453 tax declaration of Mariano di Bartolomeo di Perino di Asciano, who referred to himself as ‘famiglio di sotto del n(ost)ro palago’.38 According to early reports, the building that became known as the Palazzo di Sotto was originally set up as a kind of armament centre.39 It also seems that by the end of the fifteenth century at least, espionage was not only a thriving business, but that a strict code of conduct was in place regarding the conditions of membership of the ‘family’. Not the least of these stipulations was that aspiring undercover agents had to present a petition to the Consiglio Generale in order to be considered as a potential family member. Thus, on 23 April 1484, the Sienese painter Bernardino di Pietro, describing himself as ‘vostro bono figlolo et servidore’ petitioned for the first vacant position amongst the ‘famigli’ of the Palazzo di Sotto (‘uno loco de primi vacanti deli famigli di sotto del v(ost)ro Mag(io)re palazo’).40 Bernardino di Pietro clearly regarded himself as suitable for the job, assuring the officials of the General Council that he was prepared and eager to take on the task (‘tanto disposto e al servitio di quello inclinato’ – very keen and well suited to such employment). It seems that the painter’s petition was approved, although with certain restrictions applied until he was firmly in house. In a General Council note recorded only a week or so after the approval of Bernardino di Pietro’s petition, it was stipulated that Bernardino should not have access to any sensitive material before an appropriate vacancy occurred (‘no[n] concessus intelligatur locus primi vaccinates familiorum de subs palate serviette fide …’). One conclusion I draw from this is that while your credentials and potential expertise as an undercover agent might be recognised and confirmed, you could not expect to be fully inducted until and unless a post fell vacant and you were presented with a particular mission. The fact that Leonardo Benvoglienti refers to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei as his ‘amico’ in the April 1458 letter to the head of the Cathedral Works in Siena is not insignificant, then, and particularly in the light of what is known about Benvoglienti’s 36 Settia, “‘Pro novis inveniendis’”, p. 17, footnote 12. 37 ASSi, Concistoro 2472. 38 ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 434r. 39 See Morandi, “Documenti”, pp. 415 and 426. 40 ASSi, CG 239, 199v, 201v and 203r.

75

76 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

own diplomatic career prior to that date. In many ways Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei would have seemed an ideal candidate to employ as a ‘famulo’ or ‘corriere’. He had a good cover story as a journeyman painter and through that trade was also well placed to operate at the same time as ‘esploratore’. Secretly employed to report on local events whilst apparently engaged in territorial mapping or painting the Sienese coat of arms on the walls and gateways of subject communes, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei would have been as inconspicuous as a builder or any other travelling salesman. Many official reports and letters that survive in the State Archives in Siena confirm that government officials who were posted in various parts of Siena’s territory and elsewhere – whether as ‘vicario’, ‘commissario’, ‘podestà’, ‘oratore’ or ‘ambasciatore’ – did indeed rely on their own trusted group of ‘famuli’ and ‘amici’: not only for gathering information on the ground but also for carrying such information back to Siena. Attention focuses here on correspondence that was brought to and despatched by Leonardo Benvoglienti whilst he was engaged in the service of the Republic of Siena during the early to mid 1450s. At the same time, an attempt is made to establish how the skills of Benvoglienti’s friend Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have been formed and put to the test in connection with such service.

Leonardo Benvoglienti: Ambassador and Spymaster in Venice, 1453–1454 One of Leonardo Benvoglienti’s early ambassadorial postings was to Venice: the first in the spring of 1445 and the second, between the summer of 1453 and the spring of 1454.41 This was followed swiftly by another posting as one of three ‘commissari’ in Montalcino, during the first semester of 1455 between January and June (with Benvoglienti serving concurrently as ‘podestà’ in that same commune). While no firm documentary evidence has as yet emerged in support of such an hypothesis, I wonder whether Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have become involved as Benvoglienti’s ‘friend’ during one or both of those periods of service – as a trusted messenger carrying reports backwards and forwards to Siena from Venice or Montalcino and gathering information on the ground, both in the northern reaches of the peninsula and in Sienese territories further south. Involved in Leonardo Benvoglienti’s official duties in Venice from the summer of 1453 onwards, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have moved seamlessly from establishing an independent painter’s workshop in Siena to undercover activities under the guise of a courier: as a result, interrupting the work he had commenced for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Had 41 BCS, Ms. A.V.34, new fol. 147r (old fol. 293) and ASSi, CG 226, old fol. 134.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

he been based in Montalcino during Leonardo Benvoglienti’s subsequent posting in that commune, he might also have had good reasons for not returning to Siena during the closing months of 1454. The fact that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is known to have already interrupted work on the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco several months prior to December 1454 might thus be explained, had he already been co-opted to government service by that date. As we shall see, Benvoglienti made numerous references to the different individuals engaged in supporting him whilst ambassador in Venice between 1453 and 1454. As we shall also see, at least one Francesco was included in the circle of ‘corrieri’, ‘famuli’ and ‘amici’ during that time. As part of his official duties as career diplomat in the service of the Sienese Republic, whether in Venice, Montalcino, Rome or Florence, Leonardo Benvoglienti sent regular reports back to his masters in Siena.42 A number of reports despatched from Venice during Benvoglienti’s second term as ambassador there and from Rome (during the second half of the 1450s) survive in original form in the Concistoro section of the State Archives in Siena, as well as in later copies that now form part of the manuscript fondo in Siena’s Biblioteca Comunale degli Intronati. It seems clear from these that Leonardo Benvoglienti was something of a spymaster in chief: on numerous occasions involved in his own personal exercises of surveillance; at other times engaged in placing undercover agents and trusted servants in potentially febrile hot spots; and all along calling on specific individuals to serve as his trusted messengers during exchanges of sensitive information with his masters back in Siena.43 Benvoglienti’s letters and reports shed interesting light not only on the variety and regularity with which such information was passed backwards and forwards, but also on the various protocols that were adopted when constructing them. In general, it appears that a quite specific template was adopted. Thus, ambassadorial reports from Venice often began by specifying which previous piece of correspondence was being responded to; frequently referencing the messenger who had delivered the report and/or the individual who would be carrying the response back to the original sender. In many cases, the report would also inform the intended reader of the place, date and time at which the response had been drawn up. At times, information was also included about whether the messenger had been asked to wait for an immediate reply with which to return to base; had already been sent on his way; or was instead being accommodated and tended to whilst an appropriate response was constructed and prepared for despatch. 42 For a detailed analysis of the forms of diplomatic communication, see Lazzarini, Communication and Conflict, pp. 189–212. See also Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, and particularly pp. 87–102, for an earlier and insightful analysis of the machinery of Renaissance diplomacy, including ambassadorial duties. 43 In this context, see Frigo, ed. Politics and Diplomacy, p. 10, where the author suggests that the function of the ambassador was often viewed as a sort of ‘honoured’ espionage.

77

78 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Surviving reports also reveal that it was common practice, when a report reached its destination for an additional note to be made, recording the day and time the message had actually been received. By comparing a sequence of reports, we can thus assess the varying lengths of time it took for them to be drawn up, despatched, delivered and finally attended to. We can also see how, on occasion, messages were delayed or crossed over along the way, necessitating further confirmations and clarifications. Clearly, much depended upon events on the ground and the ease with which individual messengers or agents were able to go about their business. In many cases, it becomes clear that more than one courier or agent was currently on the road at any one time: either having just been despatched or not yet having reached their destination. It was also sometimes the case that the individual who had despatched the messenger was anxious about their safety and sent a back-up message in order to make sure that a particular piece of information reached its destination. Other anxieties arose when, once arrived, the messenger was delayed and held back from embarking on the return journey. As we shall see, it was certainly not the case that all couriers were just operating as messenger boys. At times, specific reference was made to the fact that the individual entrusted with the message should be given the opportunity to discuss the contents of the missal carried by them: the implication being that they were fully abreast of the matters in hand. All this meant that individuals like Leonardo Benvoglienti, when assuming an official post outside Siena, needed to have more than one trusted person in their own personal entourage upon whom they could call at short notice. It was no doubt also the case that officials made sure they could rely on contacts left in position back home: ready to act on their behalf with the Sienese ‘Signoria’ if and as need arose. One notion I favour is that the ‘friendship’ between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Leonardo Benvoglienti was formed as early as the summer of 1453 following Benvoglienti’s second appointment as ambassador to Venice. This rests in part on what can be established about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s early years and workshop training and, more specifically, the date by which he could, as an independent painter, have accepted the commission to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in Siena. As Part Two reveals, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had not only set up his own workshop in Siena by November 1453, but by that date also, had been married for a couple of years and had at least one child. We also know that by December 1454 the artist had absented himself from the fresco work in Siena and that several attempts had already been made to persuade him to return to the project. A window of time thus opens up, when one might argue that the newly independent artist had not only been in a position to start work on the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco project but had in fact absented himself from it,

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

apparently never to return. This window of time must certainly have spanned the months leading up to the end of 1454. But, and as I argue in Part Three, it could also have covered the earlier part of the same year and even, perhaps, have stretched back to the final weeks of 1453. In other words, precisely when Leonardo Benvoglienti was posted for the second time to Venice. Once in post, Benvoglienti clearly built up his own group of ‘friends’ to assist him, as well as a pool of local agents. It also seems clear that communications between Venice and Siena were occasionally placed in the hands of agents who, rather than being part of Benvoglienti’s own personal entourage, were government employees on the official payroll of the Sienese ‘Signoria’. One such individual – ‘Rossetto da berghamo corriere’ – was frequently cited by Leonardo Benvoglienti in despatches back to Siena, albeit often without reference to the agency responsible for him. However, in one letter dated January 1453/4, Rossetto was specifically identified by Benvoglienti as ‘courier of the Sienese Signoria’.44 In fact, surviving records show that at least three of the messengers employed to carry information backwards and forwards between Siena and Venice were directly employed by central government. More often than not referred to as couriers, these individuals were not only employed in the despatching and receiving of official reports. On occasion they were also briefed to carry out more sophisticated tasks, such as clarifying and discussing the contents of individual pieces of correspondence. As one might expect, the reports themselves very often described local events on the ground and the extent to which such matters did or did not impact on Sienese affairs or interests. They also frequently contained broader assessments of shifting political alliances and military tactics in different parts of the peninsula. Individual couriers engaged in delivering such sensitive material must presumably have been selected with care. The official government employee, Rossetto da Bergamo, was clearly regarded as particularly trustworthy, as according to the contents of a report drawn up by Benvoglienti on 26 March 1454, Rossetto was at that date charged to communicate urgent advice to Siena. 45 That such advice merited some secrecy is confirmed by the fact that a small section at the end of the second line of the 26 March report is written in code: a series of lower case and upper case letters and numbers. (See Figure 12.) Referring to correspondence that had been sent a few days previously (on 21 March), and presumably by way of a different courier, Benvoglienti reminds the Sienese ‘Signoria’ that he had stressed in that earlier report the need, and in particular an urgent requirement, to seek something he referred to as ‘la gocordaTHHbam vhf6d3d6ogo’. The meaning of this coded phrase remains uncertain. It may be significant, though, that the first 44 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 69. 45 ASSi, Concistoro 1977, no. 1.

79

80 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 12 Leonardo Benvoglienti, Ambassadorial report drawn up in Venice on 26 March 1454, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro 1977, lettera n. 1, fol. 1r.

few letters there could be interpreted as containing the word ‘acorda’ (agreement or alliance). In any event, given an additional note in normal script ‘for which we are waiting here’ within the same report, I assume that whatever was sought was eagerly anticipated, particularly in Venice. In this context it is significant that Benvoglienti emphasised the urgency of the situation, writing that efforts should be made ‘in every way possible’. The inclusion of the coded phrase in the 26 March report also indicates that the matter looked forward to with such anxiety in Venice in the spring of 1454 had to be kept secret. This is borne out by the fact that the rest of Benvoglienti’s report was in normal script and appears to have covered issues that were already in the public domain. One possibility is that the outcome so eagerly awaited by the Sienese ambassador to Venice in the spring of 1454 was associated in some way with the increasing threat posed by the Turks. Other letters that had been despatched by Leonardo Benvoglienti during the latter part of 1453 show that the Turkish threat was already causing considerable anxiety by that date. It also seems clear that much information about this was being exchanged in secret or in code. Indeed, one partially coded

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

Figures 13, 14 and 15 Leonardo Benvoglienti, Ambassadorial report drawn up in Venice on 2 November 1453, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Concistoro, 1976, lettera n. 3, fols. 1r–3r.

missal drawn up by Benvoglienti late at night on the evening of 2 November 1453 (which was signed off ‘4 di notte’ and which was to be despatched by a ‘fante’), devoted much space to the Turkish issue. 46 (See Figures 13, 14 and 15.) Yet other matters as well were clearly under consideration, in what (on 2 November) was an unusually long report consisting of three pages of closely spaced script. 46 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 3. At least one other report sent by Leonardo Benvoglienti from Venice (see ASSi, Concistoro 2976 no. 25, dated 13 November 1453) included what seems to have been a number of explanatory points, each one numbered and linked to equivalent numbers in the heavily coded text of the front page. Such an insert may well have been included to help the courier or those receiving the despatch to understand what was embedded in the code. It seems that at least some of the coding systems adopted in the 1450s were understood, even three centuries later. In an eighteenth-century transcription of letters written by Leonardo Benvoglienti when ambassador in Rome (see BCS, Ms. A.III.16), the scribe laboriously added his interpretation above some of the coded parts of a missal despatched on 30 May 1456 from Naples (old fol. 66v, new pencil fol. 67v). Thus, Ly4 is interpreted as ‘che’, 12 as ‘aldo’ and 96x63 as ‘do’ and ‘bran’. Further interpretations reveal finally that the coded information concerned Count Aldobrandino’s intention to give back Monta(g)utolo that had been won by him; in the f irst instance to the pope, who would then return it to Siena. In their own time, the recipients of such ambassadorial reports must presumably have adopted similar procedures, decoding section by section.

81

82 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The surviving despatch also includes what looks like a loose-leaf ‘aide memoire’ in Benvoglienti’s hand, which appears to list all the matters discussed in the report itself. Interestingly, the first page of the 2 November report contains numerous passages in code, whereas the inner pages are without exception covered in normal script. Such a procedure no doubt ensured greater secrecy, had any roving eye trawled by chance over the first page. In fact, it seems from the normal script interspersing the code on the first page of the 2 November report, that Benvoglienti was discussing various letters that had come his way, some of which – according to him – included false or confusing information. This particular report throws a considerable amount of light on the complex interplay of comment and counter comment that had to be worked through, before officials in ambassadorial positions could begin to respond to the enquiries of their own governing bodies, or set about reporting on their own personally harvested information. Benvoglienti began his 2 November report by noting that he had received back a response from the Venetian ambassador (via the latter’s courier) in which detailed comments had been made about the letters that had been despatched from Siena to Venice between 22 and 29 October. According to Benvoglienti, much displeasure had been expressed concerning dealings with Naples. Benvoglienti also refers to information that had apparently been received from Sovana (reporting continual aggression experienced there from Florentine agents), as well as the untrustworthiness of certain individuals’ claims and protestations. Clearly, much suspicion was swirling around, particularly over the question of differing alliances and varying degrees of fidelity expressed by individual powers. In another ambassadorial report written on 26 November 1453 (in which reference was made to correspondence which had been sent the day before via a ‘corriere’ referred to as ‘Fieraboscho’), we find a similar theme: that the contents of a number of missals had been digested and a response finally drawn up.47 However, much of the matter under discussion was shrouded in mystery by the use of code. Benvoglienti began his 26 November report in normal script, assuring the Sienese officials that he had received all of their previous letters and had been diligent in responding to them, on each occasion through the agency of the same Fieraboscho. However, almost immediately after the opening statement, the script turns to a virtually incomprehensible mixture of code and normal writing. It seems more than likely – as in previous missals that were exchanged around the same time – that much of the coded text concerned alliances within the peninsula itself, as well as the imminent threat from the east and how that might be dealt with. There is confirmation of this in the fact that one short paragraph in normal script that was inserted in the 47 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 29.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

middle of Benvoglienti’s 26 November report does indeed refer specifically to the great force being mounted by sea and by land by the Turkish enemy. That said, the urgent situation that needed addressing and/or resolution and that was stressed so forcibly by Leonardo Benvoglienti in his 26 March 1454 report may in fact have concerned a distinctly more local and imminent threat. It is argued here that a small insert – ‘condotta di Simonetto’ – positioned between the first and second lines of the 26 March 1454 report throws light on what was so eagerly awaited by Benvoglienti in Venice (and, by association, the ‘Signoria’ in Siena). The reference to the conduct (or possibly armed action) of Simonetto must presumably have related to the movements of the individual who in 1451 was reported by the ‘podestà’ of San Quirico as having been on the point of attacking Cortona with his ‘brighata’: Simonetto da Castelpiero. When intent on attacking Siena’s interests at that earlier date, it was reported that Simonetto da Castelpiero was backed by both Milan and Florence, but was said to have been awaiting Florentine funding before he could be in a position to strike further into Sienese territory. Three years later, when it seems that Simonetto da Castelpiero had shifted his alliance – being by then in league not only with Jacopo Piccinino (erstwhile right-hand man of the Sforza in Milan), but also with the Aragonese court in Naples – the officials in Siena may have found themselves in a more delicate position, diplomatically. Any attempt by Siena to combat enemy action under Simonetto da Castelpiero’s command must clearly have been hugely strengthened had they been able to drive a wedge between Simonetto and his current allies. Undermining Simonetto da Castelpiero’s military strength must thus have been of paramount importance, and not only for the Sienese. It may be no coincidence, therefore, that in the second part of the 26 March report Benvoglienti described the great celebrations that had taken place in Venice following news received from Naples of the confirmation there of the ‘lega’ that had been agreed between Siena and the Aragonese court. In fact, Benvoglienti notes that he had received news of this accord nearly two weeks earlier (on 14 March) from ‘uno fameglo di fra puccio’ (ambassador in Naples). 48 Perhaps this is what Leonardo Benvoglienti had in mind, when stressing the need in the days running up to the conclusion of those negotiations to seek for ‘la gocordaTHHbam vhf6d3d6ogo’. There must, in any event, have been a heightened sense of anticipation and anxiety about Simonetto da Castelpiero’s own response, or conduct in the light of that impending accord. It is also a fact that during this exact period of time numerous extremely secretive negotiations were being carried out between Milan and Venice over what subsequently became known as the Peace of Lodi. Other powers, including the Sienese and the Aragonese court at Naples, were apparently not fully informed of 48 Fra Puccio was referred to by Benvoglienti as the incumbent ambassador of the court of Naples in a letter despatched to Siena on 2 November 1453 – see ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 3.

83

84 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

all the details: a fact that resulted in considerable anxiety and mutual suspicions. 49 Small wonder, perhaps, that Siena’s diplomatic representative in Venice shrouded some of his comments in secrecy. Surviving records despatched from Venice between the summer of 1453 and the spring of the following year show not only that Leonardo Benvoglienti was in the habit of writing the bulk of his letters in code (thus clouding the meaning of much of the content), but also that he was on occasion intent on obscuring the identity of the individual charged with the delivery of a particular piece of correspondence. Even when not reverting to code, the messenger charged with the mission was often referred to somewhat vaguely as a trusted ‘famiglio’ or ‘amico’, or simply, the ‘corriere’ – as if in a round about way of masking their true identity. At other times, a ‘nom de plume’ appears to have been assumed, as if in a more serious attempt at camouflage and disguise. As a result, not only the mission but also the messenger was often shrouded in secrecy. Had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei indeed been engaged in the service of Leonardo Benvoglienti during the latter’s appointment in Venice, his true identity might easily have been hidden from sight in a similar way. That said, it is tempting to suggest that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might be the courier referred to as ‘Franc(esc)o coriere’, in a report drawn up on 4 November 1453, in which Benvoglienti informed the officials in Siena that the day before he had sent them detailed information which he had placed in the hands of that individual.50 It seems that this Francesco was not only frequently engaged to be the bearer of particularly sensitive material, but on occasion also briefed to discuss the contents of the message when delivering it. No further details were offered by Benvoglienti about ‘Francesco coriere’, although an additional note at the bottom of the 4 November report records that the despatch itself had not been delivered until some two weeks later (on 19 November). Clearly, somewhere along the way there had been a delay. In the meantime it appears that Benvoglienti had despatched another report (much of which was in code), with what appears to have been the same courier, on 13 November.51 It is possible, therefore, that the two reports were despatched together with the same individual. The following day (14 November), in yet another report back, Benvoglienti – referring to a request that had been made that Francesco should leave Venice – informed his masters in Siena that the courier had indeed left on the 13th. The fact that Benvoglienti had had to ask the Sienese ‘Signoria’ whether or not the courier Francesco who was with him in Venice could leave indicates that this individual was not a member of Benvoglienti’s own 49 Banchi, “La guerra de’Senesi”, p. 184. See also, Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy, pp. 71–77. 50 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 4. 51 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 25.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

personal entourage in Venice. Perhaps he was in the pay of the Sienese government and was in effect based in Siena. In fact, at least one other courier named Francesco – ‘Francesco Spera’ – was recorded as running errands to and from Venice during Leonardo Benvoglienti’s second term as ambassador there. Moreover, it is clear that this Francesco was indeed an employee of the Sienese ‘Signoria’ since he was referred to by Benvoglienti in a despatch dated 27 December 1453, as ‘corriere v(ost)ro’ – in other words ‘one of yours’.52 It is possible, therefore, that the courier Francesco referred to in the November reports was one and the same as the courier Francesco Spera. Whether or not the Francesco who was recorded on several occasions as in Venice with Leonardo Benvoglienti or despatched by the latter back to Siena during November 1453 was the same as the courier referred to as ‘Francesco Spera’ must remain an open question for now. However, and as we shall see, on the occasions that Benvoglienti did indeed divulge the name of a particular messenger, he appears to have been quite precise, not only in relating where they came from – as for example, Rossetto ‘from Bergamo’ – but also (where two messengers bore the same given name) in distinguishing the one from the other; by referring, for example, to their stature or their age. In any event, it seems that another courier had been despatched hotfoot from Venice after the courier Francesco’s departure from there on 13 November. According to a further report, which was drawn up on 15 November, ‘fieraboscho coriere’ (described by Benvoglienti as ‘fante’) had left Venice in great haste on 14 November.53 Drawing distinctions between these different couriers is not easy. There is nevertheless evidence to suggest that ‘Francesco coriere’ was invested with more than his share of responsibility. It also seems as if he may have become involved in further undercover activity along the way. From the advisory dated 19 November that was added to the 13 November report, it seems clear that Francesco had delivered his message in Siena six days after leaving Venice. This prompts the question, ‘Why had that particular journey taken so long?’ I think the answer might lie in a quite separate report drawn up in Florence on 17 November, which is currently preserved on the same page of the Concistoro register as the 13 November missal. Such positioning in close proximity of these two records may not be coincidental. It seems that the 17 November missal, which was said to have been written by ‘unum servidore’ in Florence, had been consigned to a ‘trusted’ courier named Francesco (‘choriere fidatto el chuale e ne franc(esc)o’). It appears that it had been delivered in Siena three days later. The note from Florence had thus arrived in Siena around the same time as that despatched with the courier Francesco from Venice on 52 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 65. 53 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 32.

85

86 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

13 November. Such circumstantial evidence indicates that there could have been a link between the trusted courier Francesco who was said to be carrying information from Florence to Siena on 17 November and the courier of the same name who had left Venice four days earlier, carrying a message back from Leonardo Benvoglienti. The hypothesis I raise and consider here is that it was one and the same courier Francesco who was involved in delivering the two different reports back to the central government in Siena. The proximity of the two dates on which a courier named Francesco is said to have delivered two messages to the authorities in Siena is not the only factor that would seem to support such a notion. Had the courier Francesco referred to in Venice indeed been in the pay of the central government in Siena, it might have seemed natural to pursue further official business on his way back home. Staying overnight in Florence – a day or two distant from his final destination, the courier from Venice would have been well placed to pick up a report written on 17 November in Florence and from there, to have proceeded on his way to Siena. The discrepancies between the two dates at which the reports are recorded as having been received, may also be explained by the fact that in each case the courier had been charged with a slightly different brief. When noting that the courier Francesco had left Venice on 13 November, Leonardo Benvoglienti made no particular reference to the contents of the report that had been despatched or to any brief relayed to the messenger. Perhaps the 13 November report had been sufficiently detailed to be self explanatory By contrast, the faithful servant in Florence responsible for drawing up the comparatively brief 17 November missal appears to have made only general reference to the activities of certain residents in the city who were apparently intent on stirring up trouble for Siena. There may have been a number of details, therefore, that required fleshing out, or as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei implied in his 1460 report from Rigomagno, were better and more safely expressed in person. Indeed, there is confirmation of this in the fact that the ‘servidore’ in Florence informed his Sienese masters that the ‘trusted Francesco’ would explain and fill in everything (‘ischiara over dira’). It seems, therefore, that this Francesco was not just a simple courier. As ‘choriere fidatto’ he had not only been charged with delivering the message from Florence, but also with explaining its contents. Given the brevity and vague detail of the 17 November communication, Francesco must have engaged in detailed discussions with the Florentine ‘servidore’, in order to have all the facts at his fingertips and to be in a good position to explain all the relevant details to the Sienese officials. While both reports may thus have been delivered by the same courier it is possible that the one that was despatched by Leonardo Benvoglienti was despatched directly without delay; whereas the report from Florence may have required a day’s consultation and explanation before being formally signed off.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

It seems that Leonardo Benvoglienti fired off a series of reports from Venice during November 1453 (despatching them in turn via different messengers). By the end of the month he appears to have been anxious not only to establish that the messages had in fact been delivered, but also that his masters in Siena should be made aware of the sequence in which they had been sent. Thus, in a missal drawn up on 22 November, Benvoglienti refers to the first report he had sent via the courier ‘Francesco’ on 3 November; the second on 5 November, with ‘Ronchone’; the third (somewhat incongruously described as being sent on 4 November) with ‘Fieraboscho’; the fourth with ‘Giovanni grande’ on 17 November and the last on 18 November with the courier ‘Giorgio’.54 Somewhat curiously, no mention was made in the 22 November missal of the report that was apparently despatched with the courier Francesco on 13 November, although Benvoglienti did mention that one letter was still on the way and yet to be delivered (‘anchora acamino’). Perhaps Benvoglienti had not yet received word that his ‘trusted’ Francesco had indeed completed his mission. It seems that – in Benvoglienti’s words – all these reports had centred on one issue: ‘the matter’. It also appears that some of the reports had been more detailed than others, since Benvoglienti noted that much had been said in the reports carried by the couriers ‘Fieraboscho’, ‘Giovanni grande’ and ‘Giorgio’. The letter carried by the courier Giorgio on 18 November is amongst those that still survive in the Concistoro section of the State Archives in Siena.55 It seems that this particular report had taken over a week to arrive, since an additional note records that it was delivered on 26 November. Significantly, two other couriers used by Benvoglienti – Fieraboscho and Francesco – are mentioned in the same missal; presumably in reference to the reports sent on 4 November, 3 November and 13 November. On the second page of the report carried by Giorgio, Benvoglienti notes that the courier Francesco in particular had played a part in explaining in some detail the matters relayed in Giorgio’s despatch. Once again, it seems that this ‘Francesco coriere’ operated on a higher level than that of some of the other messengers engaged in running errands between Venice and Siena. More specifically, it seems that this Francesco had played a leading role, possibly over a number of weeks during the same month – November – in clarifying issues associated with what Benvoglienti described as ‘the matter’. The fact that no specific identifiers were made in the context of the courier Francesco who was involved in the November negotiations is worth noting: if nothing else, because it adds support for my hypothesis that Leonardo Benvoglienti had dealings with two different couriers named Francesco during his posting to Venice, and that one of these could have been Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. On 54 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 36. 55 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 32.

87

88 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

the basis of a number of records I considered, there seems little doubt that Leonardo Benvoglienti was in the habit of attaching references to the distinguishing features of some of the couriers he became associated with: one of these being ‘Giovanni grande’, or ‘Big John’. By referring to that particular Giovanni as ‘grande’, Benvoglienti was no doubt distinguishing him from another courier referred to elsewhere as ‘Giovanni piccini’. The slightly oddly named ‘Fieraboscho’ (‘Fair’ or ‘Feast’ of the Wood’) may by contrast have been a kind of nickname. Might it be, therefore, that when referring to a courier as ‘Francesco Spera’ (Francesco ‘hopes’, or ‘who hopes’) in the report despatched to Siena from Venice in December 1453, Benvoglienti was attempting to distinguish him from the Francesco who had figured so prominently in reports despatched back to Siena the previous month? That said, it remains an open question whether either the government employee named Francesco who was mentioned on so many occasions by Benvoglienti during November 1453, or the courier Francesco Spera – if indeed distinct from the former – can be linked to the ‘trusted courier’ Francesco referred to in the report that was drawn up in Florence on 17 November of the same year and delivered to Siena three days later. There can be little doubt that the despatching of letters and reports over distance and in the hands of a number of different couriers was not devoid of risk. Indeed, as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s report back from Rigomagno shows, on some occasions it was impossible for an individual courier even to start out on a journey, because of local unrest and the chance that the messenger himself might be intercepted and harmed. Benvoglienti’s own despatches from Venice show how on occasion he had doubts as to whether or not a particular report had indeed arrived at its destination. When matters of extreme urgency were under consideration, it is no wonder perhaps that he doubled up on his reports, at times sending another communication almost immediately after the one that was by that time already on its way. There is evidence of such practice in the wording of several of the reports despatched by Benvoglienti around the middle of November 1453. Indeed his resumé on 22 November 1453 of the various reports that had been sent by him during the previous weeks through the agency of a number of different messengers illustrates well how events on the ground could sometimes catch up and overtake earlier despatches, necessitating clarifications and follow-up reports. The fact that some of the reports are densely coded also indicates that Benvoglienti felt the need to go into considerable hidden detail about sensitive matters. Much of the report despatched on 15 November is for example in code, but an insertion between the second and third lines at the top of the page appears to refer to the ‘lega’ – presumably the accord between Naples, Siena and others that was celebrated with such zest the following spring. The further report written by Benvoglienti on 18 November, noting once again that ‘fieraboscho’ had left Venice on 14 November, informed the officials in Siena that another letter covering some of the issues

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

discussed in the first missal, had then been despatched with ‘Giovanni grande’ on 15 November.56 Benvoglienti was clearly anxious that the matters covered in the earlier despatch might not have been delivered, although what those concerned is virtually impossible to guess, given that most of the follow-up 18 November report was likewise in code. What does become clear from the 18 November despatch is that the courier involved in its delivery – ‘Giovanni grande’ – was one of a group of individuals associated with Bergamo. There is a considerable amount of evidence to show that whilst in post in Venice Leonardo Benvoglienti relied upon semi-local messengers as well as on his own trusted servants and agents employed by the central government in Siena. Between November 1453 and spring of the following year, Benvoglienti refers to at least four individuals who came from Bergamo. ‘Giovanni grande’ was one of the earliest to be mentioned. Another, the ‘fante’ Piero, was one of the last recorded, on 10 April 1454.57 Not all of the messengers recruited from Bergamo were, however, directly employed by Leonardo Benvoglienti, or on his payroll. As becomes clear from the 26 March 1454 letter, it was the official Sienese ‘corriere’ Rossetto da Bergamo who on that occasion was charged with carrying information between Benvoglienti and the central government. It also seems that at least one other individual from Bergamo (nicknamed ‘Small John’) had been procured by central government several months earlier, since in a letter written on 4 January 1453/4, we find a reference to ‘Giovanni piccini da berghamo corriere della Signoria’.58 As already suggested, it seems likely that ‘piccini’ had been added to this individual’s name not only in reference to his diminutive stature, but also as a way of distinguishing him from another John – Giovanni grande. In fact, ‘Giovanni piccini’ is also referred to as ‘Giovanello’ – another diminutive term – in the same 4 January despatch. Benvoglienti also adds the phrase ‘famiglio della S.V’. So, yet again, we find that employees of the central government in Siena who were not necessarily Sienese were plying backwards and forwards with information for the ambassador in Venice. In this instance the use of the term ‘famiglio’ or ‘famulo’, combined with the diminutive ‘Giovanello’ might also imply that the messenger in question, whilst small in stature, was also young in years. It may be no coincidence, then, that the 4 January missal contains a reference to a second courier, ‘Averuccio’, who is not linked by Benvoglienti to any particular employer. It is possible that he was reporting directly to Benvoglienti as one of the latter’s own trusted entourage, alongside the much younger and possibly less tested servant in the pay of the ‘Signoria’. 56 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 32. 57 ASSi, Concistoro 1977, no. 12. 58 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 69.

89

90 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The reference to Giovanni Piccini as courier of the Signoria confirms that, like Rossetto and Francesco/Francesco Spera, he was yet another individual who had been directly recruited by the officials in Siena. However, the fact that both ‘Giovanni grande’ and Rossetto (as well, incidentally, as the ‘fante’ Piero) also came from Bergamo was not, I believe, coincidental. Bergamo, in the north of the peninsula but strategically positioned in relation to both Milan and Venice could have served as a useful centre of information for the Sienese ‘Signoria’. Locals from Bergamo would have been aware of a number of undercurrents in the vicinity of both Milan and Venice and could have reported back on them without necessarily arousing suspicion. Giovanni Piccini and Rossetto and Piero would have been well placed to supply reliable inside information to any Sienese official posted to Venice. At the same time, their familiarity with the lie of the land they might be expected to travel when running errands backwards and forward from one city to the other would have been an added advantage. They would also have been well placed to pick up on developments and or messages being sent backwards and forwards from a potentially hostile Milan. As a result, natives of Bergamo might have been selected to undertake more sensitive kinds of missions relating to hostile activities in the north of the peninsula. Other messengers in the service of the central government in Siena lacking such local knowledge may, by contrast, have been engaged in less delicate errands. The etiquette in distinguishing between different kinds of messengers was significant and not least when it came to decisions about who should be responsible for covering their expenses. It seems clear, not only from the 1451 report filed by the ‘podestà’ of San Quirico, but also from other surviving records, that on occasion individual messengers were despatched with a specific recommendation about the payment they should receive when arriving at their destination. Thus, a couple of years following the carrying of double-checked information via a ‘fante’ of the ‘podestà’ of San Quirico to Siena, with the stipulation that payment should be made for such service by the central government, it was stipulated that when the government servant Rossetto had fulfilled his duties in delivering a letter dated 21 March 1453/4 to Leonardo Benvoglienti in Venice, he should receive four ducats; presumably from the coffers of the Sienese ambassador in post, rather than from the treasury in Siena.59 It seems that who was required to pay for what could on occasion result in the government official or servant experiencing financial difficulties, even when clear groundlines had been established. Leonardo Benvoglienti himself appears to have been confronting his own personal financial problems when planning to return to Siena in 1454, even though he must officially have been on the payroll of the central 59 ASSi, Concistoro 1976, no. 99.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

government. While it is possible that the new alliance formed between Siena and Naples in the spring of 1454 had signalled the resolution of complex diplomacy by Leonardo Benvoglienti and paved the way for recalling him to Siena, it seems that Benvoglienti was unable to do so, for lack of money. After detailed descriptions of the various festivities that had followed in the wake of the new alliance, Benvoglienti devoted the second half of the 26 March report to expressing his gratitude to the Sienese ‘Signoria’ for having granted his request to return to Siena (apparently to see his infirm father). However, he stressed that he was out of pocket and asked for money to be sent to him not only to cover his travelling expenses, but also so that he might pay off debts that he had incurred during the eight months in which he had fulfilled his ambassadorial duties in Venice. Benvoglienti made it clear that he would not be able to leave unless the Sienese officials transferred sufficient funds to him.60 Without that, Benvoglienti suggested – in a thinly veiled threat – he would incur ‘great shame and disrepute’: the inference clearly being that some of the disgrace might rub off on the Republic of Siena itself. Similar pressures associated with the reputation of both servant and master may have been at play, when the ‘podestà’ of San Quirico reported to the central government in Siena about initiatives he had undertaken on their behalf, when attempting to confirm information relayed to him by an Augustinian friar concerning the movements of hostile forces in the area of Cortona in the summer of 1451. Although it was the local ‘podestà’ who had engaged his own undercover agent to travel to Montepulciano to seek out information about potential hostilities against Siena there and it was the same ‘podestà’ who, having received and digested Giuliano d’Agnolozzi’s report, had subsequently arranged for his ‘fante’ to travel in person to Siena to relay the same information, it was the central government – no doubt under some pressure to maintain reliable chains of information as well as its own reputation – that was expected to foot the overall bill. The go-between Giuliano d’Agnolozzi must in the meantime not only have had to dig into his own pocket to cover his immediate expenses as he moved around from place to place, but as a result may have possibly run up a number of debts. The question of who financed what, why and when was clearly somewhat arbitrary: no doubt much of it, as implied in Giovanni Massi’s despatch, depended on word-of-mouth communication rather than written instructions. Considerations about the urgency or sensitivity of individual missions may well have affected deliberations about which messenger to despatch and whether or not an individual employed by central government was expected to wait for an answer before returning home. Obviously, decisions of that kind must have involved practical issues such as whether or not there was the need to offer accommodation 60 ASSi, Concistoro 1977, no. 1.

91

92 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

and hospitality to the various couriers. As we have seen, on one occasion Leonardo Benvoglienti even had to ask permission from central government that their messenger Francesco should be despatched back to Siena. In that case, when it seems that the messenger Francesco had been delayed in Venice after having delivered his message, the question of whether Benvoglienti or the ‘Signoria’ should be responsible for covering his expenses may not have been clear. It is possible that Benvoglienti had needed to add to, or correct the text of a report that had initially been drawn up; as events on the ground changed or presented different perspectives, suggesting the need for alternative tactics. In that case, the expectation might have been that Benvoglienti would foot the bill. However, if the Sienese officials had themselves insisted that Francesco should stay in Venice until given permission to leave, Benvoglienti might legitimately have felt that the responsibility for payment lay with Siena. Clearly, this was a grey area. As the report from the San Quirico ‘podestà’ Giovanni Massi shows, his assumption that the Sienese officials would cover the overall expenses incurred by his ‘fante’ Giuliano d’Agnolozzi, rested on the not entirely reliable fact that Massi himself had ‘promised’ his messenger ‘that was how it would be’. It seems that shortly after the report that was despatched on 26 March 1454 (in which reference was made to his own precarious financial position), Leonardo Benvoglienti did indeed return to Siena. But he does not appear to have stayed there long. As Prunai noted, it was in that same year that Benvoglienti was appointed ‘commissario’ during the war against the Orsini of Pitigliano (1454).61 That conflict continued for many months. Indeed, Benvoglienti appears to have still been embroiled with the same issue between 1456 and 1457 during his posting as ‘oratore senese’ in Rome. However, before that Benvoglienti had been posted to Montalcino. This was presumably no coincidental posting. The imminent threat to Siena’s interests during the mid 1450s came from the Maremma, where Jacopo Piccinino continued hostile activities in territories to the south of Montalcino. It seems that Piccinino himself was interested in forging an alliance with the Orsini of Pitigliano, thus doubling up on the threat to Siena. This was in some senses unnecessary. The Orsini were already intent on attacking Siena’s interests. Indeed, it was Count Aldobrandino degli Orsini who, between March and October 1455, laid siege to the eponymous castle of the Ottieri. Benvoglienti’s posting to Montalcino in January 1455 may well have arisen from and been based on information about the imminent danger posed by the Orsini to Castello Ottieri. While Montalcino (and even more the small commune of Sant’Angelo in Colle to the south of it) may have been regarded as firm supporters of the Sienese cause – garrisoning the borderlands of the Republic’s southern 61 In this context, see also Bruscalupi, Storia della Contea, pp. 225–50.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

territories – Castello Ottieri was something of a distanced outpost, tucked away on the other side of Monte Amiata to the south-east.62 Benvoglienti may thus have had to rely on quite complex networks of local information, if and when attempting to fulfil Sienese commitments to protect what was a far-flung ally. A precious handwritten testimonial of such local networking and communication in the context of the Ottieri survives in the Particolari di Famiglie Senesi in the Archivio di Stato in Siena. Dated 2 November 1437 and signed ‘Giovan(n)a don(n) a di petrolino vostra In gradoli’, this six-lined script was addressed to Magni(fi)co d(omi)no Jou(v)an(n)i In Castellottieri d(omi)no meo.63 Cutting immediately to the quick, Donna Giovanna informs Giovanni Ottieri that she had heard from ‘a dear friend of ours in San Lorenzo’ that ‘certain people’ were gathering ‘in the vicinity’ and according to secret communications (‘secundo che si rasciona al sacreto fra loro’) ‘are intent in attacking you and it is said that they are about to come and scale the walls’ (‘edicesi venirvi aScalare’). Giovanna continues, saying that she does not know much more about such an attack but that it was enough that she had let the ‘Magnifico’ know, adding that it was generally agreed that the attack would be soon: ‘perhaps not tonight or the night after’. Closing by once again saying she knew nothing more, Giovanna, signed off with good wishes, adding that she had heard that ‘El Signor gentile’ had returned and was at Orvieto ‘co(n) molta ge(n)te’ – ‘Christ be with you!’. Clearly, an individual of some education – since capable of writing tersely and in a neat and legible hand – it nevertheless seems extraordinary that a woman should have been responsible for relaying information of such import to Giovanni Ottieri. The identity of the courier who delivered the message is not revealed. Giovanna makes it clear, however, that she herself was in Gradoli. Moreover, although the despatch is short and to the point, the drawing together of the relevant information had clearly involved a number of different individuals, other than Donna Giovanna. Giovanna’s task in warning Giovanni Ottieri of the imminent danger both to his person and to his castle must have been regarded not only as urgent, but also requiring great secrecy. In order to avoid interception along the way she must have selected her courier with great care – someone in whom she had complete trust, but someone who could slip unnoticed between Gradoli and Castello Ottieri; and at speed, with the despatch well hidden. The surviving document itself attests to the last. Originally folded some five or six times, it must finally have measured about 5 × 2 1/2 cm. Just big enough to carry on its outer side Giovanni Ottieri’s name and address and the additional words ‘d(omi)no meo’; as if to confirm that the epistle came from a friend and ally. 62 In this context, see Thomas, Garrisoning the Borderlands. 63 ASSi, Particolari di Famiglie Senesi 118 (Ottieri), no. 10.

93

94 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The Ottieri ‘fascicolo’ contains at least one other epistle ranking in interest to that sent by Donna Giovanna on 2 November 1437. Dated 20 March 1458/9, on an equally carefully, but not so minutely folded piece of paper (containing an equally short number of lines), an individual who signs himself off as ‘Voster Frate(r) mino(re)’ informs Bonifazio Ottieri that he has come across information (from people who had recently crossed his path – ‘stato advisato delle gente so passate di qua’), of potential troublemakers who were making their way to Viterbo, in order to cause unrest in Vatican territory there.64 They also seemed to have been intent on other attacks, including against what the friar refers to as ‘la pa(r)te Gattesca’. It seems that the friar himself was not in a position to pass on all this information in a letter. He promised, however, to send something (‘di qualch(e) cosa’) by way of one of ‘their’ (presumably the friars’) own trusted people (‘p(er) uno n(ost)ro fidato ch(e) di qua’) during the following week. Clearly, not so urgent as the startling news conveyed by Donna Giovanna to Giovanni Ottieri from Gradole a couple of decades earlier, the information acquired by this ‘frate minore’ was considered a significant enough threat to Siena (and more significantly, in terms of an imminent attack on Castello Ottieri) for it to be passed on to the current incumbent of the castle, Bonifazio. Interestingly, it seems that this ‘news’ – although once again conveyed secretly – was not to be inserted in a letter written in the friar’s own hand, but was rather to be transferred by word of mouth. Placed in the safekeeping of a courier that was not only ‘local’ but also trusted by the Franciscan community. One hypothesis I raise and consider here is that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei assumed a similar role to both Donna Giovanna and the Franciscan friar in Siena, in warning the Ottieri of imminent attack to their estate. Might it be, for example, that he, like the other two individuals, was privy to certain information of interest to the Ottieri during mid-century hostilities in the vicinity of Castello Ottieri? In passing this on might he also have been caught up in local networking between the Ottieri and the central government in Siena? Might this have earned Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei the Ottieri’s enduring gratitude? Could a sense of obligation then have stretched over several decades, encouraging Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei as an old man to believe that he and his wife would be offered refuge and hospitality in Rome from a later member of the clan, Sinolfo Ottieri? One notion I canvass is that such undercover agency and networking skills might have been developed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in the company of Leonardo Benvoglienti; if not in Venice, then during the latter’s subsequent posting to Montalcino early in 1455.

64 ASSi, Particolari di Famiglie Senesi,118, no. 19.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

Leonardo Benvoglienti: ‘Commissario’ and ‘Podestà’ in Montalcino, 1455 While Leonardo Benvoglienti’s term of office at Montalcino during the first half of 1455 would no doubt have placed him in a position of authority over local officials, he must also have needed – as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei discovered when ‘vicario’ of Rigomagno – to have good and reliable men and women in his immediate entourage and amongst the local population who were willing to act on his behalf. Whether ‘vicario’, ‘commissario’ or ‘podestà’, support on the ground was clearly essential when attempting to send and receive messages; maintaining public order; keeping the peace between individual factions and ensuring that the local population itself remained loyal to Siena. The letter which was despatched by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei from Rigomagno in November 1460 illustrates well how central government off icials assuming duty in outposts of the Sienese territory had constantly to negotiate a thin line between persuasion and compulsion; between impartiality and partiality and – bottom line – maintaining the rule of law by force. As ‘commissario’ and ‘podestà’ of Montalcino between January and June of 1455, Leonardo Benvoglienti must initially have had to deal with existing members of the communal administration there. No doubt he would also have had to deal with unresolved issues left behind by previous officials appointed by the central government in Siena. As the incoming official, Benvoglienti would, nevertheless, also have been in a strong position to effect change. One obvious way of achieving that was to influence the selection of local officials to any upcoming administrative posts. Eligibility for communal service depended on whether or not one’s name was inserted in the ‘pisside’ or ‘bossolo’.65 In a commune such as Montalcino, it was the Sienese ‘commissario’ who controlled that process. Leonardo Benvoglienti (like previous incumbents) was thus well placed not only to further the prospects of those local citizens to his liking who were intent on assuming civic duties in Montalcino, but also to ensure that the administration established during his own posting consisted of individuals he could trust and who, in his opinion, would hold Siena’s best interests at heart. Having good local men and women to hand, and indeed one’s own ‘amici’ and ‘famuli’ in place to provide information about individual members of the local population, must have been an essential requisite. There may also have been considerable jostling on the part of the local residents. Existing members of leading factions, no doubt anxious to continue in positions of power, and pitting themselves against less powerful groups – who, with the 65 For regulations surrounding the ‘pisside’ and the ‘bossolo’, see Ascheri, Siena nel Rinascimento, pp. 64–68; 79–84 and 102–5.

95

96 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

changeover of the central government official, might have seen an opening for establishing their own new power bases – would very naturally have striven to maintain familial connections and clan loyalty. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to acknowledge jostling of this kind when, in his 1460 report, he not only referred to the people of Rigomagno as having been divided into two factions for a long time, but also described the difficulties he had experienced, when trying to effect a truce between them. Clearly, jostling for local power continued even as Sienese officials came and went. Recent research by Federica Viola reveals that a number of different members from the same family were elected to successive semesters of the Consiglio Generale in Montalcino in 1455, both before and during Leonardo Benvoglienti’s period of duty there.66 Among these were the brothers Arcangelo and Meio di Checco del maestro Antonio from the ‘Terzo di San Salvatore’; the brothers Domenico and Guglielmo di Pietro di Domenicuccio and Mariano di Giovanni di Checco and what was presumably the latter’s nephew, Matteo di Silvestro di Giovanni di Checco, from the ‘Terzo di Sant’Angelo’; and Giovanni di Nicola del Maestro and what was presumably his son, Nicola di Giovanni di Nicola del maestro Giovanni, from the ‘Terzo di Sant’Egidio’. One of these individuals, Guglielmo di Pietro di Domenicuccio from the ‘Terzo di Sant’Angelo’, was elected to the Priorato of Montalcino during January and February 1455.67 Another individual from a different family, but from the same ‘Terzo di Sant’Angelo’, Domenico di Giovanni di Checco – presumably the brother of Mariano di Giovanni di Checco – although not recorded as holding office in the Consiglio Generale – assumed office in the Priorato alongside Guglielmo di Pietro di Domenicuccio during the same first two months of 1455.68 Yet another individual associated with the same small network of families, Giovanni di Nicola del maestro Giovanni (from the ‘Terzo di Sant’Egidio’) was elected to the Priorato between May and June of the same year.69 Arcangelo di Checco del maestro Antonio (from the ‘Terzo di San Salvatore’) for his part, is listed in the same year 1455 as one of the ‘Viari’, alongside Bartolomeo di Menchino di Checco from the ‘Terzo di Sant’Angelo’ and Domenico di Bartolomeo from the Terzo di Sant’Egidio’.70 Presumably, none of these individuals would have been able to assume or to continue in communal office had Benvoglienti not deemed them appropriate and thus approved their inclusion in the ‘pisside’. Once elected, however, ties between father and son, brothers and uncles and nephews must inevitably have strengthened the positions of a small number of families in Montalcino. For incoming officials 66 Viola, Montalcino, pp. 200–203. 67 Viola, Montalcino, p. 239. 68 Viola, Montalcino, p. 239. 69 Viola, Montalcino, p. 239. 70 Viola, Montalcino, p. 266.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

from Siena, this was not necessarily a bad thing. Such family networks could help to establish a stable local administration ready to support the resident official from central government. Leonardo Benvoglienti for his part, whether as ‘commissario’ or ‘podestà’, would no doubt have taken (and been awarded) much credit for the success of what was in effect a well-managed relationship. Parallels can be drawn between that kind of well-organised and mutually beneficial arrangement and what at a later date appears, by contrast, to have gone wrong in Asciano. In that instance the ‘vicario’ (presumably elected by central government) seems not only to have taken it upon himself to persuade the locally elected priors of Asciano to go against the edicts of the Sienese ‘Signoria’, but also to have assumed that he was in a sufficiently strong position to instigate such opposition. While he may have been correct in questioning Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s artistic abilities and/or expense claims, he must have run some political risk in opposing stipulations laid down by central government. As Milanesi shows, the letter that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had presumably presented to the ‘vicario’ of Asciano when arriving in that commune had been drawn up only a few weeks before, on 15 September 1482.71 The stipulation there – ‘… comandiamo a tutti offitiali, comunita et subditi nostri, come da lui saranno richiesti; cioè provvidendoli di calcina, rena et altre cose bisognevoli, et facendoli ponti che saranno necessarii al decto lavoro in bona forma, come sarà di bisogno; per modo che lo decto maestro non ci metta altro che lo magistero et colori di suo, et possi eseguire commodamente questa nostra deliberatione …’ – could not have been clearer. A complex web of information – much of it no doubt involving the activities of undercover agents – must have been at play in keeping both sides of government satisf ied and untroubled. But, as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s petition from Asciano indicates, government appointees did not always toe the off icial line. Moreover, as the artist’s much earlier report from Rigomagno implies, Sienese off icials must at times have found they were dependent upon, and even subject to manipulation by local factions within individual communes. Occasionally, such basic issues as where Sienese outsiders should be accommodated and who was to be responsible for their bed and board must have compromised the objectivity and impartiality of the individual government off icial. It seems that in Montalcino – at least from towards the end of the sixth decade of the f ifteenth century onwards – some accommodation for Sienese government off icials was provided by one of the largest hospitals in the town. When the ‘pisside’ or ‘bossolo’ for Montalcino was renewed in 1458, specif ic reference was made to the fact that the Sienese ‘commissari’ responsible for the selection of names to be inserted in that process were to be housed within the ‘Ospedale di 71 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 397, no. 274 (note).

97

98 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Santa Maria della Croce’.72 Thus, the Sienese officials in charge of the process for the appointment to civic duties in Montalcino could have been compromised by being physically embedded within that commune’s most influential charitable institution. No doubt, the officials of Santa Maria della Croce took advantage of such proximity with off icials from central government. At the very least, they must have been well placed to bend the ears of their guests whilst offering them hospitality inside their own walls. During his own term of duty at Montalcino, Leonardo Benvoglienti for his part may have relied heavily on reports and character references proffered by the officials of Santa Maria della Croce – along, no doubt, with those of his own advisors. This much is borne out by Leonardo Benvoglienti’s own correspondence, which reveals that he was not only himself engaged in surveillance of the commune in which he was posted, but was at the same time ensuring that he was informed about situations elsewhere. One letter written by Leonardo Benvoglienti to the officials of the commune of Montalcino in July 1455 shows the extent to which he was cognisant not only of the affairs and duties of the townspeople there, but also how aware he was of the Republic’s affairs in the surrounding territory.73 In particular, it shows how well informed Benvoglienti was about military engagements in the immediate vicinity of Montalcino, where the armed forces of Siena and its allies were confronting hostile groups in the southern regions of the Republic’s territory. The July 1455 letter also shows how the people of Montalcino themselves had established a close relationship with this outsider from Siena. It seems that Leonardo Benvoglienti had intervened on their behalf in the question of the provision of armed men that was regularly expected from Montalcino, in service to the Sienese war machine. The Sienese ‘commissario’ who was at that time based in Manciano to the south of Montalcino, engaged in the defence of nearby Gioncarico, had apparently been in need of a fresh new company of ‘fanti’ (or footmen) and a fresh new company 72 Viola, Montalcino, pp. 68–69, footnote 78. The old hospital building of Santa Maria della Croce was subsequently drastically transformed to provide the current communal headquarters at Montalcino. However, the old scriptorium on the ground floor remains in much its original form. As Cecilia Alessi notes in La Confraternita ritrovata, p. 56, this was the space in which numerous records concerning the hospital and its administration were kept. It was also where individual acts were drawn up. Describing the series of frescoes that Vincenzo Tamagni painted on the walls of the Montalcino scriptorium in the early sixteenth century, Alessi draws attention to the trompe l’oeil shelving with inkwells, ledgers and sheets of paper on the lower levels of this small chamber, reflecting the activities of scribes engaged there. Given the role assumed by the Ospedale di Santa Maria della Croce in accommodating Sienese officials within its walls from the late 1450s onwards, it is possible that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s stint as scribe to the office of the Gabella in 1481 led to him carrying out his particular duties in the same space. 73 Canali, Notizie istoriche (2014 edn.), p. 197. For the original, see Archivio comunale di Montalcino, sezione storica, Lettere e istanze ai priori e al Capitano di giustizia 1411–sec. XVIII, 106 (58; B.1).

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

of ‘guastatori’ (sappers) and these had been requested from Montalcino. However, on this occasion the commune had only been able to field a comparatively small, armed force – consisting of just fifty ‘guastatori’. Seeking an excuse for such a low output, but at the same time attempting to ingratiate themselves with the central government in Siena, the officials of Montalcino had put their case to their own ‘commissario’: Leonardo Benvoglienti. Their faith in Benvoglienti’s powers to plead their cause appears to have been justified. The July 1455 letter suggests that Benvoglienti had established a close relationship with the people of Montalcino and as a result was prepared to go beyond the call of duty in acting on their behalf. Benvoglienti not only took it upon himself to reassure the commune officials that they would not be penalised for their lower than usual contribution of armed men, but – in an unusually personal postscript – added, ‘I offer you such support because I owe you a debt: for the benevolence and kindness you have shown me, which I can never repay’ (‘facendo io cosa a voi grata lo fo per debito il quale reputo per la benevolenza e grazia a me dimostrata che non potrei mai pagere’). Benvoglienti also seems to have gone to great lengths to minimise any implication that the depleted force sent from Montalcino might have damaged Siena’s military position. Assuring the officials of Montalcino that victory was in sight and that the defeat of Siena’s enemy, Count Jacomo Piccinino, was imminent, Benvoglienti told them that a major factor of that expected outcome was the size of the army that was currently lined up in formation. Indeed, Benvoglienti enumerated with precision the sixty-four squadrons of horses and four thousand foot soldiers assembled at that very moment on the field of battle. He was clearly well informed not only about the state of the Republic of Siena’s own forces, but also about the military strength of their allies who had lined up alongside Siena in the battle: the combined forces of the papal armies and of the Duke of Milan. Perhaps Benvoglienti was also anxious to calm any doubts the local people might have had about their own safety, positioned as they were in close proximity to the battle fields to the south. Leonardo Benvoglienti’s July 1455 letter to the people of Montalcino is analysed in some detail by Tullio Canali in his Notizie Istoriche della Città di Montalcino in Toscana.74 According to Canali, a month before the request for reinforcements from Montalcino, Benvoglienti, who is said to have had property in the vicinity of Montalcino, had been rescued by the commune’s ‘conestabili’, or constables, when finding himself under attack from rebel forces in the surrounding countryside. Delivered safely inside Montalcino, Benvoglienti had apparently then been escorted back to his own home outside the walls. Canali maintained that in consequence Benvoglienti had taken a specific interest in the affairs of Montalcino, even to the 74 Canali, Notizie (2014 edn.), p. 195.

99

100 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

point of involving himself personally in the release of two local men who had been taken prisoner in the defeat of Cetona.75 There was clearly a more obvious reason (not mentioned by Canali) why Leonardo Benvoglienti should have taken the affairs of the commune of Montalcino to heart. By the summer of 1455 Benvoglienti had already been established in an official role at Montalcino for some months. It seems quite possible, therefore, that he was engaged on official business, when he was attacked outside Montalcino in June 1455. This might obviously have had serious repercussions. The capture of one of Siena’s rural officials (whether ‘commissario’ or ‘podestà’), would not only have boosted the spirits of Siena’s enemies. It could also have had grave financial consequences for both the central government and the subject commune in the form of responding to ransom demands. No wonder the constables of Montalcino made every effort to rescue Leonardo Benvoglienti and no wonder Benvoglienti in turn fostered warm feelings for the people of that particular commune. Canali makes no reference to the role played by any ‘amici’ or ‘fanciulli’ in reporting the attack on Leonardo Benvoglienti outside the walls of Montalcino, but some kind of message must surely have been despatched, either by Benvoglienti himself, or through the serendipitous assistance of a trustworthy local. As was clearly the case when information was brought to the ‘podestà’ of San Quirico by the Augustinian friar from Montalcino, it was often by pure coincidence that urgent matters or impending dangers were stumbled upon and then passed along an undercover chain to the relevant authorities. In many cases, one specific incident or one kind of undertaking could itself result in a chain of unexpected events and associations: whether through loyal responses inside hostile terrain which led to a rescue or protection of a central government official in post in a subject commune; or in changes being made to military strategies and tactics, following local surveillance of enemy action. Such information was often passed somewhat arbitrarily and locally from person to person. The 1451 report brought to the ‘podestà’ of San Quircio and the following checks that were carried out on that provides a perfect example of that kind of informal networking. At other times, and often in the wake of being officially delegated to the task by central government, undercover agents appear to have physically infiltrated enemy forces and as a result to have been in a particularly strong position to report back about the movements of enemy troops. Much, also, must have been gleaned from those sent out as official surveyors; assessing boundaries and constructing detailed reports of individual terrains.76 Indeed, the art of the ‘esploratore’ – investigating 75 Canali, Notizie (2014 edn.), p. 195. 76 See the transcription of the 1318 boundary document (Appendix II) included in Thomas, Garrisoning the Borderlands, pp. 59–63 and pp. 69–87. This document records in minute detail not only the lie of the

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

and recording up-to-date information about individual localities – must have provided invaluable information; not least in pointing up local habits, but also by specifically highlighting possible angles of approach and defence when confronted with hostile intrusions or abuses. The analysis of boundary reports, especially in periods of unrest or potential hostile enemy action, must nevertheless have required the involvement of a number of experts with very different kinds of skills from the original surveyor. The ‘esploratore’ was clearly trained to do the practical work. But it was the individual communes, central government officials, military strategists and even diplomats currently engaged in the affairs of the area in question who must then have had to analyse and interpret the details. I believe that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became embroiled in just such a chain of events, following the instruction in November 1455 by the office of the Balia in Siena to Leonardo Benvoglienti, Pietro Turchi and Niccolò Severini to liberate Orbetello (at that time menaced by the hostile forces of Count Jacopo Piccinino).77 By the autumn of 1455 Leonardo Benvoglienti had clearly completed his recent term of office at Montalcino and had moved on. But it seems clear that he was still engaged in the affairs of the Republic to the south of Montalcino. Indeed, less than a couple of months later than the November Orbetello expedition, records of the Balia – on 8 January 1455/6 – refer to Benvoglienti as being elected to an official government posting in Grosseto.78 Any attempt to liberate Orbetello must inevitably have relied heavily on intimate knowledge of the surrounding territory and how Piccinino’s forces were lined up in opposition there. Following on so quickly from his official duties in Montalcino and on the basis of what ‘friends’ and local informants must surely have been in a position to pass on to him, Leonardo Benvoglienti would have been well suited for the task allotted by the Balia. Indeed, it may be no coincidence that Benvoglienti was one of a group selected for such a mission in November 1455. That aside, it seems that the November instruction to Leonardo Benvoglienti and his two companions land and individual landmarks, but also the names of different proprietors of land, the characteristics of nearby contrade, and the different toponyms that were adopted locally in the context of the tracks and pathways criss-crossing the territory. (NB: erroneously referred to as unpublished in Ceppari Ridolfi and Turrini, eds. Le pergamene, p. 416, no. 662.) 77 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 30, for the reference to Pietro Turchi, citing Balia 1 and the date 17 November. See also ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 1r, where reference was made to Pietrus Johanes Turchius. Entries in that register, which spans the period between 16 July 1455 and 4 June 1456, refer to the assembling of a special group consisting of five citizens from the Monte dei Nove, five more from the Monte del Popolo and five from the Monte dei Riformatori who, on 6 and 13 July, met to discuss how to provide for the necessities of war against Jacopo Piccinino. This balia of fifteen citizens was renewed on 31 September and 16 October. The commission to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to draw up a survey of the war zone may thus have derived from just such meetings. 78 ASSi, Balia 1, fols. 262r–262v.

101

102 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 16  Gottifredo Descaichi, Siege of Orbetello, 1646, print, private collection.

must have coincided almost exactly with the journeyman painter/‘esploratore’ brief Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was allotted in the same area. For it was in 1455 (and some time before 13 December of that year), that the Balia officials recorded a payment that was made to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei for the map he had produced of Orbetello and Monte Argentario.79 The coincidence of these time lines would seem to confirm that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s work had an underlying military significance: how best to defeat the besieging forces of Piccinino. While no maps or drawings of Orbetello under siege in the fifteenth century have survived, two prints of the 1646 Siege of Orbetello by Gottifredo Descaichi and Matthäus Merian the Younger illustrate well the perils of attack on this particular city, from both land and sea.80 (See Figures 16 and 17.) Matthäus Merian and Gottifredo Descaichi clearly went to great lengths to depict not only the surrounding landscape, but also the layout and nature of the man-made fortifications and lines of defence that surrounded the city (as well as the disposition of the individual troops), when Orbetello was besieged in the mid seventeenth century. The image produced by Matthäus Merian the Younger 79 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 215. 80 Pellegrini and Resti, Viaggio iconografico, pp. 94–95.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

Figure 17  Matthäus Merian the Younger, Siege of Orbetello, 1646, coloured print, private collection.

– Circumsessio Orbetelli (1646) – in being coloured, provides a precious insight into how Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s much earlier panorama might have looked. Had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei produced anything as detailed when carrying out his own panoramic view of Orbetello and the surrounding Argentario region in the late autumn of 1455, contemporary military strategists would have had much to consider, when attempting to retake the town from Count Jacopo. There was not only the peril of approach by water, over the so-called ‘stagno’, or lagoon. There were also numerous inland waterways, fields, pine forests, hills and even mountains that not only needed traversing by the Sienese forces, but in some cases provided a natural cover and defence for enemy troops attempting to defend what they had so recently acquired. The fact that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is known to have spent several days in carrying out his panoramic view suggests that this was far from a superficial sketch. Indeed, the likelihood is that he did not leave many stones unturned, whether on land or, metaphorically, on water. A late fifteenth-century depiction of Volterra under siege that has been attributed to Piero del Massaio offers another, perhaps closer comparator than either of the two seventeenth-century images considered here, since it was produced only a decade

103

104 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

or so after Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s 1455 panorama.81 According to Caroline Elam, carrying forward research begun by Bill Kent, this image of Volterra and its surrounding territory can be linked with a payment of six florins that was made to Piero del Massaio on 2 June 1472 by the Florentine ‘Venti di Balia’, about ten days into the siege of the city.82 Noting how the layout of the ordnance corresponded well with what was known about the state of the siege on 2 June, Elam suggested that this image of Volterra derived from what was in effect a war map – ‘produced to enable the Florentine government to follow and visualise the daily events of the siege’. Elam suggests that Massaio may have travelled to Volterra in the entourage of Francione and Domenico di Francesco – two individuals who were despatched by the ‘Venti’ on 24 May. Daniela Lamberini’s research would seem to confirm that hypothesis.83 Indeed, she suggests that the intricate details of topography and military engagement included in the image of Volterra could only have resulted from an on-site inspection. Images like these no doubt paved the way for the much later siege representations produced by Matthäus Merian the Younger and Gottifredo Descaichi; as well as many of the military records I examine in another piece of research in the context of a number of battle paintings that were produced in the seventeenth century by Jacques Courtois for the Medici villa of Lappeggi.84 The most significant point to be made, however, is that an image such as that depicting the 1472 siege of Volterra provided precise geographical (including topographical) details that were impossible to convey by word of mouth alone. While Giovanni Massi’s undercover agent Giuliano d’Agnolozzi had clearly brought back a considerable amount of information about the encampment of Jacopo Piccinino’s men in the woods near Torrita, such reporting must have paled in the face of detailed visual records. Little wonder, therefore, that the work of the ‘esploratore’ was imbued with such significance. But it was clearly less easy to cover one’s tracks, when involved with such work, given the time required not only to carry out the initial inspection, but also then to create the visual images. Previous familiarity with the terrain would have been invaluable. Had Leonardo Benvoglienti and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei already worked together during the former’s official duties in Montalcino, their joint familiarity with this part of the Sienese ‘contado’ might even have influenced the selection of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei for the task of ‘esploratore’ around the besieged city of Orbetello. Indeed, it does not seem implausible that Benvoglienti may have 81 See Kent and Elam, “Piero del Massaio”, pp. 64–89. In this context, see also, Rombai, “La nascità e lo sviluppo”. 82 Kent and Elam, “Piero del Massaio”, pp. 66–67 and 70. 83 Lamberini, “Alla bottega del Francione”, pp. 495–97. 84 Thomas, Jacques Courtois.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

played a part in commissioning the mapping work in the Argentario region from an individual who may already have served as his personal ‘amico’. That being the case, Benvoglienti would obviously have been in a strong position to confirm that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not only trustworthy but also up for the task of ‘exploring’ the Argentario region. In any event, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might already have been familiar with various parts of the territory to the south of Montalcino, through his professional work as a journeyman painter. Although the records published by Gaetano Milanesi date such activities in the southern territories to the second half of the 1460s, his reference to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement in journeyman painting in the vicariate of Castelmuzio in 1456 must allow for the possibility that the artist was already engaged in such activities around the time of his mapping work in the area of Orbetello. In any event, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s employment on behalf of the Sienese ‘Signoria’ in the Maremma region during the latter part of 1455 must have coincided with or shortly preceded the period in which Leonardo Benvoglienti’s diplomatic skills were called upon to serve as ‘orator senensis’ in Rome. It was from there, only a couple of years later, that Leonardo Benvoglienti despatched his letter of recommendation for his friend, the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo.

Leonardo Benvoglienti: Orator Senensis’ in Rome, 1456–1457 Engagements with the forces of Jacopo Piccinino, and in particular hostilities between Siena and Count Aldobrandino degli Orsini of Pitigliano, continued for many months after the instruction to Leonardo Benvoglienti and others to liberate Orbetello in November 1455. This was a conflict that led to Benvoglienti being despatched to Rome to exert his ambassadorial skills on behalf of Siena, calling upon support from the pope and from papal forces and allies. We can learn much about Leonardo Benvoglienti’s activities as ‘orator senensis’ in Rome from an eighteenth-century copy of letters he despatched to the officials of the Concistoro and of the Balia in Siena during his posting in the Holy City.85 These records illustrate yet again the frequency with which official reports were passed backwards and forwards from the periphery to the centre. Moreover, it becomes clear that Benvoglienti was not only reporting back to the central government in Siena. He also regularly despatched letters to such potentates as Fernando, King of Naples and emissaries of the papal state such as Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, as well as the current pope, Callisto III. 85 BCS, Ms. A.III.16.

105

106 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Ranging from such disparate matters as travel arrangements or allocation of funds to individuals working on behalf of the Sienese government in Rome (including Benvoglienti himself!), to making arrangements for the measurement of castle walls, the letters from Rome confirm that Leonardo Benvoglienti was frequently engaged in what in modern parlance could only be described as espionage. Not only was Benvoglienti reporting back regularly to his Sienese masters about the progress of conflicts in a number of far-flung regions (as he had previously done from Venice), but – on one occasion at least – he referred explicitly to his having positioned a number of Sienese spies in place. Thus, in a letter despatched from Rome on 21 August 1457, Benvoglienti (signing off as ‘Umil Ser(vidore) Leonardo Oratore’) reports to the officials of the Balia that spies are being kept in active service in the Abruzzo region – covering the movements of those individuals who were known to support the cause of ‘Conte Jacomo’ (Piccinino) – ‘so that from day to day you will know the extent of their preparations’.86 On this occasion Benvoglienti also included a further bit of information that ‘two others’ (presumably two other spies) were likewise engaged in reporting on the movements of Pietro Belanti ‘sicche d’ogni suo processo siate avisati, e havetelo pur p(er) bene di V.M.S.’. These reports also illustrate how, despite his official posting in Rome, Leonardo Benvoglienti himself was continually on the move. Indeed, it seems that during the second half of the sixth decade he alternated regularly between bases in Naples and in Rome. On several occasions Benvoglienti also made side trips to different hot spots where trouble appeared to be brewing and/or where Sienese interests were directly threatened. On each occasion, Benvoglienti appears to have kept detailed records of his movements, no doubt (as with the insert already noted in the report that was despatched from Venice on 2 November 1453) using them as ‘aide-memoires’ when composing the formal reports that were subsequently relayed back to Siena. Benvoglienti’s letters from Rome illustrate once again how well informed he was about current affairs in various parts of the peninsula. They also show that he was very much aware of the most mundane goings on as well as the affairs of those Sienese officials who were working alongside him; on occasion, even becoming involved in personal issues, such as their unpaid expenses. Leonardo Benvoglienti might thus be compared to those ‘others’ who, according to the report filed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei from Asciano in 1482 had ‘looked after him’ 86 BCS, Ms. A.III.16, fol. 11v. There also seems to have been an understanding between Leonardo Benvoglienti and the officials in central government about an individual referred to as ‘Amico Speciale’. Reporting on a meeting with the new ‘podestà’ of Acquapendente at the end of October 1457, the ambassador (at that time apparently in Rome – signing off, ‘ex Urbe’) noted that he had written to that individual, explaining what he was required in this instance to do (see old fols. 105r–105v, new pencil fols. 106r–106v). Leonardo Benvoglienti suggested that the Sienese officials should also write to the ‘Amico Speciale’, in order to offer further assistance (or remuneration).

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

following disagreements over payment for his own work. In Rome, Benvoglienti appears to have been operating not just as an intermediary, but also as a kind of spymaster in chief. It is as if his ear was everywhere on the ground and his gaze all encompassing. Whilst at all times focussed on the minutiae of daily life in the papal city, Benvoglienti appears to have absorbed everything, big or small. That said, in none of the copies of the reports despatched back from Rome by Benvoglienti between 1456 and 1457 does there appear to be any specific mention of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. Although providing detailed insights to the complex nature of his diplomatic service in Rome and Naples, these records – unlike the reports sent back by Leonardo Benvoglienti from Venice – offer comparatively little information about the trusted circle of ‘amici’ and ‘famuli’ Benvoglienti must certainly have had in his entourage at that time. No details have emerged so far, either, to suggest that Leonardo Benvoglienti was concerned during this period with the internal affairs of the Cathedral Works in Siena: and thus personally involved in the selection of a new ‘fattore’ there in 1458. However, one record drawn up by the Balia a couple of months later than the April 1458 letter of recommendation, concerning the delivery of three large gold ducats to Leonardo Benvoglienti in Rome, does refer to his usual (‘solutis’) ‘famulo’ being entrusted with the mission.87 In the event, it seems that (despite his standing and diplomatic credentials) Leonardo Benvoglienti was not successful in his attempt to secure the post of ‘fattore’ for his ‘friend’. According to the findings of Gaetano Milanesi, Scipione Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei seems, nevertheless, to have caught the attention of a number of other individuals of standing. Indeed, his ability to move in and out of a number of different environments and relationships both inside and outside Siena indicates an unusual degree of flexibility. Not only was Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei an individual who appears to have attracted the trust, if not also the protection of one of Siena’s leading diplomats. He also appears to have elicited the attention and interest of a number of officials in high places, including government servants in the Biccherna, the Balia and even the august body of the Sienese ‘Signoria’ itself. In Part Two I pay specific attention to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s early involvement with the office of the Biccherna. In that context I owe a particular debt to Cecilia Alessi, Piero Scapecchi and Maria Falcone. For, without their recent findings, I would not have been stimulated to reconsider Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s early years, and in particular, the networking he appears to have established in Siena by the late 1440s. 87 ASSi, Balia 10, fol. 33r. It’s possible that the government-employed Rossetto of Bergamo fell into just such a category, as specific mention was indeed made of him whilst Leonardo Benvoglienti was stationed in Rome (see BCS, Ms. A.III.16, old fol. 116r, new pencil fol. 117r.

107

108 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia. La Confraternita ritrovata: Benvenuto di Giovanni e Girolamo di Benvenuto nello Spedale Vecchio di Siena. The Rediscovered Confraternity: Benvenuto di Giovanni and Girolamo di Benvenuto in Siena’s Spedale Vecchio. Quaderni della Soprintendenza per il patrimonio storico, artistico e demoetnoantropologico di Siena e Grosseto 1 (2003). Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Ascheri, Mario. Siena nel Rinascimento: Istituzioni e sistema politico. Siena: Il Leccio, 1985. Azzolini, Monica, and Isabella Lazzarini, eds. Italian Renaissance Diplomacy: A Sourcebook. Durham Medieval and Renaissance Text and Translations 6. Durham, UK: Institute of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, Durham University; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2017. Banchi, Luciano. “La guerra de’Senesi col Conte di Pitigliano (1454–1455).” Archivio Storico Italiano serie Quarta 3, no. 110 (1879): 184–97. Banchi, Luciano. “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena e la Lega Italica (1455–1456).” Archivio Storico Italiano serie Quarta 4, no. 112 (1879): 44–58 and serie Quarta 4, no. 113 (1879): 225–45. Bartolomei Romagnoli, Alessandra, and Daniele Solvi, eds. Le vite quattrocentesche di S. Bernardino da Siena. Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2014. Bichi Borghesi, Count Scipione, and Luciano Banchi. Nuovi documenti per la storia dell’arte senese: Appendice alla raccolta dei documenti pubblicata dal comm. Gaetano Milanesi. Siena: E. Torrini, 1898. Brandi, Don Antonio. Transcribed edition of Tullio Canali, Notizie istoriche della Città di Montalcino in Toscana (c. 1750). Montalcino: Il Leccio, 2014. Bruscalupi, Giuseppe. Storia della Contea di Pitigliano. Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 1986. Canali, Tullio. Notizie istoriche della Città di Montalcino in Toscana. (c. 1750). New transcribed edition by Don Antonio Brandi. Montalcino: Il Leccio, 2014. Cattana, Valerio, and Tagliabue, Mauro, eds. Da Siena al desertum di Acona. Atti della giornata di studio per il 7 centenario del ritiro di Bernardo Tolomei a vita penitente ed eremitica (1313). Abbazia di Monte Oliveto Maggiore, 26 August 2014. Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2016. Causarano, Marie-Ange. La cattedrale e la città: Il cantiere del duomo di Siena tra 11. e 14. secolo. Sesto Fiorentino: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2017. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, and Patrizia Turrini, eds. Le pergamene del comune di Montalcino (1193–1594). Siena: Extempora, 2019. Cirier, Aude. “Diplomazia e rettorica comunale: La comunicazione attraverso lo spionaggio politico nell’Italia medievale (secc. 12. –13.).” In Comunicazione e propaganda nei secoli 12. e 13., edited by Rossana Castano, Fortunata Latella, and Tania Sorrenti, 199–215. Rome: Viella, 2007.

The Diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and His ‘Friend’ 

Cirier, Aude. “De l’informateur à l’agent: Mise en place et fonctionnement des réseaux de renseignement en Italie medievale (12. – 14. siècles).” In Moyen Âge et medievale en réseau. Actes du colloque du RMBLF. Brussels, 2008. Cirier, Aude. “La face cachée du pouvoir: L’espionnage au service d’États en construction en italie à la fin du Moyen Âge (13. – fin 14. siècle).” Publications du Centre européen d’Études bourguignonnes 4 (2008): 7–28. Cirier, Aude. “Un altro aspetto della battaglia di Montaperti: Lo spionaggio al servizio del comune di Siena.” In Alla ricerca di Montaperti: Mito, fonti documentarie e storiografia, edited by Ettore Pellegrini, 125–40. Siena: Betti, 2009. Ferente, Serena. La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino: Storia dei bracceschi in Italia 1423–1465. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2005. Frigo, Daniela, ed. Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy: The Structure of Diplomatic Practice. Translated by Adrian Belton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Giorgi, Andrea, and Stefano Moscadelli. Costruire una cattedrale: L’Opera di Santa Maria di Siena tra 12. e 14. secolo. Italienische Forshungen, Sonderreihe, Die Kirchen von Siena. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2005. Kent, F. W., and Caroline Elam. “Piero del Massaio: Painter, Mapmaker and Military Surveyor.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 57, no. 1 (2015): 64–89. Lamberini, Daniela. “Alla bottega del Francione: L’architettura militare dei maestri fiorentini.” In Francesco di Giorgio alla corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Conference proceedings, Urbino 2001. Edited by Francesco Paolo Fiore, 493–516. Florence: Olschki, 2004. Lazzarini, Isabella. Communication and Conflict: Italian Diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350–1520. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Lazzarini, Isabella. L’ordine delle scritture: Il linguaggio documentario del potere nell’Italia tardomedievale. Rome: Viella, 2021. Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1954 (and Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955). Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856. Morandi, Ubaldo. “Documenti.” In Palazzo Pubblico di Siena: Vicende construttive e decorazione, edited by Cesare Brandi, 413–36. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 1983. Mormando, Franco. The Preacher’s Demons: Bernardino of Siena and the Social Underworld of Early Renaissance Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Norman, Diana. “Santi cittadini: Vecchietta and the Civic Pantheon in Mid-Fifteenth Century Siena.” In Art as Politics in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena, edited by Timothy B. Smith and Judith B. Steinhoff, 115–40. Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012. Ortroy, François Van. “S. Bernardin de Sienne par Leonard Benvoglienti.” Analecta Bollandiana 21, no. 1 (1902): 53–80.

109

110 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Pellegrini, Ettore, and Gianni Resti. Viaggio iconografico nell’Antico Stato Senese. Ospedaletto, Pisa: Pacini Editore, 2007. Pellegrini, Michele. “Vita religiosa e società a Siena al tempo delle origini di Monte Oliveto.” In Da Siena al desertum di Acona. Atti della giornata di studio per il 7 centenario del ritiro di Bernardo Tolomei a vita penitente ed eremitica (1313). Abbazia di Monte Oliveto Maggiore, 26 August 2014. Edited by Valerio Cattana and Mauro Tagliabue, 1–42. Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2016. Preto, Paolo. I servizi segreti di Venezia: Spionaggio e controspionaggio ai tempi della Serenissima. Milan: Il Saggiatore, 1994. Prunai, Giulio. “Benvoglienti, Leonardo.” In Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana (1925–2020) 8 (1966): 703–5. Rombai, Leonardo. “La nascità e lo sviluppo della cartografia a Firenze e nella Toscana Granducale.” In Imago et descriptio Tusciae: La Toscana nella geocartografia dal 15. al 19. secolo, edited by Leonardo Rombai, 161–93. Florence and Venice: Giunta Regionale Toscana Marsilio, 1993. Settia, Aldo A. “‘Pro novis inveniendis’: Lo spionaggio militare senese nei ‘Libri di Biccherna’ (1229–1231).” Archivio Storico Italiano 156, no. 1 (575) (January–March 1998): 3–23. Smith, Timothy B., and Judith B. Steinhoff, eds. Art as Politics in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena. Farnham, UK and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2012. Thomas, Anabel. Garrisoning the Borderlands of Medieval Siena: Sant’Angelo in Colle: Frontier Castle under the Government of the Nine (1287–1355). Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Thomas, Anabel. Jacques Courtois at Villa Lappeggi: Seventeenth Century Military Exploits and Medici Self-Referencing in the Visual Arts. Siena: Nuova Immagine, 2018. Ugurgieri-Azzolini, Isidoro. Le pompe sanesi, o’vero Relazione delli huomini e donne illustri di Siena e suo stato. 2 vols. Pistoia: Pier’Antonio Fortunati, 1649. Viola, Federica. Montalcino nel Quattrocento: Lo Statuto dei Danni Dati e degli Straordinari (1452) edizione e note storiche. Arcidosso: Effigi, 2018.

Part Two Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei: Conflicting Career Options

1.

Workshop Training and Neighbourhood Networking Abstract: This chapter considers Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s family and his early access to officials in central government through the office of the Biccherna (chancellery of finance) and his father-in-law Meo di Lorenzo: contrasting the advantages of this with professional openings available through networking within his own artistic community, including receiving the commission from the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. The workshop relationship established between the young artist, Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro in the ambit of the Biccherna, the Cathedral Works and the Franciscan conventual complex is outlined, along with an analysis of two panels associated with the church of San Francesco in Grosseto, variously attributed to Sano di Pietro, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’. Keywords: neighbourhoods and networks; family relationships; Sano di Pietro; ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’; government offices; the Biccherna.

Recent research has endowed Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei with much greater stature and signif icance than that allotted to him by the nineteenth-century historians considered in Part One. This is in part due to the proposal put forward by Cecilia Alessi and Piero Scapecchi in 1985 that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s name should be considered in the context of one of the most discussed and still challenging art historical debates concerning fifteenth-century Sienese art: authorship of the Birth of the Virgin altarpiece in Asciano. However, further findings by Maria Falcone switched art historical debate away from the spotlight on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, concentrating attention instead on his contemporary (and possible master), Sano di Pietro. It seemed at that point that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been conclusively placed back into his somewhat insignificant box. That said, Alessi and Scapecchi’s hypotheses concerning Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ threw up much information about the artist’s earliest activities in Siena. Indeed, their research stimulated further enquiries about Francesco di

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_II_ch01

114 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Bartolomeo Alfei’s training and the workshop relationships he appears to have had with Sano di Pietro before setting up his own independent painter’s workshop. This in turn prompted renewed consideration of the ways in which fifteenth-century Sienese artists established themselves as independent masters, whilst at the same time collaborating (often in quite flexible ways) on joint projects. More specifically, Alessi and Scapecchi’s findings stimulated my own in-depth consideration of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s association with the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in Siena: providing the basis from which to launch enquiries about the history and origins of that confraternity and related groups of lay religious. Until recently, virtually nothing was known about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s youthful years. The earliest records cited by Milanesi give the impression that the artist had reached a comparatively mature age before he received any commissions as a painter. Alessi and Scapecchi noted, however, that in addition to being ‘allirato’ in 1453 (in other words, already owning his own property and thus required to file his own personal tax declaration), Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s denuncia of that year shows that he had also acquired his own painter’s workshop premises in Siena.1 Given the birth date suggested for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei by nineteenth-century historians, it would seem that the newly independent painter must thus have already reached his early thirties by the time he acquired his own shop. From what is known of Italian Renaissance workshop practice generally, such a situation seems unlikely. Many artists graduated from training and into their own independent workshops when they were in their twenties or even their late teens. It is possible therefore, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had already been practising as an independent artist some time before the 1453 denuncia. Owning one’s own working premises did not necessarily guarantee financial security, though. According to Francesco di Bartolomeo’s 1453 denuncia, the workshop premises in the ‘Terzo di San Martino’ in which he was currently practising his art contained ‘masserizie’, or furniture and workshop goods, to the value of only 16 florins.2 This was certainly not a princely sum. However, it shows that there was at least some merchandise in the shop at that date. Some or all of this may have been in the form of painted panels. But the array was probably not that impressive. For comparison, it 1 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 29. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s 1453 tax return is in fact on a different page from that cited by Alessi and Scapecchi. 2 ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 100r. See also, Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 121, in which they cite Lira 139, fol. 50r in the context of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s 1453 denuncia. For an analysis of the physical nature and valuation of the contents of artists’ workshops in fifteenth-century Florence and the distinctions that were drawn between ‘masserizie’ and ‘ferramenti’ when filing tax declarations or drawing up inventories of individual working premises, see Thomas, The Painter’s Practice, pp. 55–62, and particularly p. 58.

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

is worth noting that when the two Florentine painters Rossello Franchi and Giunta di Jacopo filed a joint tax declaration in 1427, declaring that they were no longer practising their trade, they estimated that the value of the few little altarpieces and panels remaining in their workshop amounted to the slightly lower sum of 15 florins.3 It is, however, significant that the ‘maserizie di chassa per nostri bisogni’ declared by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in 1453 in respect of the contents of his living quarters amounted to the even lower sum of 12 florins – three quarters the value of the contents of his workshop. It is clear that by 1453 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had a family to look after. Cecilia Alessi and Piero Scapecchi suggested that he must have been married for a number of years by 1453 (on their estimation from at least 1448 or 1449), since at that date the artist declared two female offspring aged four and two. As Alessi and Scapecchi point out, this would seem to confirm Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s later claim (in 1466) that his oldest child, a female, was of marriageable age. In fact, further consideration of a number of other surviving tax records shows that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s marriage (or at least its associated dowry payment) was formally ratified a couple of years prior to 1453. Moreover, there seems little doubt from this that in 1453 the artist was living in a house bestowed on him as part of his dowry by his mother-in-law, the wife of Meo di Lorenzo. In Meo di Lorenzo’s own 1453 denuncia (which was dated 24 November and which was filed from the same Rialto e Cartagine area in the ‘Terzo di San Martino’ as that of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei), Meo refers to himself as ‘guardia’ of the Biccherna and makes reference to his son-in-law, Francesco di Bartolomeo, noting that 50 golden florins was owed to the artist in respect of a dowry agreement that had been drawn up by Ser Mariano di Meo di Santi ‘gia due anni passati’ (some two or so years previously). 4 In his own 1453 declaration (not specifically dated to any month) Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei does indeed refer to the same amount of money that was owed to him as part of his dowry agreement.5 So, what can be established about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s activities before 1453? Cecilia Alessi’s f indings reveal that several years before f iling his 1453 tax declaration Francesco di Bartolomeo had been engaged in at least one artistic project in company with a number of other artists. Alessi throws interesting light on patterns of workshop collaboration in Siena during the 1440s and 1450s, as well as on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s own position within that system. She notes, for example, that around the end of the fifth decade (some three years prior to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s tax declaration), the artist was involved 3 Thomas, Painter’s Practice, p. 59. 4 ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 154r. 5 ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 100r.

115

116 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

in a commission to work on a silken and gold-embroidered banner for the Opera del Duomo in Siena, alongside two other artists, Sano di Pietro and Leonardo di Nanni.6 It seems that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was working independently within this group, as the other two artists appear to have been viewed as a team, when receiving payment for their own contributions to the project. Nevertheless, both Sano di Pietro and Leonardo di Nanni were referred to in the context of the Opera del Duomo project as ‘Maestro’. Records dating to the beginning of the 1440s indicate that Leonardo di Nanni was at that earlier date still regarded as a ‘garzone’ or workshop assistant – presumably, therefore, with no independent workshop premises in his own name. He was certainly described as ‘garzone’ when recorded between 1441 and 1442 as working alongside Giovanni di Paolo on an altarpiece that was designed for the hospital chapel of Santa Maria della Scala.7 Only a short while later, however – when engaged to produce a painted banner for the same hospital institution between 1442 and 1443 – both Giovanni di Paolo and Leonardo di Nanni were recorded as receiving payment in equal parts: indicating that by that date at least they had established a more equal workshop relationship. It seems likely, therefore, that by the late 1440s (when working alongside Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei on the Opera del Duomo banner), Leonardo di Nanni had established his own independent status as an artist. Cecilia Alessi notes that payments recorded by the Opera del Duomo for the ‘drapelone’ were in the first instance made out to ‘Maestro Sano di Pietro e in Maestro Leonardo di Nanni’ and in the second, to ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’. Although the separate payment to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei does not include the term ‘Maestro’, the fact that he is not referred to in terms of being the ‘garzone’ of either of the other two artists would seem to imply that he, too, was regarded as an independent artist by the summer of 1450. It is possible, therefore, that all three artists recorded as working on the embroidered banner for the Opera del Duomo were in effect masters in charge of their own businesses, but pooling their expertise on this particular occasion. On the basis of Alessi’s research, one might also argue that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had acquired his own painter’s workshop some three years before filing his 1453 denuncia. Building upon Alessi and Scapecchi’s 1985 article – and in particular their suggestion that the artist may have been involved in the ‘riabilitata’ (restoration) of 6 Alessi, in La Cattedrale di San Lorenzo, pp. 133–34, cat. 9. According to Alessi, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei started his artistic career refurbishing a Biccherna ‘tavoletta’ containing an image of the Archangel Michael. Alessi suggests that in doing so the artist was influenced by Sassetta’s Borgo San Sepolcro polyptych. For the same author’s further consideration of collaboration between Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, see Alessi, “Il nuovo Museo”, pp. 138–40. 7 See Bacci, “Documenti e commenti”, p. 21, Doc. XVIII.

117

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

Figure 18  ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ (also attributed, amongst others, to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro and the ‘Maestro dei monocromi di Monticiano’), The Archangel Michael Fighting the Dragon, July–December 1444, ‘Tavoletta’ of the Biccherna n. 27 (previously Gabella), tempera on panel, Museo delle Biccherne, Archivio di Stato di Siena.

the painting of the Archangel Michael which served as a cover for Gabella records drawn up by Biccherna officials during the second semester of 1444 – Maria Falcone suggested that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was able to launch his career as a painter as a direct result of his involvement in that project. 8 (See Figure 18.) While discussion continues about who was responsible for the restoration, there seems little doubt that the artist (or artists) responsible for its design adapted a fourteenth-century image of the Archangel Michael fighting the Dragon by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, which served as the central section of a polyptych for the monastery of San Cristoforo in Rofeno. 8 ASSi, Biccherne, no. 27 and Falcone, “La giovinezza dorata”, p. 32, footnote 9. See also Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 19 (and notes 71–75 and especially note 73, where the authors draw attention to Enzo Carli’s consideration of this ‘tavoletta’).

118 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The original Biccherna documents for the second semester (1 July – 25 December 1444) appear not to have survived, depriving latter-day researchers the chance of establishing whether or not the task of painting or restoring that particular Biccherna cover and the identity of the artist or artists involved in the project was indeed recorded. Nor has any evidence so far surfaced in support of the claim that it was the fifteenth-century register cover with the image of the Archangel Michael that had been ‘riabilitata’ or restored. Indeed, claims that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was personally involved as an independent master has not been universally accepted. Other attributions have included Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro, the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ and the ‘Maestro dei monocromi di Monticiano’.9 It is possible that several artists were involved in producing the 1444 Biccherna cover. At that date Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei himself must only have been in his early twenties, so he might well have contributed to such a project in the guise of a workshop assistant. In that context, both Alessi and Falcone do indeed consider the possibility that the young artist had already formed a working relationship with Sano di Pietro by the mid 1440s.10 Some sort of working association could well have been established between Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei around that date, if only because all three artists were subsequently documented as being involved in the same project to refurbish the premises of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were in fact recorded as already at work on a new altarpiece for the confraternity in the summer of 1444: coinciding directly with the beginning of the second semester of the Biccherna administration. If any collaboration were to have taken place over the production of a new cover for Gabella documents that were drawn up during the second half of 1444, it might thus have involved Giovanni di Paolo and/or Sano di Pietro. Had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei already been involved in Sano di Pietro’s workshop organisation by the second half of 1444, he would naturally have been in a position to contribute to such a project. However, it is also worth noting in this context that a second image of the Archangel Michael survives as a Biccherna cover. (See Figure 19.) This image (which originally served as a cover to a series of Censi records drawn up between 1379 9 Falcone, “La giovinezza dorata”, p. 32, footnote 6. See also, Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 14, for references to attributions to the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ voiced by Alberto Graziani and Enzo Carli in 1942 and 1947 respectively. For more recent opinions, see Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Raffaella de Gramatica, Turrini and Zarrilli, eds. Museo delle Biccherne, p. 48, fig. 30 (Tavoletta 27). See also Bellosi, “La tavoletta di Gabella”. 10 Falcone, “La giovinezza dorata” p. 28 and p. 32, footnote 9. See also, Cecilia Alessi’s opinion (La Cattedrale, p. 133, cat. 9) that the Archivio dell’Opera del Duomo di Siena record concerning payment for the silk and gold thread ‘drapelone’ in the summer of 1450 confirms Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s association with Sano di Pietro’s workshop by that date.

119

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

Figure 19  Anonymous late fourteenth-century or early fifteenth-century painter, The Archangel Michael Enthroned, ‘Tavoletta’ of the Biccherna, tempera on panel, Museo dell’Opera del Duomo di Siena.

and 1405) is unattributed. It is also in a very poor condition and bears a virtually illegible inscription. It is currently preserved in the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo in Siena.11 The register it covered is preserved separately in the archive of the Opera Metropolitana. It is not impossible, therefore – were any document indeed to emerge in which reference was made to restoration work being carried out on an image of the Archangel Michael on one of the Biccherna covers in 1444 – that the cover Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is said to have worked on was not the one produced for the Gabella documents of that year, but the one produced over half a century earlier for the Censi records. That said, no hard facts have so far been established in the context of claims that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei carried out painting work for the office of the 11 Borgia, Carli, Ceppari, Morandi, Sinibaldi and Zarrilli, eds. Le Biccherne, p. 128, no. 44.

120 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Biccherna in 1444. Neither Alessi nor Falcone consider, either, how or why Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have become involved in such a commission. However, my own recent archival findings indicate that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may very likely have been introduced to the Biccherna officials via his father-in-law Meo di Lorenzo, self-declared ‘guardia’ of that institution. Indeed, I argue that the young artist’s family connections provided him with a quite separate conduit into the offices and affairs of the Sienese Republic. One outstanding question concerns Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s association with the ‘frati minori’ of San Francesco; and, more specifically, how he came to the notice of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. One other project cited by both Maria Falcone and Cecilia Alessi in the context of the young Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei concerns two panels from an altarpiece that appears to have been commissioned for the church of San Francesco in Grosseto. These paintings, which are now displayed in the ‘Museo d’arte sacra della diocesi di Grosseto’, depict the figures of Saint Jerome and Saint Anthony Abbot.12 (See Figure 20.) Despite the obvious connections that might have been drawn between such an altarpiece and the Franciscan order, neither Falcone nor Alessi attempted to position the Grosseto panels in the context of the mother church in Siena or its associated lay religious. Concentrating rather on an artistic analysis of the two panels, Cecilia Alessi appears to have been more intent on confirming a relationship between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: thus supporting previous suppositions concerning the former artist’s involvement in the production of the altarpiece of The Birth of the Virgin in Asciano. Alessi drew a clear distinction between the two panels, maintaining that the Saint Anthony Abbot in particular reflected the style of Sano di Pietro, whereas in her view the Saint Jerome was much closer to the style of the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’. Falcone, by contrast, argued that both panels had been commissioned from Sano di Pietro and that both had been painted in Sano di Pietro’s workshop. In the absence of any documents recording decorations that were commissioned by the friars of San Francesco in Grosseto some time around the fifth decade of the fifteenth century and no other parts of the altarpiece itself apparently surviving, it is difficult to establish whether or not more than one independent artist was involved in its production. For the same reasons, it is almost impossible to establish whether or not Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have played some part in painting one of the figures depicted there. Generally, in such cases, the head of the workshop assumed responsibility for key details such as the faces of individual saints; whereas

12 See Falcone, “La giovinezza dorata”, p. 32, footnote 9 and Alessi, La Cattedrale, pp. 133–34, cat. 9. See also, Alessi, “Il nuovo Museo”, pp. 74–76 and pp. 138–41.

121

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

Figure 20  Sano di Pietro and the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, Saint Anthony Abbot and Saint Jerome, mid fifteenth-century, tempera on wood, Museo d’Arte sacra della diocesi di Grosseto (Grosseto).

the assistant or assistants would be delegated to work on the drapery.13 Given the differences in the ways in which the faces of the two saints are characterised and painted in the surviving panels from the San Francesco polyptych, it does in fact seem more than likely that at least two independent artists were involved there. If Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was responsible for painting any parts of the polyptych in question, albeit in partnership with Sano di Pietro, the figure of Saint Anthony Abbot could thus constitute important evidence of his style as a young artist. In that context, it is worth noting that there are indeed some stylistic similarities between the Grosseto figure of Saint Anthony Abbot and the panel belonging to the Museo Civico in Siena depicting the Crucifixion, which in the past has been associated with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. The downturned mouth and comparatively heavy features of Saint Anthony are reflected in both of the seated figures at the base of the Crucifix. The overall style of the Crucifixion panel nevertheless seems close to other paintings more firmly established under the label Sano di Pietro.14 By contrast, 13 In this context, see Thomas, Painter’s Practice, pp. 213–56. 14 See, for example, the panel depicting the same subject in the collection of Monte dei Paschi di Siena. I would like to extend my thanks to Dr. Lisi, Director of the Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena and to Duccio Benocci for facilitating access to the bank’s collection of paintings.

122 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

the more refined facial details of the Saint Jerome figure do indeed seem closer in style to the Birth of the Virgin altarpiece in Asciano (as Cecilia Alessi observes). The same can be said for a number of other panels previously attributed to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, which have likewise assumed new labels. The Christ in the Tomb at Dijon is one obvious example, although in that case, even the more recent attribution to the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ has been rejected, in favour of an anonymous painter working around 1435. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s artistic style thus remains something of an enigma. In the case of the two panels in Grosseto, analysis is hampered further by the fact that a large part of the archives of the church of San Francesco there was destroyed at an early date. This makes it difficult to verify claims that the two paintings even originated inside that Franciscan complex. The Franciscan connection is, nevertheless, significant. An hypothesis raised here (which I hope to expand elsewhere) is that the mother community of San Francesco in Siena played some part in that project. Might the ‘frati minori’ have recommended an artist or artists for a new altarpiece in Grosseto? Might these two panels be all that remain from a polyptych that was at some stage damaged or dismantled? Might such a polyptych have been originally commissioned for a site in Siena, but subsequently relocated to Grosseto? On the basis that answers might indeed be found to such questions and given an assumed dating of the Grosseto polyptych to somewhere between the mid 1440s and 1450, I argue that either Sano di Pietro independently, or in a workshop relationship with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is worth investigating. This was, after all (and as is illustrated in later chapters), the precise span of time during which Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were recorded as working on the new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. What Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was doing around the same time and how he emerged as an artist takes centre stage in the next section. But first a word about what can be established about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s background and, in particular, about his relationship with Meo di Lorenzo, a long-standing official in the office of the Biccherna.

Family Connections and the Office of the Biccherna The seemingly insignificant thirty-year-old Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei setting out as a young and untested painter in the late 1430s or early 1440s must have been no different from countless other young artists seeking patronage and connections to embark upon their own careers. One particular connection could open undreamed of doors. One casual introduction could result in a prestigious commission that might offer a lifetime’s security. But, other than coincidence and being in the right

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

place at the right time, of possibly even greater importance were the two essential and parallel pillars of support: family and neighbourhood networks. Being born into an existing artist’s business offered the possibility not only of training under the auspices of a close relative, but also the prospect of taking over the workshop organisation when the time was ripe. In addition, neighbourhood networks provided numerous ways whereby an aspiring artist could reach out beyond the immediate family unit to other organisations elsewhere: for further workshop training and/or career development. Such alliances were strengthened not only as a result of an enduring business and specific expertise – often handed down from one generation to another – but also by the mutual trust that was established between local friends and acquaintances working within the same field, or who were involved in other kinds of businesses in the same area. Neighbourhood networks provided fine, but indestructible webs of confidence arising from an infinite number of interconnecting circumstances and relationships established over time. Such inter-personal links were a certain way of assuring future prospects. Not the least of such intricate webs were those spun through marriage. That kind of alliance not only brought the individual couple and their immediate families together, but also called in a whole group of diverse loyalties from more distant relatives. Within the artistic community, a marriage could result in the pooling of pre-existing workshop premises and even the joint use of living quarters. It could also result in the inheritance of a secondary business elsewhere or even, as was the case with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, in ownership of new property by way of a dowry agreement.15 In Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s case, a new house in which to live was probably not the only advantage the young artist experienced following his marriage to Meo di Lorenzo’s daughter. Renewed consideration of surviving tax declarations indicates that there may have been a number of neighbourhood links and associations whereby Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Meo di Lorenzo’s paths could have crossed before the young artist’s marriage to Meo’s daughter. Not only were Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Meo di Lorenzo filing from the same ‘Compagnia Rialto e Cartagine’ in the ‘Terzo di San Martino’ in 1453, but according to Meo di Lorenzo’s denuncia one of his other children, a son, had established his own independent workshop as a ‘righittiere’ (second hand, or junk dealer) in the Porrione area of the same ‘Terzo’.16 According to Alessi and Scapecchi’s findings, the business of the ‘righittiere’ – dealing on the whole in old clothing and leather work – must have been the profession practised by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s father, Bartolomeo di Francesco, as well 15 Thomas, Painter’s Practice, pp. 27–100. 16 ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 154r.

123

124 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

as being the declared profession in 1453 of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s brother, Leonardo.17 On occasion, this trade also involved the furnishing of bedchambers through the sale of ‘cassoni’, tables, chairs, tapestries and painted images. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may thus have spent his early years dabbling with the merchandise that was on sale in his father’s shop, long before he became acquainted with individuals such as Sano di Pietro. Neighbourhood links through the ‘righittiere’ trade may also have brought Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and other members of his family in contact with Francesco’s future father-in-law several years before the formal marriage agreement with Meo di Lorenzo’s daughter. That aside, and quite apart from the possibilities of crossing paths with each other as a result of living in the same neighbourhood, various members of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s family – and in particular his own brother – must have been familiar with members of Meo di Lorenzo’s family through the daily transactions and dealings of their common trade. There is a degree of confusion about the precise make up of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s own immediate family. Although Alessi and Scapecchi take it as read, it is not clear, for example – from details furnished in her 1453 Lira – that the widow ‘Agnola del fu Bartolomeo Francesco’ (sic) was indeed the mother of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei.18 In Agnola’s 1453 declaration, which does not include a precise date, but which (like that of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei) was filed from the ‘Terzo di San Martino’, ‘Compagnia di Rialto e Cartagine’, the widow declares that she is living in a house in the Rialto area together with her stepchildren. She does not, however, mention these children by name. Nor does she refer to her deceased husband’s trade or patronym.19 In the same year, what was presumably Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s brother, Leonardo – since he is described in the same list of denuncie drawn up on 17 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 121. 18 See Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 121, where the authors point to the denuncia of ‘Agnola del fu Bartolomeo Francesco’ and Leonardo di Bartolomeo di Francesco as both being on fol. 52r of ASSi, Lira 139 (and associate both with the patronym Alfei). In fact, in Leonardo di Bartolomeo di Francesco’s tax declaration (actually, ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 53r) – where he is recorded as the son of Bartolomeo di Francesco ‘Affei’ (sic) – it seems possible that the word ‘Affei’ was an addition, or even an afterthought, because it is slightly awkwardly positioned in the margin of the document after ‘francesco’ (which is in turn followed on the next line by ‘ligr’, which is itself crossed out). One reading could therefore be that Leonardo’s (and thus also Francesco’s) father was not involved in the ‘righittiere’ trade. Rather, that this was the trade that the son Leonardo had adopted. In the second paragraph of Leonardo’s tax return, he does in fact confirm that he was carrying on the art of ‘righittiere’. 19 See ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 102r (not fol. 52r, as cited by Alessi and Scapecchi), where Angnolla/Agnola first refers to herself as ‘dona che fu di Bartolomeo di Francesco di Siena’; then goes on to describe herself as ‘presente vedova e povera’ and living in a house in the ‘Rialto’ – ‘cho mei figliastri’. Interestingly, Agnola declares the comparatively high value of 60 florins on her house: hardly what one would expect in the context of an impoverished widow, unless inherited from her deceased husband and taken over by sons who had come of age.

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

15 November 1453 and was likewise filing from the same ‘Compagnia di Rialto e Cartagine’ – was said to have been living in the house of his ‘matrigna’ (stepmother), ‘along with his brother’.20 In his own 1453 tax declaration, however, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei makes no reference to living with a brother. Nor does he refer to a stepmother. Instead, he declares that he is living in a house that had been promised to him by his ‘suocera’, or mother-in-law.21 There is further confusion in that an individual referred to as Bartolomeo di Francesco ‘ligritiere’ is recorded as filing his own tax declaration (dated 20 November) from the ‘Terzo di San Martino’, under the ‘popolo di San Vigilio’.22 He thus not only appears to have been practising the same trade as Leonardo di Bartolomeo di Francesco ‘Affei’ (sic) and in the same ‘Terzo’ (although not the same ‘Popolo’), but was also very much still alive in 1453. It would seem unlikely, therefore, that he could be the same Bartolomeo di Francesco as that referred to in the contemporary tax declaration of the widow Agnola. In fact, further research in the Sienese Lira reveals that Bartolomeo di Francesco Alfei ‘ligrittiere’ was still alive in 1454 and still filing from the same ‘popolo di San Vigilio’.23 The widow Agnola for her part (whilst still referring to herself as the widow of Bartolomeo di Francesco) was also still alive and was still filing her tax report from the ‘Compagnia di Rialto e Cartagine’; as were (separately) Leonardo di Bartolomeo di Francesco Alfei ‘ligrittiere’ and Francesco di Bartolomeo di Francesco ‘dipintore’.24 Only the following, therefore, seems certain. By 1453 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been married for at least a couple of years and had established himself as a painter in his own independent workshop. In 1453 he was living in a house in the ‘Terzo di San Martino’, ‘Compagnia Rialto e Cartagine’ that belonged (or had belonged) to his mother-in-law, the wife of Meo di Lorenzo. By 1453 Francesco di Bartolomeo’s brother Leonardo was officially involved in the ‘righittiere’ business and was living in his stepmother’s house, which was in the same area as Leonardo’s apparent sibling, Francesco. For his part, the father of these two brothers, Bartolomeo di Francesco Alfei, was (according to his own tax declaration) living in a different part of the ‘Terzo di San Martino’, in the ‘Popolo’ of San Vigilio’, where he was independently practising the same trade of ‘righittiere’ or ‘lighittiere’. 20 ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 53r. 21 ASSi, Lira 139, fol. 100r. See also, Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 121, where they also note Francesco di Bartolomeo’s declaration that the house in which he was living in 1453 was promised to him by his mother-in-law as part of his dowry – ‘Item per le mie dotte o in su la chassa duve io abitto e la mia suciara promise a me’. 22 ASSi, Lira 57, fol. 69v. 23 ASSi, Lira 58, fol. 14r. 24 ASSi, Lira 58, fols. 115v, 110r and 115r.

125

126 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

One further piece of information, however, would seem to add weight to the claim that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and his brother Leonardo were indeed the sons of the ‘lighittiere’, Bartolomeo di Francesco. In his 20 November 1453 denuncia Bartolomeo di Francesco, while making no references to either Francesco or Leonardo, declared that he had taken into his care his brother’s two daughters.25 One of these was already of marriageable age; the other was only six years old. Bartolomeo di Francesco informed the tax off icials that his nieces were penniless and that they had inherited a considerable amount of debt from their father. Bartolomeo, for his part, was now responsible for covering the cost of their food and clothing. In assuming such responsibility, Bartolomeo di Francesco must also have been faced in the short term not only with finding a dowry for his oldest niece, as well – some way down the track – as providing for her younger sister in a similar way. Indeed, he refers to that burden in his 1453 denuncia. This may explain why, some months earlier, two ‘legitimate’ male heirs (Francesco and Leonardo) of an individual named as Bartolomeo di Francesco appear to have entered into discussions about renouncing their inheritance. In a register of the proceedings of the Consiglio Generale that was drawn up during 1453, an undated entry seemingly inserted some time after 19 March 1452/3, noted that the siblings Francesco and Leonardo ‘sons of the “deceased” Bartolomeo di Francesco’ (‘filios dci olim Barthi’), had put in a petition to repudiate their inheritance. This had duly been granted.26 It is possible that this petition was an attempt by Bartolomeo di Francesco’s adult (and thus independent) sons to ease their father’s financial burdens in assuming responsibility for his nieces’ welfare. Given information elsewhere which shows that Bartolomeo di Francesco was not only still alive in November 1453 but still filing his return a year later, the use of the term ‘olim’ in the Consiglio Generale document is, however, at the very least, curious. That aside, Francesco and Leonardo’s repudiation of their inheritance, combined with Bartolomeo di Francesco’s own silence in 1453 concerning two such sons must presumably mean that both Francesco and Leonardo had the means to support themselves by that date. In fact, according to Meo di Lorenzo’s own denuncia of 1453, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei could have been living in the house that had been passed down to him as part of his dowry agreement for at least the past two years. This was not the only bonus or opening Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to have enjoyed as a result of his new family connections. 25 ASSi, Lira 144, fols. 1112r and 1164r. 26 ASSi, CG 226, new fol. 75b recto (old fol. 75r). Although not itself dated, the position of this entry in this register of the General Council’s proceedings – between an insert dated 19 March 1452/3 (new fol. 74b recto) and another dated 5 April 1453 (new fol. 76b verso) – indicates that it was compiled some time between those two dates. The fact that Francesco’s name appears above that of his brother in the marginal note to the insert also indicates that he was the older of the two siblings.

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

It seems that by the middle of the 1440s Meo di Lorenzo was an established figure in government circles. In his denuncia of 1443, ten years before acknowledging the existence of a new son-in-law, Meo referred to himself as ‘sta choi quattro di bicchierna’.27 This was a revolving, but significant position. A number of individuals, apart from the ‘camarlengo’, or treasurer, the rotating ‘Quattro di Biccherna’ and the official scribe and notary, were involved in administering the Biccherna office.28 Amongst these were the ‘custodi dei libri della Biccherna’ and the ‘custodi dei locali di ufficio’. As ‘guardia’ and certainly as ‘custode dei libri’, it must have fallen to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s father-in-law to take care of individual Biccherna volumes, including oversight of the state of the paintings on their wooden covers.29 By the early 1450s Meo di Lorenzo must thus not only have been well placed to monitor the upkeep of existing Biccherna books and the commissioning of new painted covers for ongoing Biccherna records but also have accrued much inside knowledge about Sienese government affairs. It seems that Meo di Lorenzo continued a close association with the Biccherna office for a further twenty or so years following his daughter’s marriage. Biccherna records spanning the period between 17 April 1452 and 25 September 1472 make constant reference to him. While there are no specific details about Meo di Lorenzo’s duties in that office, he is variously described as ‘custode’ or ‘custode libri’. On occasion, he even appears as ‘famulo’.30 Most significantly, Meo di Lorenzo was clearly already associated with the office of the Biccherna well before Ser Mariano di Meo di Santi drew up the dowry agreement in connection with Meo’s daughter’s marriage to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. He must thus have been in a strong position to facilitate his son-in-law’s prospects in a number of different fields right from the beginning of their relationship.

Access to Officials in Central Government Having such a well-positioned father-in-law must obviously have been extremely useful for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. For his part, Meo di Lorenzo – in welcoming a son-in-law who was not only intent on establishing himself as a painter, but who also came from a background dealing with second-hand merchandise and domestic furnishing – must have been aware of the advantages of having such in-house expertise to hand in his own occasional role as ‘custode libri’. Restoration 27 ASSi, Lira 54, fol. 115v. 28 Archivio della Biccherna, p. XV. 29 In this context, see ASSi, Balia 10, fol. 15v. where Meo di Lorenzo is recorded as ‘custos librorum’ as well as ‘scriptore’ on 21 April 1458. 30 ASSi, Biccherna 648, fols. pencil numbers 87r, 247v and 295r.

127

128 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

of a damaged Biccherna cover might have seemed just the right project to entrust to a new member of the family. However, given the chronologies outlined here about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s marriage and emergence as an independent painter, it would seem more likely that such an opportunity arose during the 1450s, rather than a decade earlier. If Francesco di Bartolomeo only attracted the notice of the Biccherna officials as a result of his marriage to Meo di Lorenzo’s daughter, he could hardly have been commissioned in 1444 to paint (or restore) a ‘tavoletta’ containing an image of the Archangel Michael. As an individual already involved in the local ‘righittiere’ trade and perhaps already putting out feelers for further training or experience within the workshop organisation of a fellow artist such as Sano di Pietro, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might nevertheless have been regarded as an appropriate candidate for such work, regardless of any family connections with the office of the Biccherna. It may also be relevant to note in this context that Sano di Pietro himself is recorded as having painted a ‘residenza’ (official chair or throne) for the ‘Quattro di Biccherna’ in February 1446/7.31 Had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei already been associated with Sano’s workshop by that date, he may thus have already had dealings with the officials of the Biccherna, before coming into contact with Meo di Lorenzo. There is also another narrative that would allow for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei gaining access to the affairs of the Biccherna several years before 1453. According to Meo di Lorenzo’s 1453 tax declaration, the marriage between his daughter and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was only formally ratified some time between 1451 and 1452. But the actual marriage could have been celebrated several years earlier. Based on the declared ages of Francesco di Bartolomeo’s children, Alessi and Scapecchi suggest this was around 1448/9. But this precludes the possibility that prior to that there had been a number of childless years, or even offspring that had died in infancy. In any event, and on the basis of what can now be established about the chronology of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s relationship with Meo di Lorenzo, it seems reasonable to argue that the young artist must already have come into contact with a number of government officials by the beginning of the sixth decade of the fifteenth century and certainly prior to Leonardo Benvoglienti’s second appointment as ambassador to Venice in the summer of 1453. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may thus not only have been rubbing shoulders with officials working alongside Meo di Lorenzo inside the office of the Biccherna, but also have come across Leonardo Benvoglienti himself, since that individual is known to have assumed the role of ‘provveditore’ of the Biccherna on three occasions during the 1440s (the last appointment being in 1449). The die might well have been cast, then, well before July 1453, when the second-time-around ambassador 31 ASSi, Manoscritti B102, fol. 177r.

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

set off for Venice. At that date, Benvoglienti must very likely have cast around (or encouraged the ‘Signoria’ officials to act on his behalf) in an attempt to select one or two trusted individuals to accompany him on that mission or to provide assistance in Siena during his absence. Had Benvoglienti’s eye already settled on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, the young artist might not necessarily have needed to physically accompany him, in order to provide him with undercover agency support. Indeed, he might have served a more useful purpose had he stayed behind as Leonardo Benvoglienti’s informant back in Siena. Having access to government officials like Benvoglienti was clearly not the only way in which Francesco di Bartolomeo could have benefitted from having Meo di Lorenzo as a relation. He must also have acquired an inside channel of information about the affairs of the office of the Biccherna itself. Meo di Lorenzo must have been a continual source of up-to-date information about ongoing government matters. He was, for example, regularly cited in the context of being one of the official Biccherna witnesses to the swearing in of new ‘castellani’ taking up posts in the Republic’s subject communes.32 As a result, he would have been well placed not only to know who had recently been put in position, but also when such posts would be coming up for renewal and which candidates were most likely to obtain such office. He would also have known about unexpected absences or delays in the process that might lead to vacancies and new appointments. My research indicates that Francesco di Bartolomeo may not only have been drawn into the business of witnessing appointments of new ‘castellani’, but also to have assumed such roles himself at a comparatively early stage of his relationship with his new father-in-law.33 It is not always easy, however, to establish the precise identity of the many individuals simply referred to as ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo’ in such lists. One record surviving in an entry dated 19 February 1453 in a Biccherna register refers, for example, to a Francesco di Bartolomeo di Francesco acting as witness to the appointment of Meo di Piero Cecchi as the new ‘castellano’ of the castle at Celle. Another, in a Balia register of 1458 refers to a ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo’ stepping into the role of ‘castellano’ at Castiglione Val d’Orcia.34 Several records of the Concistoro also contain references to a ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo’ acting in the guise of witness, although on that occasion the absence of ‘Alfei’ once again leaves their identity open to question. However, on one occasion in the summer of 1467, when specific reference was made to ‘Franceschus bart alfei’ on 28 July as acting as witness to the appointment of two new ‘castellani’ to ‘Castelpiano’, we can be left in no doubt that this was indeed Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. The same applies 32 ASSi, Biccherna 648. 33 In this context, see ASSi, Biccherna 648, fol. 67v and ASSi, Balia 10, fol. 58v. 34 ASSi, Balia 10, fol. 58v.

129

130 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

to a reference on 4 October 1474 to a ‘Franc(esc)o barthh(ome)i alfei’ who was cited as a witness to the appointment of Mariano di Pietro Lupini as ‘castellano’ of the ‘arcis sup(er)io(r)is’, or upper fortress at Lucignano.35 At the very least, therefore, Meo di Lorenzo must have provided a conduit, whereby Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became aware not only of individuals currently holding office, but also of upcoming possibilities for posts such as ‘vicario’ or ‘castellano’, that he himself might hope to take advantage of. Such prior notice must in turn have afforded Francesco di Bartolomeo the time and opportunity to prepare his own petition to be considered for such employment. Similar opportunities must no doubt have arisen when it became clear that there might be a need for mapping Sienese territory that was under attack from hostile forces: as, for example, when Jacopo Piccinino was amassing his forces in the Maremma, menacing Orbetello.36 In their 1985 article, Alessi and Scapecchi noted that only a year after his 1453 tax declaration Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei received payment from the Sienese Balia for the map he had produced of Orbetello and Monte Argentario.37 In fact, as we can now show (and as Alessi and Scapecchi themselves subsequently acknowledged), this work appears to have been carried out at a slightly later date, since the entry recording its payment in the original Balia register was 13 December 1455 (not 1454).38 There can be no doubt, though, that these years in the middle of the fifteenth century saw Siena sorely tested by hostile forces amassed to the south of the city. And it was precisely at that time that the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was recorded as having abandoned the project to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia. In La Cattedrale di San Lorenzo a Grosseto: Arte e storia dal XIII al XIX secolo. Exhibition catalogue, Grosseto, Fortezza medicea, Cassero senese, 29 June–29 September 1996. Edited by Cristina Gnoni Mavarelli and Laura Martini, 133–34, cat. 9. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 1996. Alessi, Cecilia. “Il nuovo Museo tra dispersioni, conferme e scoperte.” In Palazzo Corboli: Museo d’arte sacra, edited by Cecilia Alessi, 74–76 and 138–41. Siena: Protagon, 2002. Alessi, Cecilia, ed. Palazzo Corboli: Museo d’arte sacra. Siena: Protagon, 2002. 35 In this context, see ASSi, Biccherna 648, fol. 247r, and ASSi, Biccherna 648 fol. 314v. 36 For a detailed discussion of Piccinino’s activities in the Maremma, see Ferente, La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino, pp. 45–64. 37 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 123. 38 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 215.

Work shop Tr aining and Neighbourhood Ne tworking 

Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Bacci, Peleo. “Documenti e commenti per la Storia dell’Arte: Ricordi della vita e dell’attività artistica del pittore senese Giovanni di Paolo di Grazia detto Boccanera.” Le Arti A. 20 (1941): 11–39. Bellosi, Luciano. “La tavoletta di Gabella del 1444, il ‘Maestro di Monticiano’ e un probabile modello perduto di Ambrogio Lorenzetti.” Prospettiva 100 (October 2000): 36–40. Borgia, Luigi, Enzo Carli, Maria Assunta Ceppari, Ubaldo Morandi, Patrizia Sinibaldi, and Carla Zarrilli, eds. Le Biccherne: Tavole dipinte delle magistrature senesi (secoli 13.–18.). Rome and Florence: Le Monnier, 1984. Carli, Enzo, ed. Capolavori dell’arte senese. Florence: Electa, 1947. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, Maria Raffaella de Gramatica, Patrizia Turrini, and Carla Zarrilli, eds. Archivio di Stato di Siena, Museo delle Biccherne. Viterbo: BetaGamma, 2008. Falcone, Maria. “La giovinezza dorata di Sano di Pietro: Un nuovo documento per la ‘Natività’ della Vergine’ di Asciano.” Prospettiva 138 (2010): 28–34. Ferente, Serena. La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino: Storia dei bracceschi in Italia 1423–1465. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2005. Graziani, Alberto. “Il Maestro dell’Osservanza.” In Proporzioni. Text of conference held at the Istituto tedesco di Storia dell’Arte, Florence, 17 February, 1942. Vol. 2, 75–87. 1948. Mavarelli, Cristina Gnoni, and Laura Martini, eds. La Cattedrale di San Lorenzo a Grosseto: Arte e storia dal XIII al XIX secolo. Exhibition catalogue, Grosseto, Fortezza medicea, Cassero senese, 29 June–29 September 1996. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 1996. Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

131

2.

Military Action in Defence of Siena’s Southern Territories Abstract: This chapter shows how shortly after initiating the confraternity project in Siena, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was drawn into serving the military machine of the Republic of Siena, in the guise of ‘esploratore’ (surveyor). His contract, recorded by the office of the Balia (the government tribunal) in December 1455, involved mapping the city and surroundings of Orbetello, under siege by Jacopo Piccinino. This, along with other survey work commissioned around the same time in the face of hostile action by the Orsini of Pitigliano laying siege to Castello Ottieri and, at a later date, following Florentine manoeuvrings in the Val di Chiana, not only compromised the artist’s commitments inside Siena but also impacted his way of life until he was well into his seventies. Keywords: the office of the Balia; Sienese military machine; mercenaries; the Ottieri; Jacopo Piccinino; the Orsini of Pitigliano.

Whether or not it was Meo di Lorenzo who set Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei on the path to the shadier side of Sienese diplomacy and politics is open to question. However, there can be little doubt that having such an individual as a father-in-law must have been useful when it came to seeking out government employment. Indeed, an hypothesis raised and considered here is that it was through the conduit of the office of the Biccherna that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei embarked upon an alternative career as an ‘esploratore’. The December 1455 Balia record shows that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had received payment for ten days work on a view on paper of the city of Orbetello with the Argentario headland in the background. Given the distance between Siena and the Maremma, and the number of days it had apparently taken the artist to complete this image, it seems likely that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei remained on site to complete the work. As a result, he may well have found himself involved at this early stage in his career as a kind of surveyor gaining information on the ground about potential dissidents and in particular those favouring the cause of

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_II_ch02

134 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Count Jacopo Piccinino, the mercenary soldier who had swept down from the north. There can be little doubt, either, that the 1455 mapping was intended to serve the Republic of Siena during engagements not just with one old enemy, but also with other hostile forces in their southern territories. The term ‘esploratore’ – most commonly adopted to mean explorer or one who uncovers the unknown – was in fact also used in the early Renaissance period in the context of political investigation and surveillance work, or undercover espionage. Indeed, the letter despatched in 1482 from the central government in Siena to their ambassador (or ‘oratore’) Sinolfo Ottieri in Rome made specific reference to the ‘exploratori nri’ who had reported on movements by Florentine forces in the vicinity of Staggia Colle and Poggibonsi.1 On this occasion, Sinolfo was instructed by his Sienese masters to inform the papal court of the Republic of Siena’s anxieties about such perceived aggression. Subsequent letters despatched from Siena show that the central government was especially pleased with the way in which Sinolfo Ottieri had been able to discuss the situation with the Pope himself.2 That Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was recorded by Gaetano Milanesi as engaged in similar ‘esploratore’ work in 1483 (some twelve months later than the investigative work undertaken in the area of Staggia, Colle and Poggibonsi), but this time in the Val di Chiana on the eastern front of Siena’s territory, illustrates how the Sienese government remained continually vigilant, constantly surveilling the limits of their territory.3 Given the proximity in time of these two events, it is not impossible that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was one of the ‘esploratori’ who had produced the evidence that was then passed on to Sinolfo Ottieri in Rome. The gathering together of information by ‘esploratori’ was clearly of vital significance to the Sienese government, not only for the safeguarding of their own boundaries but also for getting wind of potential attacks. As the correspondence between the Sienese ‘Signoria’ and Sinolfo Ottieri shows, such information could also provide a useful tool when it came to pleading one’s case in diplomatic exchanges with higher authorities, or when attempts were made to form new alliances. In many ways the work of the ‘esploratore’ was central to the Republic’s wellbeing and diplomacy. The work of the ‘esploratore’ appears not only to have been sensitive, in that it often involved covert activities, but was also a profession that might last a lifetime if the individual concerned gained the trust of his employers. Already in his sixties in 1483, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei must presumably have fallen into that category. 1 ASSi, Concistoro 1695, fol. 26r. 2 See, ASSi, Concistoro 1695, fols. 31r, 39v, 40r, 44r, 44v, 45r, 49v, 55v and especially fol. 77r and fol. 77v. 3 See Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 421, no. 299 (footnote). But see also Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 136 where the date for this work is recorded as 1482.

Military Ac tion in Defence of Siena’s Southern Territories 

How else to explain his engagement to carry out surveillance work when in his mid-thirties and then again thirty years later, at what must have been generally regarded as a comparatively advanced age? That there was a special need for such work around the middle of the fifteenth century is confirmed by correspondence to and from the officials of the Concistoro dating to the mid and later 1450s. These years marked a period of increased and intense conflict with Piccinino’s forces in the Maremma region. It was also a time of great uncertainty and confusion. Government officials in Siena often had to contend not only with betrayal fermented within their own ranks, but also with the equivalent of false news disseminated by their enemies. A letter dated 18 May 1455 and despatched by Jacopo Piccinino from Mensole to Giberto da Correggio – turncoat captain general of the Republic of Siena – revealed a complex web of deceit that was being constructed around Piccinino’s intended movements in the territory to the south and south-east of Siena. 4 The general understanding had been that Piccinino was intent on moving on Perugia in the summer of that year, but his letter to Giberto da Correggio shows that he was instead interested in taking over Orvieto; although he was not entirely sure that there was sufficient support there for such an endeavour to succeed.5 Shortly after the exchange with Giberto da Correggio, Piccinino’s forces did in fact descend out of the blue onto Sienese territory, taking Cetona by storm on 19 June.6 In his May 1455 letter Piccinino began by saying that he has been advised by a ‘secret friend in Rome’ that a certain Giorgio, currently ‘castellano’ of the rocca at Orvieto, had newly reinforced that fortress with infantry and crossbowmen and intended holding it in Jacopo Piccinino’s name. Piccinino advised Giberto to arrange for a ‘familio’ of his to be despatched from Siena with a letter purportedly written by Piccinino himself, assuring the said Giorgio of Piccinino’s friendship and support. Piccinino asked Giberto to send word back as soon as possible as to how the wind blew at Orvieto and to confirm whether or not the reported gifting proposed by the ‘castellano’ there could be trusted. Quite apart from what this letter reveals about all the strategic to-ings and fro-ings behind military manoeuvres, it is significant to note Piccinino’s use of the term ‘amico’ in the context of information received by him from Rome, as well as ‘familio’ in the context of Giberto da Correggio despatching a discreet messenger to Orvieto. While this confirms that both terms were adopted in the context of undercover work, the fact that the ‘friend’ that had been sent from Rome was also described as ‘secret’ indicates that different levels 4 Fumi, Francesco Sforza, p. 21. See also, Banchi, “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena”, (112), pp. 45–47. 5 For Giberto da Correggio and his relationship with Jacomo Piccinino, see Ferente, La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino, p. 49 and pp. 51–52. 6 Ferente, La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino, p. 48.

135

136 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

of visibility existed amongst messengers. There were those that were known and there were those that were unknown. An ongoing hypothesis is that on some occasions Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may have fallen into the latter category. That said, it is clear that the mid 1450s was a time of high alert for Sienese forces in confronting not only Jacomo Piccinino, but also Aldobrandino degli Orsini di Pitigliano – an individual with whom less than easy relationships had been established in previous years. It seems that at the beginning of the fifth decade Leonardo Benvoglienti, in his guise as ‘concistore’ to the Concistoro, was involved in several attempts to strengthen the alliance between Siena and the Orsini. In January 1440/41 Benvoglienti was sent to converse with Madama Paola della Colonna and with her son-in-law Riccardo Orsini to discuss their obligation to provide Siena with grain and barley ‘grano e orzo’.7 Shortly thereafter, another meeting took place between Leonardo Benvoglienti and Madama Paola at Piombino, in which there was a discussion about Rinaldo Orsini having dealings with Florence.8 A few months later, Benvoglienti visited both Pitigliano and Sorano to see if Count Aldobrandino would accept Siena’s ‘capitoli’, or conditions of rule.9 Several years later, in 1450, Leonardo Benvoglienti was yet again involved in the affairs of the Orsini, when he was commissioned to go to Bagni Petriolo to meet with Madama Caterina d’Appiano, wife of Rinaldo Orsini, in an attempt to get her to persuade her husband to stay in league with Siena.10 Despite the ‘gracious welcome’ apparently extended by Madama Caterina, it seems that these attempts at diplomacy failed.11 Only a few years later, the massed forces of the Pitigliano Orsini were lined up in battle formation against Siena, besieging Castello Ottieri. Given previous attempts to persuade the Orsini to remain on the side of the Sienese, the siege of Castello Ottieri must have been a bitter blow, not only for Leonardo Benvoglienti, but also for the Republic of Siena. It seems that between 1455 and 1456 Siena was particularly intent on protecting their faithful servants, the Ottieri, and that family’s power base.12 Indeed, letters despatched to Siena by members of the Ottieri family, when their castle was pinned down under siege by the Pitigliano forces during the autumn of 1455, show that they were desperately counting on Sienese forces coming to their aid. But this somewhat distanced outpost was disadvantaged both by geography and by the immediate restrictions of siege.

7 BCS, Ms. A.V.34, fol. 87v (old fol. 174). 8 BCS, Ms. A.V.34, fol. 89r (old fol. 177). 9 BCS, Ms. A.V.34, fol. 92v (old fol. 183). 10 BCS, Ms. A.V.34, fol. 149v (old fol. 298). 11 BCS, Ms. A.V.34, fol. 176r (old fol. 351). 12 ASSi, Manoscritti C. 19, Spoglio delle lettere, Filza XLIV.

137

Military Ac tion in Defence of Siena’s Southern Territories 

Figure 21  Bonifazio Ottieri, Letter despatched to the Republic of Siena on 19 October 1455, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balia 488, lettera n. 72, 19 ottobre 1455, r.

Individual letters speak of the family’s fear and of the deprivations experienced not only by those who had retreated behind the castle’s walls, but also by those who had been left vulnerable in the surrounding countryside. These are powerful testimonies of the ways in which loyal servants to the Sienese cause clung to the hope that officials from the central government might ride in to their assistance, but who on so many occasions were abandoned to cope as best they could alone. Thus, on 19 October 1455, a letter despatched by Bonifazio Ottieri – ‘Fidelis S(er) vito(re)’ – described how there had been thefts, violence and hostage taking in the immediate vicinity of Castello Ottieri, as well as damage to Ottieri property itself.13 (See Figure 21.) Bonifazio pleaded to be sent just two things – bread and trustworthy men (‘pane e huomini fidati’). Six days later, on 25 October, Bonifazio despatched a second letter.14 (See Figure 22.) In this he stated baldly that they were dying of hunger, that they were 13 ASSi, Balia 488, no. 72. 14 ASSi, Balia 488 – in a section dated 27 March – 31 October 1455.

138 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 22  Bonifazio Ottieri, Letter despatched to the Republic of Siena on 25 October 1455, pen and ink on paper, Archivio di Stato di Siena, Balia 488, lettera n. 85, 25 ottobre 1455, r.

pinned down and that it was impossible to send anyone out from inside without their being seized by the enemy. Bonifazio reported that the previous day he had sent out a ‘maiesstro’ (master?) to repair the mill and to search for several other necessities, but it seems that he too had been waylaid. Once again, Bonifazio pleaded for bread and trustworthy men to be sent to their aid. There seems little doubt that Castello Ottieri and its inhabitants suffered considerable damage as a result of the war waged by Siena against the hostile forces of Count Aldobrandino degli Orsini di Pitigliano and Jacopo Piccinino. One letter despatched by Bonifazio’s father, Giovanni Ottieri, to Siena on 12 October 1458 referred specifically to the great depredations and destruction (‘assai dampni depredationi e guasti’) and the endless expenses (‘infinitissime spese’) that he and his people were facing.15 He reported that they had been unable to work or harvest the surrounding territory (‘frutuare o seminare’), and as a result were reduced to a state of poverty. Giovanni also reported that Castello Ottieri was unable to get the produce it would normally have expected from the Maremma. Claiming that unscrupulous individuals (mostly ‘foreigners’) were taking advantage of the recent years of unrest, illegally exploiting and selling produce from his territory, Giovanni reported that virtually no tax was being paid to the Ottieri who were the rightful owners of that land. Pointing out that some of this tax was due to Siena, and no 15 ASSi, Balia 10, fols. 171v–172v.

Military Ac tion in Defence of Siena’s Southern Territories 

doubt mindful that this, more than anything else, might fire up a response from central government, Giovanni chose this moment to seek an embargo of, or strict taxation on all such nefarious activity in Ottieri territory: in other words from the River Ombrone down towards the papal territory in the south-west and from the Orcia river across to the Val di Chiana in the east. Eight days after the 12 October letter, Giovanni Ottieri wrote to Siena again, informing the ‘Signoria’ that the castle door had been broken down and that his son Bartolomeo had been threatened with death.16 Almost daily missals were then despatched, pleading for water as well as food; until 29 October, when Giovanni sent out a desperate plea that the government should not stand by and let them die and that they had no bread, wine or oil.17 Such correspondence reveals how important it was to have trusted messengers who could slip past hostile forces and carry requests for help as well as reports about events on the ground back to central government officials. Might the hostilities around Castello Ottieri in 1455 have been the occasion whereby Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei – engaged as he was in ‘esploratore’ work around that time – earned the gratitude of the Ottieri family by carrying such messages back to Siena? He was certainly present in the Maremma area for a number of days around that time. I hazard a guess that in carrying out such work, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei must also have come into contact with Leonardo Benvoglienti, likewise engaged in that area. Given Benvoglienti’s attempts to preserve the alliance between the Orsini and Siena, the siege of Castello Ottieri might have provided an opportunity for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to engage in further activity on behalf of the central government. Having his ear to the ground whilst carrying out mapping work in the Maremma region, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may well have been in a good position to despatch reassuring accounts of the Ottieri family’s allegiance to Siena. Such recommendations could then have provided extra leverage to any requests by the Ottieri that Siena should come to their aid. They would also have contributed to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s own growing reputation not only as a trusted servant of the Republic of Siena, but also as a special friend of the Ottieri themselves. In any event, there is evidence to suggest that only a few years after the siege of Castello Ottieri Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was indeed engaged in government service outside Siena. One record dating to 7 June 1458 – concerning the posting of ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo di Francesco’ as ‘castellano’ at Castiglione Val d’Orcia – while not including a specific reference to ‘Alfei’, may very well be our man, as he is described as ‘nostro fidatum’.18 Another entry in a different register, but dating to around the same time, refers quite specifically to the painter collecting 16 ASSi, Balia 488, no. 74. 17 ASSi, Balia 488, no. 96. 18 ASSi, Balia 10, fol. 58v.

139

140 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

pasturing dues on behalf of the Balia during July 1458.19 Noting that ‘Franciscus Bartholi Alfei’ had been sent out under armed escort, this record illustrates yet again the dangers surrounding the movements of government agents during this period. It also shows how, only a few years after abandoning the project to fresco the walls of the confraternity chapel in Siena, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had become involved not only in cartography and mapping work in the Maremma and journeyman painting in Castelmuzio, but also in roving duties as a government dues collector. Had it indeed been Francesco di Bartolomeo the painter who assumed the duty of ‘castellano’ at Castiglione Val d’Orcia, in 1458, we could also argue that he was doing alright financially, having picked up the relatively handsome salary and conditions associated with such a post.20 While that particular posting remains unproven, confirmation that the artist was engaged in a variety of government agency and ‘esploratore’ work between 1455 and 1458 would certainly explain why Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei did not return to complete the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco chapel project. Service undertaken on behalf of the Republic as it attempted to defend its southern territories might indeed have led to a conflict of interests; interrupting the young artist’s attempts to establish himself as an independent painter back in Siena. What might have marked a successful start under the protection and authority of both the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and the ‘frati minori’ of San Francesco in Siena must at the very least have been temporarily interrupted. There is another narrative worth exploring, that is likewise based on the dayto-day practicalities of carrying out the confraternity project. But which focusses on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s own emergence and reputation as a fresco painter. The commission to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco must have seemed a break-through in terms of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s future expectations. At the same time it must have seemed somewhat daunting, untried in this particular field as Francesco di Bartolomeo presumably was in the early 1450s. The minutiae of organising scaffolding for the fresco work; the bringing together of all the materials necessary for the plastering of the walls, let alone the designing and painting of the individual sections would have been testing even for an established artist in charge of a well-organised workshop. For the neophyte Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, apparently without previous experience in fresco work and clearly without an extensive workshop force in 1453, such a project must, at the very least, have been challenging. It might not have been so surprising, therefore, had Francesco

19 ASSi, Balia 398, fol. 106r. 20 In this context, see ASSi, Concistoro 2388.

Military Ac tion in Defence of Siena’s Southern Territories 

di Bartolomeo taken advantage of distractions elsewhere to remove himself from the project in hand. By turning his back on the confraternity commission, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears in effect to have deprived himself of further access to patronage amongst the broader Franciscan community in Siena and elsewhere. More specifically, he appears to have rejected the possibility of a successful career as a fresco painter. Was this perhaps because he was not up to the job? Or was it because the attractions of a different kind of work elsewhere were and had become too tempting? That aside, the question arises why such an apparently untried painter as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei should have been commissioned to carry out fresco work in this confraternity chapel in the first place. Might this undertaking have resulted from a web of influence already established by the young artist within the Franciscan order? Or might the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco have turned to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei because of a workshop association already formed between him and Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro? Or, might it simply have been because Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro, having themselves already established a close relationship with the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, were in a good position to recommend one of their fellow artists for a further task? I attempt to find answers to some of these questions in Part Three

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Banchi, Luciano. “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena e la Lega Italica (1455–1456).” Archivio Storico Italiano serie Quarta 4, no. 112 (1879): 44–58 and serie Quarta 4, no. 113 (1879): 225–45. Ferente, Serena. La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino: Storia dei bracceschi in Italia 1423–1465. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2005. Fumi, Luigi. Francesco Sforza contro Jacopo Piccinino (Dalla Pace di Lodi alla Morte di Calisto 3). Perugia: Unione Tipografica Cooperativa, 1910. Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856.

141

Part Three Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Undertake Work for the ‘Chompangnia e Fraternita di San Franciescho posta nel Chonvento di San Franciescho’

1.

The Fraternity Abstract: Part Three focuses on the artist’s connections with the ‘frati minori’ in Siena and the reconstruction and refurbishment work carried out by the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco around the middle of the fifteenth century. Chapter One considers the history and background of the Franciscan fraternity, detailing its increasing importance following the death and canonisation of the Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi. Records about building work expanding the company’s old hospital (a structure initiated by Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei) are set against evidence of the role assumed by a second sponsor, Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo; including that individual’s involvement in a commission to Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro to produce a new altarpiece for the confraternity. Keywords: San Francesco; the Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi; hospitals; patronage and sponsorship; refurbishment work.

The close relationship that was formed between different groups of lay religious and the ‘frati minori’ as the latter constructed their new conventual complex and basilical church of San Francesco in Siena takes centre stage in my current research. Tracking records about foundations, tituli, membership lists, and the various spaces in which lay religious assembled over time I am engaged in showing how the fifteenth-century Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco could trace its origins back to the earliest group of Franciscans who assembled outside the walls of Siena in the early thirteenth century. I am also attempting to show how the various furnishings and fittings (including the ‘Master of San Bernardino’ altarpiece of the Virgin and Child) that accompanied different groups of lay religious as they moved from one part of the conventual complex of San Francesco to another over time reflected individual confraternity histories. I argue that exploration of this kind helps us understand not only the circumstances under which Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were commissioned to paint a new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco around the middle of the fifteenth century, but also the significance of

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_III_ch01

146 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

the parallel brief to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to fresco the same company’s chapel. Some of the key findings of that research are summarised here. The connection between the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and the ‘frati minori’ of San Francesco was well established by the mid fifteenth century. Indeed, earlier groups of lay religious, although assembling under a variety of tituli, were often referred to simply in terms of their being the Compagnia di San Francesco. As its title confirms, members of the fifteenthcentury Fraternity of the Blessed Mary of the Angels and Company of Saint Francis acknowledged several authorities. Apart from an allegiance to their ‘advocate’, the Virgin Mary, this group of lay religious clearly also acknowledged its association with the Franciscan basilica in Siena and its titular Saint Francis. In the opening statement of a company register that was begun on 1 October 1452, the fraternity’s ‘advocata’ and ‘protettrice’ (advocate and protector) is indeed identified as ‘Maria sempre Vergine’ (the ever chaste Mary, or Mary, the Immaculate).1 In on-going research I am exploring the implications of this title against the background of the history of the Fraternita della Beata Maria Sempre Vergine, a group of lay religious founded and dedicated to the service of the Blessed Virgin Mary that is believed to have been the first to be taken under the umbrella and protection of the Company of the Friars in the thirteenth century. According to early records it was this confraternity that commissioned the altarpiece that is now known as the ‘Master of San Bernardino’ Virgin and Child. It seems clear that by the mid fifteenth century the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco was regarded as one of the principal Franciscan companies in Siena, following the part it and the friars of San Francesco played in the canonisation of the Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi. Apart from creating a great buzz, that endeavour – involving key members of the Sienese diplomatic corps and leading religious authorities from inside and beyond Siena courting papal interest and agreement – must have required very special negotiating skills. Both the ‘frati minori’ and their associated lay religious assumed a central role in the lavish celebrations that were held in Siena, following Bernardino’s official sanctification. The reputation of the Franciscan conventual complex and its associated confraternity appears as a result to have assumed much greater significance. Indeed, there is evidence to show that the membership of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco increased exponentially, following attempts to canonise the recently deceased ‘Beato’.2 This inevitably boosted the confraternity’s financial affairs through membership dues, donations and patronage: as well no doubt as stimulating a wider interest in the company itself. It seems, moreover, that 1 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 2r. 2 See Liberati, “Chiese, monasteri” (1958), p. 141 and ASSi, Patri. resti 3522, 17.

147

The Fr aternit y 

Figure 23  The Oratory of San Bernardino on the Piazza di San Francesco.

Figure 24 Porticoed entrance to the Office of the Carabinieri on Piazza di San Francesco.

148 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

the company’s recently completed hospital on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco – the Ospedale delle Stimmate di San Francesco (aka Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco) – a complex that had been initiated by Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei during the second decade of the century and carried forward by another patron, Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo from the later 1420s, was also set to acquire greater stature. This structure was not only used for the care of confraternity members and sick friars. Surviving records show that at least a part of the hospital complex was put at the disposal of visiting scholars, dignitaries and officials of the inquisition. At the same time there is evidence to show that the company’s headquarters, and what they described as their ‘chiesa’ (the term ‘oratorio’ being a much later convention), was situated on the upper floor of what is now known as the Oratory of San Bernardino. This structure, which currently houses the Museo Diocesano of Siena, abuts the Piazza di San Francesco on its southern side. The small porticoed entrance on its left-hand side, which now opens onto offices currently used by the Carabinieri, is thought to mark the site of the old hospital. (See Figures 23 and 24.) By the second half of the 1440s, it seems that the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and its hospital complex was set to become the beating heart of the Franciscan community inside the city walls.3 That its membership had increased exponentially, resulting in greater financial security and a new altarpiece by Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro commissioned, finished and delivered; that a commission to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was in the offing and plans were in hand for extensive reconstruction of the premises that were already owned by the confraternity is thus significant.

Mid-Fifteenth-Century Building Work An argument persists that the mid-fifteenth-century building work that was carried out by the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco took place on the site of the building that became known as the Oratorio di San Bernardino. However, it seems to me that many of the records in registers drawn up by the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco sit uneasily beside that narrative; indicating rather that much building work was carried out on the adjacent hospital site of the Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco.

3 For the centre of Franciscan devotion outside the walls, L’Osservanza, see Bertagna, L’Osservanza di Siena.

The Fr aternit y 

Reconsideration of the surviving records indicates that the original intention around the middle of the fifth decade of the fifteenth century was in fact to reconstruct and refurbish the spaces of the old Ospedale delle Stimmate di San Francesco aka Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco complex, rather than to make structural changes to what at a slightly later date was being referred to as the confraternity’s church. One hypothesis I raise and consider here is that the decision to enlarge the old hospital may in fact have arisen following the death of one of the sponsors who had been involved in the completion of the old hospital, Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo. That individual played a significant part in the hospital’s affairs between the end of the 1420s and his death shortly before December 1445: not only underwriting the cost of furnishings in the original hospital ward on the ground-floor level of the ‘sacrato’, but also (and as we shall also see here) financing the new altarpiece for the company. It may well be, therefore, that Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s intention was that this new altarpiece should be set up in one of the existing hospital spaces he had done so much to create: complementing the beds and other items already sponsored by him a couple of decades earlier. One hypothesis considered here is that following Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s death, the confraternity officials had to re-think where best to display the new altarpiece. In doing so, they may also have decided that this was a good moment to adopt another plan; to expand the space of the old hospital itself in order to create a new and larger hospital wing directly above. It seems that only a few years after Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s death, the construction of a new hospital wing of some considerable size was indeed already in hand at an upper level. There also seems little doubt that this reconstruction work was taking place on the same upper level as the space that was referred to as the company’s ‘chiesa’. At the end of the fifth decade of the fifteenth century the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco appear to have regarded the upper-floor church space in terms of its also being their assembly area, or headquarters. There is confirmation of this in a record that was drawn up on 24 May 1448, where reference was made to the ‘new’ hospital that was under construction ‘alato ala nostra chonpagnia’.4 According to this record, payment was being made to ‘Maestro Pietro delabbacho’ (Pietro dell’Abaco) for the ‘poliza’ (or plan) he had drawn up concerning the measuring up of the walls of the company’s new hospital.5 In fact, there is evidence to show that several stretches of new wall had already been constructed by a stoneworker – referred to as ‘Maestro Paolo della Testa’ – by the early summer of 1448. 4 ASSi, Patri. resti 207, fol. 20v. 5 ASSi, Patri. resti 207, fol. 20v. For Pietro dell’Abaco, see Adams, “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco”.

149

150 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The measurements listed by Pietro dell’Abaco contain significant information not only about the height of the new extension but also about its orientation. Thus, in the first instance we read that work on the façade ‘towards the refectory’ involved a stretch of wall measuring 10 braccia with, in addition, an extension of the same wall measuring 5 1/4 braccia. The measurements of the outside façade ‘faccia di fuore’ were recorded as involving a width of 6 3/4 braccia and a height of 8 2/3 braccia. The measurements of the third wall were recorded as 9 2/3 braccia in length and 9 braccia in height. And another insert recorded a further 4 1/3 braccia in length and 6 braccia in height of the old wall ‘dal muro vecchio’. The project to extend the walls of the original hospital complex seems to have involved virtually doubling the height of the pre-existing one-storey building. At over 8 braccia (some 8–10 metres) in height, the new hospital walls that were recorded as under construction in May 1448 must have resulted in a reasonably sized, albeit fairly modest, two-storey façade. By contrast, at 15 or so braccia in depth and nearly 7 braccia in width, the floor space of the newly created upper floor would have amounted to just over 100 square braccia – slightly less than 200 square metres. This must have been an impressive space. There were, however, delays along the way. The new upper-floor hospital wing was eventually only just nearing completion on 2 August 1462, when a payment of 46 soldi was registered in the context of whitewashing the spaces there: indicating that the hospital ward, at least, was ready to be furnished.6 An engraved stone tablet that survives on the ground floor of what is now the Diocesan Museum refers to the project (which included the construction of a new hospital chapel on the upper floor) as only finally being finished in 1465. (See Figure 25.) Little, if any attempt appears to have been made before 1448 to reconstruct preexisting confraternity premises on the upper floor. Indeed, surviving records from the late 1440s make no reference to any alterations in the so-called ‘chiesa’ until after the drawing up of an inventory of the confraternity’s possessions in 1452.7 While listing the furnishings and fittings in the ‘chiesa’ at that date, the 1452 inventory also refers to a space that appears to have been adjacent not only to their church, but also to the proposed new upper-floor hospital wing. This was the ‘spogliatoio’ (a dressing room or cubicle in which members of the company would no doubt have vested and divested themselves). It seems, therefore, that the reconstruction project upon which the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco had embarked several years earlier was intended to establish a number of interconnecting spaces at an upper level: in effect, filling in the space that had previously existed between two freestanding structures. 6 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 281v. 7 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 3r.

151

The Fr aternit y 

Figure 25 Engraved stone tablet commemorating the completion of the new hospital and chapel of the Compagnia di Santa Maria degli Angeli e di San Francesco, 1465, Museo Diocesano, Siena.

All in all, the surviving records appear to confirm that it was the creation of the new hospital on the upper floor of the pre-existing premises on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco that commanded the attention of the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco between 1444 and 1448. However, this work appears to have stalled around 1448, only picking up pace a decade later. In the meantime, attention had apparently turned to the company’s ‘church’, and the furnishings and fittings there. One notion pursued in this book is that this change of emphasis was linked to decisions taken in the wake of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s death. Another notion (discussed in detail in the following chapter) is that Antonio di Francesco’s death caused a delay in setting up the new altarpiece that he had sponsored, but which was apparently not completed until August 1446 (several months after his death). In reconsidering the records surrounding the completion of this commission, it became clear that the altarpiece was not delivered to the confraternity premises on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco until over a year after it was finished. Moreover, it was not until some five years after that date that it was finally recorded as set up on the altar of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in their upper-floor

152 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

‘church’. In the following chapter I analyse in detail the recorded progress on the production of the new altarpiece and attempt to explain the delay between its completion; its delivery and its setting in place.

Bibliography Adams, Nicholas. “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco, a Renaissance Estimator from Siena (Active 1457–1486).” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 48, no. 3 (1985): 384–95. Bertagna, Martino. L’Osservanza di Siena: Studi storici. 3 vols. Siena: Osservanza, 1963–1964. Liberati, Alfredo. “Chiese, monasteri, oratori e spedali senesi: Ricordi e notizie.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 46–68 (1939–1961). Especially, 64 (1957): 186–201 and 65 (1958): 137–52.

2.

A New Altarpiece Abstract: Chapter Two considers the production of the new altarpiece commissioned from Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro early in 1444. Attempting to explain the delay between its completion in April 1446 and its delivery eighteen months later, it is suggested that the death of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo some time before December 1445 led to the altarpiece being displayed on a different site than that originally intended (the company’s upper-floor ‘church’ rather than the old ground-floor hospital chapel). Confraternal decorations and furnishings recorded in an inventory of the fraternity’s ‘church’ in 1452 offers support for the hypothesis that changes were made after that sponsor’s death: as does the altarpiece’s recorded iconography, which included references to the sponsor and a number of Franciscan lay religious (including the Beato Pietro Pettinaio). Keywords: Giovanni di Paolo; Sano di Pietro; Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo Lapo; conventual space; iconography; pilgrimage sites.

Previous Analysis and Documentary Evidence In their 1985 article on the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, Cecilia Alessi and Piero Scapecchi referred to an altarpiece that was commissioned around 1450 from Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro for a confraternity assembling under the titulus Compagnia di San Francesco.1 The same authors suggested that while Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were working on that altarpiece, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was working alongside them, engaged on the same site, frescoing the confraternity’s ‘chapel’. Surviving records from the archive of the Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala (which were published by Peleo Bacci in 1941) confirm that a new altarpiece was indeed being painted by Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro around the fifth 1 In this context, see Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, pp. 20, 29 and 32, where the authors – noting that Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo had collaborated on the project of a new altarpiece for the Compagnia di San Francesco (sic) – indicate that this work was being produced alongside fresco work that was being carried out by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei around 1454.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_III_ch02

154 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

decade of the fifteenth century (specifically, for the ‘Chompangnia e Fraternita di San Franciescho posta nel Chonvento di San Franciescho’).2 Bettina Koeper also pointed out that the altarpiece referred to in the Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala archive was the same altarpiece that Émile Gaillard had identified in 1923, as produced for the ‘Compagnia di San Bernardino’ between the summer of 1444 and 1447.3 Against this background, the chronology suggested by Alessi and Scapecchi seems questionable. In fact, I can now show that the project to produce a new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco was already in hand by January 1443/4: there being references at that date to the preparation of the altarpiece’s woodwork. This is significant, given Alessi and Scapecchi’s claim that whilst Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were involved in painting the altarpiece for the ‘Compagnia di San Francesco’, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was carrying out fresco work for the same company on the same site. Given what is known about the date by which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei established his own independent painter’s workshop, that seems unlikely. That said, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may indeed have been working alongside Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro during the production of the altarpiece, but in a minor capacity and some years before being himself engaged as an independent master to carry out fresco work for the same confraternity. As the archival evidence presented here shows, not only was the commission for the altarpiece allotted jointly to Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro, but it was also intended that each artist should receive an equal share of the payment. More significantly, we can now show that this was not an altarpiece that had been commissioned following the Beato Bernardino’s canonisation in 1450. Nor was this a project stimulated by the Beato’s death, since it was set in hand a few months before that. It is possible therefore that this commission formed part of an ongoing programme that the fraternity was already engaged in by the early months of 1444; a programme that was initially financed by Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo and which focussed on the reconstruction and refurbishment of the old hospital building. How then to explain the protracted nature of this commission? This was a project that was set in place during the early days and weeks of 1444. Yet, according to an entry inserted in the surviving confraternity record book which was begun on 1 October 1452, a residual payment of 20 lire was still owed to Sano di Pietro over a decade later (in the summer of 1454), in respect of his involvement in the project 2 Bacci, “Documenti e commenti”, p. 22, Docs. XIX and XX. 3 Koeper, “Die Ausstättung”, p. 30. See also, Gaillard, Sano di Pietro, p. 41. In 1925, Jörg Trübner (Die stilistische Entwickelung, pp. 85–86, note 191) referring to an inventory that had been drawn up in 1452, noted the reference there to a new altarpiece and its iconography, and suggested that it had been worked on solely by Sano di Pietro between 1445 and 1452.

A New Altarpiece 

to produce the ‘tavola dellaltare’ (‘per resto dela sua parte di lire 320 si pagava dela dipentura dela tavola dellaltare … per noi da domenicho Ceccho Buzichello ko [camarlengho] stato dela co(mpag)nia’). 4 Although not itself specifically dated (a blank being left after the phrase ‘up until the day …’ – ‘i(n) sin(o) a di …’), it seems that the entry regarding Sano di Pietro post-dated 15 July 1454 (the next secure date in the register (on fol. 265r) being 14 August). It seems likely, therefore, that the entry was inserted some time between 15 July and 14 August 1454. The section of the record book in which the reference to Sano di Pietro is inserted is headed MCCCCLII (1452). It carries an explanatory passage which makes it clear that all the entries to be included in the following pages of the register concerned debts of the company that were to be paid by the new treasurer, Francesco di Ser Gardo, regardless of their original circumstances (‘p(er) qualunche ragione si sia i(n) p(ri) ma’). Clearly, the outstanding debt to Sano di Pietro was an ongoing issue. Given the amount of money recorded, there can be little doubt, either, that the altarpiece in question was of some size.5 On one reading, the mid 1454 entry would seem to indicate that Sano di Pietro was the sole individual involved in producing the altarpiece cited there. In fact, other surviving records tell a very different story. Another company register covering the years between 1432 and 1447 reveals that the altarpiece had been commissioned from two artists: Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo. Moreover, both individuals had been involved with the project for a new altarpiece some ten years before the reference to the residual payment to Sano di Pietro in 1454. In fact, it seems possible that the project for a new altarpiece was already in hand during the closing months of 1443, since the first references to the production of the wooden frame and support date to the early days of 1444. On a page dated 1443 in a company register covering 1 January 1432 to 9 September 1447, there is a reference towards the end of January [1443/4] to a payment of 12 lire made to the woodworker Maestro Giovanni di Francesco ‘detto delabbolo’ for part of the wood for the company’s altarpiece that he had been commissioned to produce.6 Payments for this work continued until 7 July 1444 when the woodworker received what appears to have been a final payment of 50 lire – in recognition of the cost of materials and his own craftsmanship in undertaking this project. It is interesting, that Giovanni di Francesco was paid the not inconsiderable sum of 72 lire and 10 soldi for his labours. This appears to confirm that the altarpiece was of some size. A few weeks after Giovanni di Francesco’s 7 July payment, Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro 4 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 264v. 5 The overall sum of 320 lire would suggest an altarpiece of some size and complexity. See Thomas, Painter’s Practice, pp. 182–96. 6 ASSi, Patri. resti 220, fol. 59v (new fol. 53v).

155

156 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

were not only already at work, but had already completed some of the painting of the altarpiece for the ‘company’s altar’. An entry dated 16 August 1444 in the same company register spanning the years 1432–1447 records that the two artists should receive a payment of 20 lire for work already completed by them on the painted altarpiece (‘Maestro Sano di Pietro e maestro Giovanni di Paolo dipintori de dare a di xvi dagosto l. 20 per parte di dipintura della tavola dellaltare dela chonp(agni) a’).7 This entry is followed by a number of references to payments in both cash and kind that were made separately to each artist over the following months, including what appears to be a final payment of 9 lire and 12 soldi to Giovanni di Paolo in April 1446. Later in the same register – on a page headed 1447 – there is an entry that confirms the agreed overall payment to both artists, of 80 florins, at 4 lire per florin.8 In a hand that is clearly different, but on the same page as the 1447 entry, we read that 20 lire was still owed to Sano di Pietro as final payment of his share of the promised 320. According to this additional note, we also learn that the company’s officials had agreed to pass on to the two artists (in part payment for their work on the altarpiece) a sum of 100 lire that had been promised to them by Santa Maria della Scala, following a bequest to the company that was included in testamentary stipulations handed down to the hospital on behalf of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo. Although Giovanni di Paolo appears to have received his half of the 100 lire by 1447, Sano di Pietro – for some undisclosed reason – had not. This situation was clearly taken seriously by the company, as several individuals gathered together to witness the additional note concerning the outstanding debt (including two syndics of the company, Biagio di Francesco di Dino and Bartolomeo di Paolo), and the treasurer, Domenico di Cecco (Francesco). In fact, an endnote to the same record reveals that the delay in the final payment to Sano di Pietro was not the fault of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Rather, it was due to the fact that the hospital of Santa Maria della Scala had failed to pass on the full sum bequeathed by Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo.9 Given the timing of payments to the woodworker, it seems unlikely that Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo would have commenced work on the new altarpiece before 7 July 1444, although it is of course possible that the painted work had started earlier (given that payments were often made in arrears). That said, the reference to a joint initial payment to Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo on 17 August 1444 would seem to confirm that they had indeed only recently received the finished woodwork and set to work. 7 ASSi, Patri. resti 220, fol. 60r (new fol. 55r). 8 ASSi, Patri. resti 220, fol. 69r (new fol. 63r). 9 For what was in effect a banking service offered by Santa Maria della Scala, see Piccinni and Travaini, Il libro del Pellegrino.

A New Altarpiece 

It does not seem, however, that the f inancing of the project went entirely smoothly. That the gathering together of money to pay for the new altarpiece was a piecemeal affair is indicated in the records that were published by Peleo Bacci: the most significant one being that dated 22 December 1445.10 According to this, the officials of Santa Maria della Scala had been instructed on that day to hand over 100 lire which had been left by Antonio di Francesco to the Company and Fraternity of San Francesco, in order to boost previous legacies left by the same donor (‘La Chonpangnia e fraternita di San Francesco posta nel Chonvento di San Franciescho di Siena e uomini Chonpangnia dieno avere a di’ 22 di dicienbre 1445 lire ciento di denari e quali sono per altrettanti le lasò Antonio di Franciescho di Jachomo di Lapo del quale l’Ospedale è rede’). The additional money was specifically to be made available for an altarpiece by Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo that was being made, or that he had had made, for the company (‘E de’ detti danari se ne deba fare la volontà di maiestro Sano di Pietro e di maestro Giovanni di Pauolo dipentori, sono per una tav(o)la fecie nella detta Chonpagnia’). The December 1445 record notes that the hospital’s officials had been informed about the ongoing project by three syndics of the Company and Fraternity of San Francesco (‘E chosì ci disse Biagio di Franciescho di Dino e Bartalomeo di Pauolo e lodovicho di Domenicho del Vechio, sindachi di detta Chonpangnia’). It seems likely, therefore, that Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo had been helping to fund work on the company’s new altarpiece for some time before December 1445 and that his overall contribution to the project was considerably more than 100 lire. The recorded involvement of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo in the project to produce a new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco is significant. For it reveals that an association that had been established by him with the group of lay religious assembling under the titulus Compagnia di Santa Maria degli Angeli e di San Francesco around the end of the third decade of the fifteenth century had persisted over a further decade or so. Given what appears to have been a final payment to Giovanni di Paolo in August 1446, one conclusion must be that the additional resources handed over in December of the previous year had indeed enabled the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco to continue paying off the two artists. Indeed, a second document published by Bacci confirms that this is exactly what happened, since it includes a series of payments made to both Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo, between December 1445 and August 1446. Positioned on the same page in the Santa Maria della Scala register as the entry dated 22 December 1445, there are three references to payments made to Giovanni di Paolo ranging between 20 and 25 lire and covering the period between 2 March 10 Bacci, “Documenti e commenti”, p. 22, Doc. XIX.

157

158 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

and 17 May 1446, and two separate payments of 15 lire to Sano di Pietro in the period between 14 July and 18 August 1446.11 Although Bacci maintained that these payments amounted to final reckonings to both artists following the completion of the new altarpiece, both the 1447 endnote in the 1432–1447 record book and the record drawn up seven years later in the summer of 1454 confirm the existence of one outstanding payment. As the endnote in the 1432–1447 record book shows, the Santa Maria della Scala officials had reneged on the agreement. The hospital still owed the company 20 of the promised 100 lire. Without the clarification provided by other records, the single reference in December 1445 might have seemed to confirm that the extra 100 lire destined as additional remuneration to the two artists for their contributions to the work for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco had indeed been despatched. We now know that part of the bequest had not been handed over two years later than December 1445, and that it was still outstanding almost a decade later. The delay in completing payment to Sano di Pietro probably explains why the incoming company treasurer in 1452, Francesco di Ser Gardo, thought fit to note in the opening paragraph of the new account book, that he was picking up and recording everything (including debts) that he had inherited from the previous treasurer, Domenico di Francesco.12 There can be no doubt that the single reference in 1454 to an outstanding payment to Sano di Pietro reflected only part of a much more complex picture. This was clearly a project with at least one outstanding debt that stretched over a considerable period of time. Moreover, as both artists were clearly intended to receive equal payment for their work on the altarpiece and no evidence has yet come to light to indicate that either of them played a leading role in its production, a question must inevitably arise about the nature of the workshop relationship existing between Sano di Pietro and Giovanni di Paolo whilst working on this project. The involvement of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo in funding Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro’s work has not apparently attracted much comment either. Although recorded some fifteen or so years prior to the initial stages of the new altarpiece, when assuming responsibility for all of Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei’s possessions in 1428 (as well as donating 25 gold florins – some 100 lire – towards the expected completion of a projected hospital), it nevertheless seems that Antonio di Francesco’s interest in the affairs of the lay religious of San Francesco had persisted: arrangements being made in their favour even in the aftermath of his death. Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s sponsorship of the Compagnia di San Francesco had clearly extended beyond both the expected completion of 11 Bacci, “Documenti e commenti”, pp. 22–23, Doc. XX. 12 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 3r.

A New Altarpiece 

the Ospedale delle Stimmate di San Francesco aka Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco and the financing of beds and covers inside the newly completed hospital ward. Indeed, had Antonio di Francesco not died some time before December 1445, he might well have continued providing financial support for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. He may even have been minded to underwrite some of the expenses involved in the wider reconstruction and refurbishment work initiated by the confraternity officials around 1444. The new altarpiece must certainly have been in his sights around that date. More significantly, given his sponsorship, Antonio di Francesco must surely have had some say on where the completed altarpiece should be displayed. It is noticeable that none of the records concerning progress of work on the new altarpiece offer any specific indications about the space in which it was destined to be displayed: apart from the somewhat vague reference to the company’s altar. Even when recording Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s final ‘lascito’, the wording allows two different interpretations: that this extra money was to go towards an altarpiece the confraternity was ‘having made’ or that ‘had been made’. It seems extremely unlikely, though, that such an expensive item of furnishing would have been produced in a vacuum. There is much to support the argument that Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo may originally have hoped that the new altarpiece would be displayed in a space commemorating his own life and good works. Given his sponsorship of the Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco, one obvious space must have been either the hospital ward itself, or the adjacent hospital chapel. Interestingly, a record drawn up in the autumn of 1454 in respect of the annual Office of the Dead that was to be chanted for the soul of Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei (as well as for his father, his mother and other family members) noted that the office itself was to be carried out ‘nella detta compagnia ovvero nel hospedale detta’.13 Given that the new upper-floor hospital wing and adjacent new hospital chapel had not been constructed by 1454, I argue that such prayers could only have been offered in the old hospital complex on the ground floor. The fact that the record in respect of the Office of the Dead for the Tolomei family makes no reference to the space of the upper-floor church, but indicates that the hospital space was synonymous with or at least equal to that of ‘the company’, provides further support for the notion pursued here that the company chapel in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was expected to carry out fresco work was separate from the company’s upper-floor chamber. What then of another hypothesis raised here, that the two confraternity commissions were linked? Might the new altarpiece have originally been intended for 13 ASSi, Patri. resti 178, fol. 13r.

159

160 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

the same chapel space that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was commissioned to fresco? That being the case, was there anything about the altarpiece’s iconography that might indicate that it was specifically intended for a hospital space, rather than a confraternal church/oratory space? The inventory that was drawn up of the possessions of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco some time before 1 October 1452, included quite detailed references to the iconography of the new altarpiece. Clearly in polyptych form, but without any specific reference to its being adorned with a predella, the altarpiece was described as containing a central image of the Madonna surrounded by angels with, at one side, the figures of saints Peter and ‘Ludovico’ (Louis) and at the other, the figures of saints John the Baptist and Francis. The fact that the Virgin Mary was depicted as surrounded by angels would clearly have resonated not only with the titulus currently adopted by the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, but also with the titles of earlier groups of lay religious associated with the Franciscan conventual complex. The imagery of the new altarpiece might thus have been deemed appropriate for display on a number of altars associated with the fifteenth-century confraternity and particularly in a space carrying the titulus Cappella di Santa Maria degli Angeli. However, given what I have established about the date at which the confraternity’s upper-floor chapel acquired such a title (a decade after the new altarpiece had been commissioned; some seven years following its delivery to the company and at least two years after it was set in position above the ‘company altar’) it seems more likely that the titulus in question was adopted as a result of the new altarpiece being displayed there: rather than the image itself being specifically commissioned for that space. A notion I consider in some detail in Part Three is that the company’s upper chamber, or ‘church’, did indeed become known as the space of the Virgin of the Angels because of the altarpiece’s iconography, rather than the other way round. A case is mounted here in support of the notion that the iconography of the new altarpiece would have resonated more explicitly with the ground-floor space of the Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco. The inclusion of both the titular Saint Francis and the Virgin Mary surrounded by angels would certainly have been appropriate in the context of the hospital’s titulus. Two figures that were recorded in the 1452 inventory, Peter and Louis, may also have been intended to reflect the Franciscan mission of charity and healing adopted in the confraternity’s hospital. Louis of Anjou, as a member of the Order of Friars Minor, would have been particularly relevant, in terms of establishing a link not only with the Franciscans, but also with the ‘frati minori’ in Siena. As Diana Norman has shown, the friars of San Francesco acknowledged a special relationship with this fourteenth-century Franciscan convert through several of the decorations that embellished the Sienese basilica: including in the Lorenzetti frescoes that were painted in the chapter house

A New Altarpiece 

there.14 But the figure standing at Louis’ side in the new altarpiece may have carried an even stronger charge in terms not only of the ‘frati minori’ and San Francesco, but also of their associated lay religious and the fifteenth-century confraternity’s ownership of the Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco. No distinctions were drawn in the 1452 inventory as to whether this figure depicted Peter, the apostle, or Pietro Pettinaio, the thirteenth-century Franciscan ‘beato’ of Siena. The latter is favoured here, not only because the original tomb of the Beato Pietro Pettinaio is known to have been erected in the first church of San Francesco shortly after work began on that structure, but also because the Blessed Peter occupied a central position in devotions there from an early date.15 Assuming the status of a cult, various sites associated with the Beato Pietro Pettinaio were in fact designated as points of pilgrimage inside the Franciscan basilica. Indeed, the Blessed Peter appears to have remained unchallenged at San Francesco until another Franciscan ‘beato’, Bernardino Albizzeschi, began to eclipse him around 1450. In the eyes of those who came to San Francesco to offer their respect and devotion in return for his protection, Pietro Pettinaio held a particular power. He had not only been a member of the Franciscan Third Order. He was also local to Siena and had formed a particularly close relationship with the ‘frati minori’ there. The Blessed Peter would in addition have provided an exemplary role model for any lay religious intent on serving the poor, the lame and the sick: being renowned for having served as a nurse in the hospital of Santa Maria della Scala in Siena and to have worked tirelessly for the poor. He was even said to have spent his last days in a cell near to the infirmary of the new Franciscan complex, before his death in 1289. Between them, Louis and the Blessed Peter would have encompassed both branches of the Franciscan Order, as well as providing visual links to the daily workings of the Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco. Pietro Pettinaio, in particular, would have been an appropriate figure to include in an altarpiece that was intended to be displayed in the ground-floor space of the hospital on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco. Given the position occupied by the ‘Beato’ in the devotional celebrations of the nearby Franciscan basilica, there would have been very good reasons why he should be selected for inclusion in an image that was destined to be displayed on an adjacent site. Even more so, had – as is hypothesised here – the sponsor been intent on establishing a new pilgrimage point for the faithful. Pilgrims not only represented spiritual enrichment. They were also a source of revenue. That such issues may already have been in the air in 14 Norman, Siena and the Angevins. See also, Interguglielmi, “Il ciclo di affreschi”, pp. 132–51. 15 In this context, see Angelis, Vita del B. Pietro Pettinaio. See also Mary Harvey Doyno, “Civic Patron as Ideal Citizen: The Cult of Pier ‘Pettinaio’ of Siena”, in The Lay Saint, pp. 83–124.

161

162 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

the fifteenth century is backed up by references in later records of the Compagnia di San Bernardino to the specific advantages of having one’s own cult image.16 By stipulating that the Blessed Peter should be included in the line-up of saints around the Virgin of the Angels in the new altarpiece, the intention may thus have been to attract some of those ‘pilgrims’ who visited sites inside San Francesco in order to offer their devotions to the Beato Piero Pettinaio. Indeed, part of the brief to Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro might have been to replicate at least some of the details of a fictive altarpiece that had been painted by Lippo Vanni in a space inside the basilica of San Francesco that was associated with the ‘Beato Pietro’.17 The line-up of saints in the new altarpiece, including if they did, Francis, John the Baptist and the ‘Blessed Peter’, would have been remarkably similar to the iconography of Lippo Vanni’s fresco. A direct connection may thus have been established with at least one significant pilgrimage site inside the Franciscan basilica. Had Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo been intent on establishing a new focus of devotion in the Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco, the iconography selected for the new altarpiece could have constituted an important part of the plan. Moreover, set up above an altar on the ground floor of the hospital complex that Antonio di Francesco had himself helped to complete, such an image would not only have stimulated devotion from those seeking medical help and spiritual comfort, but would also have boosted the patron’s own credentials.

The ‘New’ Altarpiece Delivered and Set in Place Until recently, few questions have been raised about the apparent disparities in timing concerning the commissioning, production and completion of the new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. My own research throws a little extra light on the initial stages of work and the working relationship that was established between Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro during that project. One record in particular offers further clarification about the production process. But it also raises a puzzling question: Why was it that the altarpiece was not delivered to the confraternity premises until at least a year after it was finished? According to an entry in a record book that was begun on 26 September 1447 (but which covers the confraternity’s affairs up to 1457), the new altarpiece had been delivered just before, or on the Feast Day of Saint Francis on 5 October 1447. 16 ASSi, Patri. resti 187, fols. 288v–289r. 17 For the positioning of decorations inside the basilica of San Francesco, see Paolo Torriti, La Basilica di San Francesco and Carli, L’Arte nella Basilica.

A New Altarpiece 

On that date the current treasurer of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, Bartolomeo di Mariano Allegretti, noted that money was owed to the friars of San Francesco in connection with two offices they had celebrated – one for the dead and the other ‘when the new altarpiece came to the company’ (‘E die avere a di detto lire otto soldi quattro e quali demo a frati di santo frac[francesco] p(er) la festa overo p(er) rischuotare la ciera lire sei e soldi 4 p(er) duo ofizi uno d(e)i morti e laltro quando ven(n)e la tavola nuova nella cho(m)pagnia’).18 The altarpiece’s arrival thus coincided with a period of intense preoccupation about the raising of the old hospital’s walls. Hardly a propitious moment for setting a new altarpiece in place, and certainly not practical in terms of displaying it in any of the company’s ground-floor spaces. In fact, it is not clear from the October 1447 record whether or not the new altarpiece was actually set in place on that date. Reference to its ‘coming’ to the confraternity seems to emphasise its delivery, rather than its being positioned on its destined site. Other documents show how around the same time efforts were being made to record the contents and furnishings of the old hospital on the ground-floor level of the ‘sacrato’. An inventory that was drawn up on 24 May 1451 by the confraternity’s then treasurer, Domenico di Francesco, of what was most probably the contents of the old hospital, contained no reference to any paintings owned or displayed by the confraternity at that date.19 Indeed, it appears to have dealt in the main with items of laundry. While it was possibly not Domenico di Francesco’s intention to list other furnishings (even if displayed in hospital spaces on the ground floor), the date of this inventory is significant. Inventories were most frequently drawn up when a new official was put in place, assuming responsibility for the goods or furnishings that were handed down to them. But it was also the case that a survey was carried out when the function of a particular space was changed or when the space itself was undergoing reconstruction. The latter inevitably led to the removal to safekeeping of both furnishings and f ittings. The inventory that was drawn up in May 1451 may thus have been associated with the physical changes that were being made to the old hospital complex on the ground floor at that date. While there is little to glean from the record itself as to the whereabouts of Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro’s recently delivered altarpiece, it may be no coincidence that in the inventory that was drawn up a year later – in October 1452 – reference was made to a ‘new’ altarpiece as ‘set in place’ in an upper-floor space – the confraternity’s ‘church’.20 Moreover, thereafter, a special relationship appears to have been established between it and one particular feast day: the ‘Day of the 18 ASSi, Patri. resti 207, fol. 2v. 19 ASSi, Patri. resti 207, fols. 37v and 38r. 20 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 3r.

163

164 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Angels’ (on 20 August). According to a record dated 20 August 1453 – (‘S(ancti) A(n) glgli’) – the confraternity members had joined together for a celebration feast on that date, and the altarpiece itself had been ‘brought out’, or ‘uncovered’.21 While this record can be interpreted in a number of ways, it seems most likely that this was the day when the altarpiece was put on show: a curtain or curtains covering the image being pulled aside to reveal the Virgin Mary in glory surrounded by angels. That there was indeed a system for pulling the ‘tenda’, or curtain, backwards and forwards around that date is confirmed by a reference in a page headed 1454 in the same register to the fixing of an iron pole and wheels ‘p(er) tirare la te(n)da del altare’.22 In June 1454, the confraternity’s ‘church’ also appears to have been formally re-consecrated and invested with a new titulus: Cappella di Santa Maria degli Angeli. The question raised here is, which came first? One possibility is that the feast day that was associated with the new altarpiece by the summer of 1453 was linked to the altarpiece’s iconography. The new titulus that was adopted for the chapel – apparently at least one or two years after the altarpiece itself was set up in that space – may likewise have depended on what its central panel depicted. In the 1452 inventory there is no reference to the Day of the Angels. More significantly, no titulus is recorded in the context of what is referred to simply as the confraternity’s ‘chiesa’. As I show elsewhere, several other spaces inside both the basilica and its conventual complex were similarly defined by the decorations that were displayed within them. The Cappella della Madonna on the lower ground floor of the building that became known as the Oratorio di San Bernardino being one example and the chapel of the ‘Immacolata Concezione’ inside the expanded new church of San Francesco being another. One conclusion reached here is that the original intention was that the new altarpiece that was commissioned from Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro should be set up in another space. That being the case, the death of the altarpiece’s sponsor some time before the end of 1445 must have stimulated discussions about displaying the altarpiece in a different space. In so doing, the confraternity officials may have had to confront a number of practical obstacles, re-arranging pre-existing furnishings and decorations. This might well explain the delay between the completion of the new altarpiece, its delivery to the confraternity and its setting up in their upper-floor ‘church’. One obvious obstacle must have been the ongoing refurbishment work on the confraternity’s own premises. Surviving records from the fondo of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco indicate that building work 21 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 264r, where reference is made to the expense of the ‘collatione’ on the day that ‘sco(n)ficcaro la tavola dellaltare’. 22 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 265v.

A New Altarpiece 

was intensifying around the time that the altarpiece was completed in the summer of 1446. It might thus have been deemed practical not to transfer the completed work immediately to its designated site (regardless of whether it was destined for a ground-floor or upper-floor space). It is also possible that the confraternity officials decided that changes needed to be made to the altarpiece’s iconography in the wake of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s death. But there may also have been a number of pre-existing obstacles inside the confraternity’s premises. There could, for example, have been a physical problem in moving the new altarpiece from an intended position in a ground-f loor space to one on the floor above, following its delivery to the company in 1447. A common theme running through the company’s records from as early as the fourteenth century concerns accessibility between the ground and upper floors. Indeed, it seems that there was a continuing need to restore the various flights of internal stairs there. Accommodating what appears to have been a multi-sectioned and comparatively large polyptych in an upper-floor space may thus have presented a number of logistical challenges. Not the least being how to lift the completed work from the ground to the upper floor in the absence of a reliable flight of stairs connecting the two levels. It seems that by late 1447 this was indeed a problem. Only a few weeks after the recorded delivery of the new altarpiece in October 1447, a note was made (on 15 November) to the effect that money had been handed over by Bartolomeo di Mariano Allegretti ‘and fellow bankers’ to the confraternity’s prior, Niccolò di Salmone, to enable payment to an unnamed master for ‘adjusting’ or ‘restoring’ what was described as ‘the company’s stairs’.23 That such work was carried out shortly after the delivery of the new altarpiece suggests that the two events could have been connected. It is possible that such repair work was a temporary measure to ensure a makeshift means of access to an upper floor of the conventual complex, during the ongoing building work. But it may also have been prompted by an unexpected contingency. Around the same time as the November 1447 record, an ambitious project seems to have been in hand to construct what was in effect, an external flight of stairs linking the confraternity’s ground and upper levels.24 References at a later date to entrances at both the top and the bottom of this second flight of stairs indicate that the staircase itself was f itted in between the two freestanding structures of the old hospital and the company’s adjacent headquarters. Not the least of the confraternity’s problems in positioning (or re-locating) the new altarpiece to their upper-floor church may thus have arisen from the fact that there was no easy internal access to that space in 1447. That inaccessibility 23 ASSi, Patri. resti 207, fol. 3r. 24 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fols. 276v–277v.

165

166 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

to their ‘church’/‘chapel’ was regarded as a significant hindrance is confirmed by references to the specific purpose of the second flight of stairs: to effect direct access to the confraternity’s upper-floor space. Given that the new staircase was recorded as still under construction in 1457 and that an upper entrance was only being constructed in 1461, it seems unlikely, however, that this purpose built flight of stairs could have been used to transport the new altarpiece up to the company’s altar some time before 1 October 1452.25 One possibility explored here is that the flight of stairs that was under repair in November 1447 dated from a much earlier period. As a result it may not only have fallen into disuse, but was in need of radical restoration. It may also have offered a somewhat tortuous passage of access to the upper floor of the conventual complex. As I show elsewhere, work was recorded on one internal flight of stairs as early as the second decade of the fourteenth century.26 According to register entries drawn up for a group of lay religious assembling under the titulus Compagnia di Santa Maria d’Ovile e San Francesco during that earlier period, various sums of money were laid out during the latter part of 1319 on what was described as ‘la schala dela Fraternita’ (the fraternity’s stairs) in the so-called ‘house of the fraternity’.27 Given the relatively small amount of money recorded, it seems unlikely that these stairs were planned on a grandiose scale. Indeed, they were probably narrow and tortuous. One more recently-constructed flight of steps does in fact still exist at the back of what is now known as the lower oratory of the Oratorio di San Bernardino. (See Figure 26.) But the somewhat awkward positioning of this staircase, leading off from what was in effect a sacristy chapel space on the ground floor, involves negotiating a sharp turn in the stairs before reaching the floor above. On that basis, alone, it hardly seems likely that a previous set of stairs following a similar course would originally have been intended as an official entrance to the floor above. If anything, it might have been used to effect occasional access to the ground floor from an upper level; for example, to assist at religious devotions elsewhere, or as a backdoor exit from the conventual complex itself. The flight of stairs that was constructed by the Compagnia di Santa Maria d’Ovile e San Francesco at the end of the second decade of the fourteenth century may thus have been used as a route down to the company’s altarpiece on what was referred to as the ‘altare del convento’ (the altar of the convent) in the developing Franciscan complex. It is significant that according to a late eighteenth-century compendium of records covering the origins of the Compagnia di San Bernardino, early lay religious associated with the ‘frati minori’ did indeed originally assemble inside the church of San Francesco to 25 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 278r. 26 See my forthcoming publication on confraternal spaces and decorations at San Francesco. 27 ASSi, Patri. resti 199, fol. 27r.

A New Altarpiece 

offer their devotions.28 That being the case, it seems unlikely that the stairs that were referred to in 1319 would have been constructed with the view to transporting bulky items from one floor to another. When reference was made to a ‘tavola’ of the ‘fratelli’ being ‘carried’ (either away from, or to a particular site) on 2 May 1394, it is possible therefore (and particularly if transferring an altarpiece from one level to another), that the existing stairs were not regarded as fit for purpose, or were undergoing reconstruction. There is confirmation of this in a reference in the same year and then again, in 1396, to the whitewashing of a staircase and its vaulting, as if both were in the last stages of completion.29 All the indications are that an earlier flight of stairs had fallen into disrepair by 1394 and was either being reconstructed – as appears once more to have been the case in 1447 – or in the process of being replaced as part of an overarching re-building project. That being the case, there may have been no alternative in the spring of 1394 other than to winch the confraternity’s altarpiece away from its previous position by means of a trolley or (if raising it to an upper-floor space) adopting a pulley. There is confirmation that it was at least wheeled away in an entry shortly before and on the same page as the 2 May record, where reference was made to the purchase of a ‘sportarola’ (a kind of trolley or flat-bed lifting truck on wheels) for the ‘bisogni’ (or use) of the company. The officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco may have had to resort to similar means when accommodating Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro’s altarpiece half a century later. In any event, it seems that a considerable number of individuals were involved in the carrying away of the confraternity’s ‘tavola’ in 1394 and that its removal was regarded as a significant event; since the confraternity record references the purchase of one hundred ‘bischicocoli’ (biricuocoli, or cavalucci). Such sweetmeats may have served as recompense to the porters for their ‘carrying’, but given the number recorded, it seems more likely that the event itself marked a particular stage in the company’s history and was thus the cause of celebration. In fact, it becomes increasingly clear that this altarpiece was none other than the image now referred to as the ‘Master of San Bernardino’ Virgin and Child. Moreover, this was the same altarpiece that, in 1316, was recorded as displayed on the ‘altar of the friars’. Little wonder, perhaps, that its removal to the confraternity’s own space in 1394 stimulated the purchase of one hundred special biscuits. In effect, this must have marked the confraternity’s ‘coming of age’: finally established in its own house and oratory and embellishing that space with their own foundation image. Yet, and

28 ASSi, Patri. resti 3522, fol. 15r. 29 ASSi, Patri. resti 202, fol. 211v. For the ‘carrying’ of the altarpiece on 2 May 1394, see ASSi, Patri. resti 202, fol. 210r.

167

168 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 26 Internal staircase, Museo Diocesano, Siena.

despite of this, surviving records show that much reconstruction work continued at both ground-floor level and in the confraternity’s premises above. There is some evidence, for example, that the fourteenth-century flight of stairs was never quite fit for purpose. In October 1406, reference was made to the purchase of ‘calcina p(er) fare achonciare la schala di sotto’, indicating that yet more work had been deemed necessary at the lower-floor level at that date.30 This, combined with the reference to restoration work in 1447, following the delivery of the new altarpiece by Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro, may finally have persuaded the confraternity officials of the need for a completely new staircase. A principal aim at that point may also have been to establish that the new flight of stairs followed a less convoluted course and led directly to the confraternal spaces on the upper floor. 30 ASSi, Patri. resti 202, fol. 244v.

A New Altarpiece 

Accommodating the new altarpiece on the company’s altar in their ‘church’ may not just have been hampered by ongoing building works or by problems of access to the upper floor. Another cause for the delay in setting it in place may have resulted from the need to reposition other furnishings in order to make space for it. Some of the details in the 1452 inventory indicate that this was indeed the case. As Émile Gaillard pointed out, Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro’s altarpiece was not the only piece of furnishing that was listed in the space of the confraternity’s ‘church’ in the inventory that was drawn up in October 1452.31 There was also an altarpiece that was described as old but which did not appear to be displayed on any altar at that date – ‘una tavola vecchia da altare attachata fra la detta residenzia e luscio dela chiesa’.32 The somewhat arbitrary position of this altarpiece – almost edging out of the space of the confraternity’s church – could indicate a temporary arrangement following its removal from another position in the same space. I suggest this could have happened following the sudden, or unforeseen circumstances of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s death. Might it be, for example, that this old image had previously been displayed on the company’s altar in their upper-floor chamber, but that it had to be removed in order to make way for Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro’s new altarpiece? Such a course of events could explain the gap in time between the completion of the new altarpiece in 1446, its delivery over a year later and its recorded display in the upper-floor ‘chiesa’ some five years after that. That the sponsor died before the altarpiece was finished must inevitably have disrupted the intended course of events: if only, because further financial support may have been compromised. In that context, I wonder whether the fact that the mid fifteenth-century reconstruction project in the old Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco was paused shortly after Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo’s death might also have been directly related to a shortfall in finance. In any event, it seems clear that the confraternity officials would have needed to take stock about a number of matters before advancing further – including where to accommodate the new altarpiece. This may well have resulted in changes being made to the existing scheme of decoration in the upper-floor church shortly after Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo Lapo’s death – both in terms of the positioning of individual furnishings and the change of titulus from ‘chiesa’ of the company to ‘cappella di Santa Maria degli Angeli’. One significant piece of information that emerges from a reconsideration of the circumstances surrounding the commission to Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Piero is that – at least in the middle of the ninth decade of the fifteenth century – the 31 Gaillard, Sano di Pietro, p. 41. 32 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 3r (‘an old altarpiece attached [or set up] between the said throne and the exit of the church’).

169

170 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

altarpiece included an elaborate predella. According to an inventory of the company’s furnishings that was drawn up on 1 January 1483/4, nine scenes with figures were depicted in the lower part of the altarpiece in the ‘chapella di sopra nuova’: ‘figure storiatta della predela sotto’.33 No further details were included at that date, but in another inventory that was drawn up in 1497, we find a more detailed description. According to this, the predella of the ‘tavola dela nostra dona nuova’ in the upper chapel included a ciborium as well as narrative scenes (‘comprende la storiatta e ciboriata’).34 Given what can be established about the structure and content of the altarpiece from the 1452 inventory, the underlying predella must have consisted of a central section for the ciborium, with – at either side – two panels, each of which must probably have been divided into two sections containing scenes, either from the lives of the saints under which the panels were positioned, or associated with the central image of the Virgin of the Angels. Another detail worth noting in the 1497 inventory was that the image of the Virgin Mary was referred to as the ‘new’ Madonna. Might this indicate that Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro’s altarpiece was recognised as having taken the place of an ‘old’ image of the Madonna? Might this have been the old altarpiece referred to in the 1452 inventory, as positioned near the exit of the church, apparently deprived of its altar table? Or was this a reference to the old ‘altare della Madonna’ that had at a much earlier date been recorded as displayed on the altar of the friars? In either case, the use of the term ‘new’ could have been used to distinguish the recently completed altarpiece from what was a much older image. One particularly significant finding that emerged from a broader analysis of confraternal furnishings and fittings at San Francesco was that the thirteenth-century altarpiece of the ‘Madonna’ that was recorded as displayed on the ‘altar of the friars’ in 1316 assumed an enormous significance in the affairs of the lay religious who were associated with the Franciscan friars. In effect, it became a cult image: transferred from one space to another according to the circumstances of the lay religious who at any particular time assumed responsibility for it. That being the case, it seems more likely that in accommodating the new altarpiece by Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro, the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco would have been less willing to disturb the image of the old altarpiece of the ‘Madonna’ –apparently displayed in a central and significant position above the prior’s throne at the time of the 1452 inventory. A more likely scenario is that the old altarpiece that appeared to be edging out of the space of the company’s upper-floor ‘chiesa’ in 1452 had not only been dislodged from a previous scheme of decoration; but that this change in the pre-existing furnishings and fittings was unexpected. I develop this theory further in 33 ASSi, Patri. resti 215, fol. 1r. 34 ASSi, Patri. resti 215, fol. 12r.

A New Altarpiece 

on-going research: tracking the spaces in which all three altarpieces were displayed from the 1450s onwards. At the same time I attempt to show how the relocation of confraternal furnishings and fittings was not only linked to the production of a new piece of decoration but also dependent on changing circumstances within the company itself. What, then, of the fresco work that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was said to be engaged in at roughly the same time that Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were producing the new altarpiece? Might Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo have played some part in that project also? If not, might his death have influenced the confraternity’s decision to have their company chapel frescoed? Were there issues of access in that case also? And how, if at all, might this project have been affected by the pause in building work on the old hospital site during the second half of the 1440s? All these issues take centre stage in the following chapter.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Angelis, Padre Luigi De. Vita del B. Pietro Pettinaio sanese del Terz’ordine di San Francesco volgarizzata da una leggenda latina del 1333 per F. Serafino Ferri Agostiniano di Lecceto l’anno 1508: Corretta, e riordinata con annotazioni, ed aggiunte dal Padre Maestro de Angelis minor conventuale. Siena: Rossi e Figlio, 1802. Bacci, Peleo. “Documenti e commenti per la Storia dell’Arte: Ricordi della vita e dell’attività artistica del pittore senese Giovanni di Paolo di Grazia detto Boccanera.” Le Arti A. 20 (1941): 11–39. Carli, Enzo. L’Arte nella Basilica di San Francesco a Siena. Siena: U. Periccioli, 1971. Doyno, Mary Harvey. The Lay Saint: Charity and Charismatic Authority in Medieval Italy, 1150–1350. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019. Gaillard, Émile. Sano di Pietro: un peintre siennois au 15. siècle 1406–1481. Chambéry: Dardel, 1923. Interguglielmi, Francesca. “Il ciclo di affreschi della capitolare di San Francesco di Siena.” In Ambrogio Lorenzetti. Exhibition catalogue, Siena, Santa Maria della Scala, 22 October 2017–21 January 2018. Edited by Alessandro Bagnoli, Roberto Bartalini, Max Seidel, 132–51. Cinisello Balsamo, Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2017. Koeper, Bettina. “Die Ausstättung der oberen Kapelle des ‘Oratorio di San Bernardino’ in Siena.” Magisterarbeit zur Erlangung des Grades eines Magister Artium, Philosophischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, Bonn, 1991. Norman, Diana. Siena and the Angevins 1300–1356: Art, Diplomacy and Dynastic Ambition. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018.

171

172 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Piccinni, Gabriella, and Lucia Travaini. Il libro del pellegrino (Siena 1382–1446): Affari, uomini, monete nell’Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala. Naples: Ligouri, 2003. Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Torriti, Paolo. La Basilica di San Francesco: L’Oratorio dei Santi Lodovico e Gherardo e l’Oratorio di San Bernardino a Siena. Genoa: Sagep Editrice, 1987. Trübner, Jörg. Die stilistische Entwickelung der Tafelbilder des Sano di Pietro (1405–1481). Strassburg: J. H. Heitz, 1925.

3.

Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’ Abstract: Chapter Three considers whether or not Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo steered the commission to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to fresco the ‘company chapel’. The terms ‘old’ and ‘new’ in company registers are analysed in an attempt to distinguish between different chapel spaces. The chapter shows how several sites and tituli were established over time and chapels with varying ease of access assumed different functions. Charting reconstruction work on the old hospital site against receipts in respect of the commission to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, a case is developed in support of the hypothesis that the artist was employed to fresco the old hospital chapel. This stimulates further speculation that the brief was to reflect contemporary decorations in the hospital of Santa Maria della Scala. Keywords: the ‘old’ and the ‘new’; fresco work; company records and payments; iconography; hospital chapels; decorative schemes set in context.

There is now no trace of the fresco work that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei is said to have started and then left unfinished in the company chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Despite suggestions by some that the project was never started, others (and for which there is indeed archival evidence) have accepted that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei did indeed start on the project, although there has been no consensus so far about the chronology of the work, or where the frescoes were painted.1 Bettina Koeper not only accepts that 1 Specif ic light is thrown on this in a surviving ‘Uscità’ page carrying the date 1454 (ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 265v). Thus, in a couple of entries there, both seemingly recorded some time between 24 February and 6 May, there is first a reference to the sum of 5 soldi paid to Lorenzo di Giusa in respect of a ‘protest’ lodged with the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo ‘because he did not continue the painting of the chapel’. (With a further reference to ‘protests of damages and interest costs being lodged in the notary’s records – ‘protestai di dan(n) e d(i) (i)nte(r)essi apare al libro di(i) detto S(er) lorenzo’: no doubt explaining the slightly different sum of 5 soldi, 8 denari listed on the artist’s dedicated ‘entrata’ page.) Further down on the same page there is another entry recording a payment of 20 lire and 8 soldi that had been paid (on behalf of the company to the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo, by ‘Tomaxo di Francesco d(i) tuccio’… p(er) parte dela dipe(n)tura dela cappella’. On the following page (fol. 266r) – in a record that

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_III_ch03

174 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Francesco di Bartolomeo initiated work in the company’s chapel around the middle of the century, but suggests that it was finally completed some thirty years later.2 Drawing attention to the record published by Gaetano Milanesi in which reference was made to fresco work that was carried out in 1485 by Marco di Giovanni and his son Baldassare – ‘a dipignare in nella Compagnia della Vergine Maria di Veste Nera, la storia di Giuseppe di biancheggiato in nella forma stanno quelle dell’altra faccia della chiesa’ – Koeper appears to accept not only that the frescoes were produced for a different group of lay religious, but that the original scheme was intended to be in grisaille.3 In seeming contradiction, the early nineteenth-century historian Benedetto Spinelli referred to a ‘storia di Giuseppe’ that was painted in 1489 by ‘Maestro Marco’ and his son Baldassare on canvas. 4 Spinelli also notes that the canvas itself was displayed at the top of the stairs, on the upper floor of the premises belonging to the group of lay religious that was associated with San Francesco at that time. This site must presumably have been in the stair-well or staircase, that was described as being adjacent to the ‘chiesa’ of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in 1452. The late eighteenth-century historian Giovacchino Faluschi had similarly mentioned ‘una Tela esprimente la storia di Giuseppe, che fu dipinta da Maestro Marco nel 1487, insieme con Baldassare di Lui figliuolo’.5 Apart from a slight difference in dating, Faluschi and Spinelli thus seem to have been in agreement that the scenes depicted there were not carried out in fresco. One possibility is that the scenes of the Life of Joseph noted by Milanesi may in fact have been carried out on a completely different site. Not only is there no reference to such fresco work in surviving records concerning the Compagnia di San Bernardino, but much confusion appears to have arisen as a result of the eighteenth-century historian Girolamo Macchi’s contention that the Compagnia di Santa Maria dell’Angioli delle Veste Nera was the earliest group of lay religious to be established at San Francesco. In fact, there is no firm evidence to show that that confraternity existed before the beginning of the fifteenth century. Moreover, Macchi himself appears to have been uncertain about the site on which confraternity appears to have been inserted some time between 6 and 13 May, there is a reference to Lorenzo di Giusa being owed a further sum of 6 soldi and 4 denari for a ‘protest’ and several ‘requests’ that had been made ‘to the painter’. This sum does not appear to tally with the two further amounts of 2 soldi and 2 soldi, 8 denari . It seems clear, therefore, that attempts were being made to encourage the painter to return to the project as early as the spring of 1454. 2 Koeper, “Die Ausstättung”, p. 32. 3 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 412, no. 287. 4 BCS, Ms. A.VIII.51, Notizie storiche e documenti di alcune chiese della città e diocesi di Siena, Descrizione della Chiesa di S. Francesco rifabbricata dopo che venne interamente del fuoco consumata nel 1655 (1879), new fol. 60v (old fol. 52v) – ‘salita la prima scala si trova una tela esprimente la Storia di Giuseppe’. 5 Faluschi, Breve relazione, p. 166.

Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’ 

members assembled. Dedicating a separate page to the ‘Compagnia di Santa Maria dell’Angioli delle Veste Nera’ some forty pages apart from his much more detailed coverage of the headquarters of the Compagnia di San Bernardino, Macchi makes no reference at all to the seat of the former confraternity being in the vicinity of the Franciscan complex.6 More significantly, in the late eighteenth-century compendium of records concerning the Compagnia di San Bernardino that was drawn up by Giorgio Pizzetti, no reference at all was made to the ‘Compagnia di Santa Maria dell’Angioli delle Veste Nera’, let alone to any series of frescoes depicting the Life of Joseph. Another hypothesis introduced in this context, but seemingly attracting little attention, was Vittorio Lusini’s speculation that ‘Francesco di Bartolommeo Alfei da Montalcino’ (sic) was responsible for a series of frescoes in the Martinozzi chapel inside San Francesco.7 In the absence of any records linking Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei with the Martinozzi chapel, Lusini’s suggestion seems untenable. Indeed, the fact that both spaces indicated by Macchi and Lusini appear to have been distinct from premises that were owned by the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco during the middle of the fifteenth century must surely provide grounds for eliminating each of them from present enquiries. That said, the question remains, ‘In which chapel was Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s fresco work begun?’ One ongoing hypothesis concerns the availability of confraternal space and access to it at any one time. If receiving the contract to fresco the company’s chapel several years after the commission to Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro to produce the new altarpiece, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may have avoided some of the restrictions and obstructions surrounding the setting in place of his fellow artists’ work. Not the least factor in his favour would have been the lull in the company’s building work. Indeed, such a pause might have stimulated the officials to consider refurbishing the ground-floor spaces owned by them, whilst at the same time re-organising the furnishings in their upper-floor church. Apart from the fact that all the indications point in the direction of the artist’s having accepted the contract after the completion of Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro’s work, what seems undeniable – and for reasons that are considered in detail here – is that Francesco

6 ASSi, D107, Macchi Memoriale, new fol. 23r (old fol. 14r). 7 Lusini, Storia della Basilica, pp. 125–26, note 3. Lusini draws a connection between this work and the fact that in 1475 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei carried out work for what Lusini refers to as the founder of the chapel in San Francesco, Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi. In the same note Lusini refers to a will dated 23 August 1470, in which Niccolò di messer Agnolo di Giovanni Martinozzi refers to the chapel as ‘his’, leaving the sum of 200 florins so that a mass should be chanted in his name and for the spirits of his parents, already buried there.

175

176 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

di Bartolomeo Alfei could not have set to work, or indeed have continued to work in the upper-floor church space, after October 1452. Little attempt has been made to distinguish or separate the spaces referred to in early records as the ‘company’s church’, ‘company’s chapel’ or ‘oratory’, or indeed to investigate any other spaces inside the Franciscan conventual complex in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have been asked to carry out fresco work for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. It has generally been assumed, though, that the artist set to work in a chapel that was located on the upper floor of the building that subsequently became known as the Oratorio di San Bernardino. Cecilia Alessi and Piero Scapecchi certainly implied this, when claiming that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was working alongside Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro whilst those two artists were painting the confraternity’s new altarpiece. Although some have thus assumed that the space in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was commissioned to work was the confraternity’s ‘church’, others (like Bettina Koeper) have suggested that it was the ground-floor ‘oratory’ of the building that subsequently became known as the Oratorio di San Bernardino. I argue that there are a number of practical reasons why neither of these assertions is any longer tenable. Not only was there no reference to fresco work in the 1452 inventory of the furnishings and embellishments of the confraternity’s upper-floor ‘church’, but – and more significantly – no reference was made, thereafter, to ongoing fresco work in either the upper-floor space or the so-called ‘lower oratory’. That aside, the use of the term ‘cappella della Compagnia’ in the context of the fresco work commissioned from Francesco di Bartolomeo as opposed to ‘chiesa’ in the context of the positioning and display of the ‘new’ altarpiece would seem to confirm that these were two different spaces. There are in addition a number of practical reasons that would seem to militate against the artist having been active on the upper floor. He could surely not have been able to work in the ‘church’ once it had been refurbished in the way indicated by the 1452 inventory. At that point the upper-floor space would by no stretch of imagination have been an ideal area in which to erect wooden scaffolding and start the plastering of walls. Conversely, had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s fresco work already commenced in the upper-floor ‘church’ before the drawing up of the 1452 inventory (but then been abandoned), that space would subsequently have been virtually inaccessible for the setting up of the new altarpiece. The fact that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was still being chased to return to work in hand two years after the drawing up of the 1452 inventory must surely indicate that he was not being directed back to the upper-floor space. If not in the upper-floor church, then, in which other space might the artist have set to work? It is argued here that much depends not only on what has now been

Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’ 

established about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s early training, but also upon the chronology or time lines of building work that was undertaken in different parts of the conventual complex around the middle years of the fifteenth century. While some might maintain that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was already working on the project to fresco the confraternity’s chapel in the mid 1440s, I argue that dating the commission to some time after October 1452 fits more comfortably with what has now been established about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s emergence as an independent painter. First, the chronology of Francesco di Bartolomeo’s own development. Despite Alessi and Scapecchi’s assertions that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was working alongside Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro when those two artists were carrying out work for the (sic) Compagnia di San Francesco, there is in fact no reference anywhere in the surviving archive of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco to indicate that the three artists were working contemporaneously. Nor is there any specific evidence to indicate that they had been engaged to produce decorations for one and the same site. In fact, the record book that was drawn up between 1432 and 1447 (covering the period when Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were working on the new altarpiece) makes no reference to any fresco work being carried out anywhere on the company’s premises during that period of time. There appears to be no reference, either, to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei carrying out fresco work in surviving records drawn up between 9 September 1447 – the final date registered in the surviving 1432–1447 record book – and 1 October 1452 – the date at which a new record book was begun and in which a dedicated page was allotted to the artist.8 On that basis, it seems reasonable to argue that the very earliest Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei could have been engaged to carry out fresco work for the confraternity must have been October 1452. And certainly not during the previous decade in which Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro were recorded as setting to work on the new altarpiece. While the suggestions put forward by Alessi and Scapecchi in terms of time lines are thus arguable, they do, nevertheless, raise a number of questions about the working relationships that might have been formed between Giovanni di Paolo, Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei during the fifth decade of the fifteenth century. It is indeed possible – given that we can now show that the new altarpiece was produced around the time that a workshop association is thought to have been established between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Sano di Pietro – that the aspiring painter was engaged by one or other of the other two artists as a workshop assistant during that project. This might in turn have influenced the selection a couple of years later of the newly independent painter to 8 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 19r.

177

178 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

carry out further work for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. What evidence is there, then, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei did begin work on the project to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco? Surviving records in the confraternity’s fondo certainly indicate that some progress had been made, if only through the recording of disbursements that had been made to and on behalf of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei by the end of 1454. There is also confirmation that the project itself was regarded as still ongoing at that date. The dedicated page that had been allocated to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in the register that was begun on 1 October 1452 not only remained open. It also listed a number of outstanding debts. On 17 December 1454, these were listed as 8 lire and 8 soldi for 12 staia of grain that had been received from Checcho di Mino di Biagio; a further 20 lire and 8 soldi (computed to 4 large florins) that had been paid to the artist by the company of Tommaso Tucci for unspecified reasons, and 57 soldi that was due to the spice merchant Nanni di Vieri for colours the artist had received ‘for painting our chapel of the company’. Given that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had already received colours for painting the company’s chapel, it seems likely that at least the preliminary plasterwork had been completed and that the artist was ready to embark on the fresco work itself. The likelihood is that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had indeed begun painting some of the upper levels of ‘buon fresco’. In any event, given the normal course of events, one would have to conclude that any scaffolding erected either for the preliminary preparation of the walls, or for the ongoing fresco work had already been positioned in the chapel and was still in place in December 1454. This raises yet again the question about the state of the confraternity chapel when references were made to the artist having interrupted his work there. Filled with piles of wooden scaffolding and partially completed plastering and fresco work, this would clearly not have been an ideal space for the display of any confraternity furnishings, let alone a new altarpiece. Yet, it was in the summer of that year, that the confraternity church on the upper floor was re-consecrated as the Cappella di Santa Maria degli Angeli. There were in fact at least two other spaces in the conventual complex which officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco might have been interested in refurbishing during the sixth decade of the fifteenth century: the original ward in the old hospital complex and the adjacent hospital chapel. Both these ground-floor spaces must have provided an area in which company members could have assembled on a regular basis, if only to administer to the sick, the halt and the lame lying in beds there. There may have been numerous occasions, also, when both ‘fratelli’ and ‘frati minori’ gathered to recite the Mass

Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’ 

of the Dead in the hospital chapel. One such occasion is cited in the surviving records: the celebration for the soul of Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei and other members of his family in 1454. Following the pause in the expansion of the old hospital premises between 1448 and the second half of the 1450s, the confraternity officials might thus have decided that there was a window of opportunity to renovate the old ground-floor spaces of the Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco. More importantly, had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei been assigned during that period to carry out fresco work in a space on the ground-floor level of the hospital complex, he would have encountered few problems in terms of access. There is, in addition, one curious fact that emerges from surviving records. It seems that few, if any furnishings, were on display in either the hospital ward or its adjacent chapel towards the end of the fifth decade. Nor have any details so far emerged to show that any patients were actually being administered to in the old hospital’s ground-floor space around that time. Might this indicate that the ground-floor spaces had been cleared in preparation for new decoration work there? There is much evidence to suggest that the commission to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to fresco the confraternity’s chapel was no idle or fleeting wish. Nor was it a project that the confraternity officials intended to let slip out of their grasp. The records show that numerous attempts were made to persuade the artist to honour his contract and complete the work. This alone indicates that the commission itself was of some substance. It seems unlikely, therefore, that the task amounted to a simple decorative scheme. At the very least it must have involved some kind of pictorial scheme, such as a series of individual saints and/or benefactors. The existing footprint of the upper oratory of the Oratorio di San Bernardino confirms that the original fifteenth-century premises of the Fraternita di Sant Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco at that level were comparatively large. But there is also evidence to show that the ground-floor space of the old Ospedale delle Stimmate di San Francesco was large enough to contain a similarly large chapel or oratory. One early record does indeed refer to the (‘chapella grande’) there.9 This record, drawn up some time during August 1459, also refers to a window that appears to have been pierced in the chapel’s wall in connection with the papal visit to Siena in February of that year (‘finestra del papa nella chapella grande’). There seems little doubt that this was the old hospital chapel. That this ‘large chapel’ was indeed capacious is confirmed by the fact that it was big enough to serve as overnight accommodation for a number of visiting dignitaries, as well as members of the papal retinue who were housed there during the seven-month-long visit of Pope Pius II between January and July 1460. Indeed, less than a year later than the 9 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 167v.

179

180 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

August 1459 record, reference was made to preparing the space of the chapel of the ‘spedale di sotto’, in anticipation of accommodating members of Pope Pius II’s retinue at San Francesco.10 It also seems that by the end of the sixth decade, the old hospital chapel on the ground floor had either been vacated, or temporarily de-consecrated, since reference was made in July 1460 to its being completely overhauled as a result of the papal visit.11 Presumably, the insertion of the so-called ‘pope’s window’ the year before had formed part of the same renovation work. It seems that by the summer of 1460, the hospital ward itself was also on the verge of ceasing to function. A record of 16 May 1460 refers, for example, to the hospital being emptied so that it might accommodate the Franciscan friars when they gathered together in chapter there.12 While this may have been a temporary measure, there seems little doubt that the confraternity officials were increasingly focussed on the hospital complex that was being developed on the upper floor. Indeed, by the time of the pope’s visit to Siena the old hospital ward appears no longer to have been in active service, since (just a couple of days before the expected arrival of papal dignitaries) reference was made (on 5 July) to the need to remove all the wood from the ‘spedale di sotto’, lest the pope’s people used it to heat their quarters.13 This would seem to confirm that the hospital space on the ground floor was no longer serving any medical function or charitable assistance. This may very likely have been the consequence of attention having shifted to the potentials of the new upper-floor quarters. On the other hand, the fact that the surviving record implies that there was a considerable amount of wood stored in the hospital at the time of the papal visit might also indicate that it had been moved there from elsewhere. Might this have been the wooden scaffolding that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had abandoned several years earlier: removed from the hospital chapel to make way for the accommodation of the papal retinue? If that were the case, in dismantling and removing it, the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco must have finally been convinced (after upwards of five years) that the artist was not going to return. It seems that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei never did return to the project of frescoing the confraternity’s chapel, despite repeated attempts by the lawyer Lorenzo di Giusa and rising costs. There are references on the page that was dedicated to the artist in the company records to the levying of three fines (of respectively 5 10 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 274r. See, also, Nevola, “Ritual Geography” in Beyond the Palio, pp. 68–69 and pp. 72–74 and Table 2, p. 75, for a reference to three cardinals (Scarampo, Orsini and Bessarion) being lodged at San Francesco during the 1460 visit. 11 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 274r. On the third of that month, payment was made for ‘due some d(i) chalcina p(er) fare lospaz(i)o dela chapela dalo spedalle disotto quando venne elpapa astare aSanto francischo’. 12 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 273v. 13 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 274r.

Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’ 

soldi, 8 denari; 2 soldi; and 2 soldi, 8 denari).14 The fact that Ser Lorenzo di Giusa had already made a couple of attempts by December 1454 to persuade Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to return to work on the confraternity’s chapel also suggests that the artist may have been absent for several months.15 It seems that the issue was never fully resolved.16 In the meantime the confraternity officials were apparently making other plans. Some records indicate that a decision may have been taken to cover over the unfinished work as early as 1455. Several years prior to the papal visit, one record in particular indicates that an attempt was made to adjust the state of the walls around the entrance to the company’s premises and ‘in the chapel’ in the summer of 1455.17 Reference was made on 14 June of that year to a payment that had been made for a consignment of ‘rena’ … ‘p(er) scialbar(e) le mura delle(n)trata del co(m)pagnia e del cappella’ (to whitewash the walls of the entrance of the company and of the chapel). And, on the same day a further reference was made to the ‘facchino’ (porter) who had been paid to carry the ‘pianelle ch(e) era(n)o d(i) sotto al sop(r)a i(n) palcho e p(e)r espengn[?are] la calcina sopr(r)a detta’ ([for transporting] ‘the flat ceiling tiles that had been downstairs to the upstairs level and for having spread the slaked lime over them’).18 This would seem to confirm that by the summer of 1455 all attention was being concentrated on the upper-level spaces. These records also show how by the middle of the sixth decade clear distinctions were being drawn between the lower and upper levels. Similar distinctions were being drawn at the same time between the old and the new: both in terms of the confraternity spaces and the furnishings displayed inside them. The fact that distinctions were drawn between the old and the new in the 1452 inventory of the possessions of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, adds weight to the hypothesis pursued here that 14 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 19r. 15 In this context, see Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 29, where they note that on at least two occasions (in 1465 and 1467) the artist’s absence from Siena was formally recorded. According to the records of the Mercanzia (ASSi, Mercanzia 137, fol. 4r [sic]) at the earlier date (on 4 July 1465), Francesco di Bartolomeo ‘pictor de Senis’ set in place as procurator Bartolomeo di Ser Jacopo di Ser Francesco, in order to defend him and look after his affairs concerning any litigation or matters involving him (‘ad lites et causas ad agendum et defendendum suum’). Given that this form of words was inserted on a regular basis in the Mercanzia records, it was not necessarily the case that the painter was involved in any particular dispute in the summer of 1465. However, as will become clear in the next section of this book, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had, only a few months earlier (in January 1464/5), been involved in litigation concerning work carried out for Pietro Trecerchi in Siena, by his fellow Sienese artist, Antonio di Simone. It is possible, therefore that some members of the Trecerchi family were still dissatisfied about events in the little palace in question several months after that event. 16 The case is not entirely shut, though, as there is a gap in the account of the company’s outgoings between 14 June 1455 and 5 November 1458 – see ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fols. 266v–267r. 17 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 266v. 18 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 266v.

181

182 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

some of the items listed as in that upper space may originally have been displayed elsewhere; possibly, in a completely different area altogether. One conclusion reached in that context is that prior to the reconstruction work that was initiated at an upper level during the second half of the 1440s, the old hospital chapel had doubled up as the company’s officiating space. However, as construction work proceeded on the upper floor and plans were put forward on how best to embellish the new spaces there, the old hospital chapel (which might have been emptied in preparation for the fresco work that was intended to be carried out there) gradually fell into disuse. That said, it seems that it was not denuded of all its furnishings. It is possible, therefore, that following the papal visit in 1460, the ground-floor chapel did return in some measure to its original function. There is in fact evidence to show that even in the seventeenth century it was regarded as a potential assembly space for the religious devotions of a group of female religious associated with the Franciscan complex. There is little doubt either that the space referred to in the seventeenth-century records as the old ‘Cappellone’, or large chapel was the old ground-floor hospital chapel. Had Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei indeed been commissioned to decorate that space, he must have faced a challenging task. Yet, from what has now been established about his government duties during the 1450s (including journeyman painting at Castelmuzio, ‘esploratore’ work in the Maremma and acting as a debt collector of pasturing levies for the officials of the Balia), there may have been few summer periods when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei could carve out the necessary time to continue working on the frescoes. When preparing to welcome the pope’s entourage, the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco may finally have had to concede (had they not already done so, some four or five years previously) that unfinished fresco work on the walls of the old hospital chapel was never going to be completed. It may be no coincidence, therefore, that it was around this date that the decision was taken to construct a new ‘Cappella dei morti’ at ground-floor level. Variously described as the ‘Cappella nuova’ and the ‘Cappella di sotto’, it appears that this new chapel space was in use by the early summer of 1461, since an insert in a surviving company record book refers to the recitation of the Office for the Dead there on 22 May 1461 (‘of ici dimorti diSotto nela chapalla nuova’).19 The following day reference was also made to expenses involved in the accompanying illuminations to that ceremony.20 One possibility therefore is that following the debacle over Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s aborted project – with the resulting cluttering up of the space he had 19 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 277r. 20 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 277r.

Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’ 

been working in (as well as the intrusion of the dignitaries who were housed at San Francesco) – there was a pressing need for a new space in which to chant the Mass of the Dead. That this new chapel space was regarded as a significant addition to the confraternity’s premises is confirmed by a further entry dated 19 September 1461, which refers to the cost of a marble plaque that had been purchased to celebrate the consecration of what was, once again, described as the ‘chapella nuova’.21 The fact that the ‘Cappella Nuova’ had not yet been constructed in December 1454, when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was recorded as already having incurred debts in the context of the fresco work he had been commissioned to carry out, must surely confirm that the space referred to in contemporary records as the company’s chapel could not have been on the ground floor of what subsequently became known as the Oratorio di San Bernardino. The only other ground-floor site available in the early 1450s was either the old hospital chapel or the hospital wing itself. There, and in the absence of further evidence, the matter must rest. It is, however, worth noting that the damp winter months between the end of 1454 and the spring of the following year would not have been ideal for carrying out ‘buon fresco’ painting, in whatever chapel Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been commissioned to work. Had the artist intentionally and temporarily interrupted work on the project at the end of the summer of 1454, he might have reasonably expected to return the following spring. That might also have been a reasonable assumption on the part of the confraternity officials. However, the fact that Lorenzo di Giusa had already been called in on several occasions by the end of 1454 indicates that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had not taken advantage of the drier months during the previous spring and summer. That being the case, it seems likely that the artist had interrupted work on the confraternity project during the closing months of 1453. Several months may then have elapsed while the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco patiently awaited his return. To their disappointment and no doubt dissatisfaction, when Lorenzo di Giusa made what appears to have been his final bid, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei seems already to have been engaged elsewhere.

End Note Wherever located, there seems little doubt that the fresco work Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei undertook on behalf of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco was intended to promote the company’s standing and authority. Why else would the company’s officials have been so anxious to 21 ASSi, Patri. resti 208, fol. 278r.

183

184 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

compel the artist to complete the work? Given the expense already incurred by December 1454 and the repeated attempts to force Francesco di Bartolomeo back to the site, the assumption must be that a significant programme of decoration was envisaged for the company chapel. Given the role played by both the ‘frati minori’ and the confraternity officials in seeking the canonisation of Bernardino Albizzeschi and in subsequently celebrating that event in Siena, one possibility is that the brief might have been to commemorate those recent events. If the argument presented here holds good – that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was commissioned to fresco a space in the ground-floor hospital complex – it seems plausible that his work might also have reflected that institution’s newly established charitable and caring role; aided in part by the sponsorship of Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo. Comparisons might thus be drawn between the commission from the officials of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco (which around that time had included Domenico di Cecco Buzzicchello as treasurer) and the prestigious project to fresco the so-called ‘Pellegrinaio’ of the Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala.22 Initiated in 1444 by what was presumably Domenico di Cecco’s close relation, Giovanni di Francesco Buzzicchello – the rector of Santa Maria della Scala – those frescoes depicted the charitable, civic and medical activities of Siena’s great hospital institution and as such, were packed with contemporary details of fifteenth-century Sienese architecture, fashion and contemporary life. Involving as it did leading artists of the day – Domenico di Bartolo, Vecchietta and Priamo della Quercia – the project must have aroused considerable interest, not only within the artistic community, but also amongst other charitable organisations – including the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Given the close family connection existing between the treasurer of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and the rector of the Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala, there must also have been some desire, if not concrete aspiration to echo the new fresco cycle in the much smaller hospital complex on the ‘sacrato’ of San Francesco. Indeed, Domenico di Cecco Buzzicchello may have been the individual responsible for providing Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei with a scheme for such a task before himself handing over to the new treasurer Francesco di Ser Gardo in October 1452. By that date Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei may already have embarked on preparing the confraternity walls, with the intention of replicating some of the details of the splendid new decorations at Santa Maria della Scala. Such a timescale would certainly fit in with the case I raise here in support of the artist having already abandoned the project by the end of the summer months of 1453. 22 In this context, see Gallavotti Cavallero, Lo Spedale.

Fresco Work in the ‘Company Chapel’ 

Despite the fact that no vestiges of such work appear to have survived, the conclusion I reach is that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s unfinished frescoes for the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco deserve more attention than the brief mention afforded them by Gaetano Milanesi. Tucked away in a footnote to the life and career of an apparently insignificant f ifteenth-century Sienese journeyman painter, the commission to fresco the company chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco has attracted very little attention. Yet the timing of the contract and the significance of the events in which this particular group of Franciscan lay religious had been involved surely merit further consideration.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Faluschi, Giovacchino. Breve relazione delle cose notabili della città di Siena ampilata e corretta dal sacerdote Giovacchino Faluschi senese al nobil signore Guido Savini provveditore dell’università e rettore della pia casa di Sapienza. Siena: Francesco Rossi, 1784 (second edition, 1815). Gallavotti Cavallero, Daniela. Lo Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala in Siena: Vicenda di una committenza artistica. Pisa: Pacini, 1985. Koeper, Bettina. “Die Ausstättung der oberen Kapelle des ‘Oratorio di San Bernardino’ in Siena.” Magisterarbeit zur Erlangung des Grades eines Magister Artium, Philosophischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, Bonn, 1991. Lusini, Vittorio. Storia della Basilica di S. Francesco in Siena. Siena: Tip. edit. San Bernardino, 1894. Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856. Nevola, Fabrizio. “Ritual Geography: Housing the Papal Court of Pius II Piccolomini in Siena (1459–60).” In Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena, edited by Philippa Jackson and Fabrizio Nevola, 65–88. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

185

Part Four Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, ‘Trusted Servant’ Inside and Outside the Walls of Siena

Foreword Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s 1491 denuncia demonstrates how, even in old age, this apparently insignificant journeyman painter was not only able to count on the help of a powerful acquaintance, but was prepared to travel some distance to take advantage of such a relationship. At around seventy years of age, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei contemplated abandoning the city and officials that had protected him throughout his adult life. He also anticipated being able to call in favours owed to him by an individual established many miles to the south, in Rome. This is even more surprising, given what can be established about Sinolfo Ottieri, the person Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was intent on visiting. At the time of the 1491 denuncia, Sinolfo degli Ottieri not only held the office of Bishop of Chiusi, but had also been associated with the ‘Curia Romana’ for more than thirty years. Moreover, when Alfei filed his penultimate declaration to the Sienese tax officials in 1488, Sinolfo degli Ottieri had already been acting as Sienese ambassador to Pope Sixtus IV for several years.1 Against such a background, the ageing painter’s claim that Sinolfo degli Ottieri was obliged not only to receive him but also to treat him well seems barely credible. If true, one can only assume that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had at some time carried out a considerable service for Sinolfo and/or his family. A notion pursued here is that the favours claimed by Alfei may in fact have been earned many years, if not decades earlier. A number of hypotheses are considered in that context: one in particular involving what might have been direct contact between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Sinolfo Ottieri in 1475. Indeed, as I attempt to show in this part of the book, the painter’s status appeared to grow rather than diminish, after the commission to paint the chapel for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. These were the years in which he acquired the reputation of ‘Trusted Servant’ inside and outside Siena. Most of the records cited by earlier historians such as Gaetano Milanesi were drawn up in the years immediately following Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s aborted project to fresco the confraternity chapel in Siena. Yet few of these appear to throw any light on what the artist was actually doing around 1454 and in the years thereafter; other than carrying out survey work in the Sienese countryside, and applying Sienese coats of arms on the portals and walls of subject communes. Prior to my own recent research nothing had emerged to show that the artist was commissioned to carry out any significant work inside or outside the city in his 1 See ASSi, Concistoro 1695, fols. 26r, 77r and 77v. See also, Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 31.

190 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

guise as a professional fresco painter. However, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had certainly not been forgotten. Indeed, as Milanesi showed, the artist’s status had in some ways increased: but not, apparently, as a painter. As the 1458 letter of recommendation penned by Leonardo Benvoglienti implies, by the late 1450s it was the painter’s diligence, trustworthiness and skills as a scribe that apparently defined him. These aspects of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s character appear to have been increasingly recognised amongst leading members of Sienese society. It also seems that the artist had established a reputation as an arbitrator. I argue here that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s appointment as a ‘vicario’ in Rigomagno must have played some part in that. I also argue that one record in particular (that was cited by Gaetano Milanesi and which I discuss in detail here) indicates well how the artist’s experience of government service could have influenced his standing not only within his own artistic community but also in the eyes of potential patrons. The record in question concerns Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement as mediator and scribe in the dispute that arose between members of the Trecerchi family in Siena and a local painter, Antonio di Simone.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37.

1.

Arbitrator and Scribe for the Trecerchi Abstract: This chapter considers Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s dealings with the Trecerchi and outlines his role as mediator and scribe for the family in 1465 (alongside Sano di Pietro and others), following embellishment of a Trecerchi ‘palazeto’ by fellow artist Antonio di Simone. It considers a number of Trecerchi palaces inside the walls of Siena in an attempt to locate the site of the ‘palazeto’. It analyses the contemporary urban complex, drawing distinctions between the main thoroughfare of the Via di Città and the Via Pantaneto on the Via Francigena. Keywords: Pietro di Giovanni Trecerchi; Mino di Niccolò dei Trecerchi; Siena urban complex; Trecerchi palaces; arbitration and settlements. Expertise as a scribe

According to a record dated 7 November 1464, Fra Jeronimo, ‘procurator et procuratorio’ to the Sienese citizen Pietro di Giovanni dei Trecerchi, had called together two individuals, ‘Ser Mini Nicolai de Tricirchiis’ and ‘magister Antonius magistri Simonis, pictor de Senis’, in the matter of the valuation of several pieces of work and painting (‘occasione plurium picturarum et laboreriorum factarum’) carried out by Antonio di Simone for the said ‘domino Petro’.1 It was agreed that the issue of payment should be placed in the hands of ‘Franciscum Bartolomei’ – who had been elected to represent ‘dicti fratris Hieronymi’ – and ‘magistrum Sanum Petri’ (put forward by the said ‘magistri Antonii’), and that those two individuals should settle all the differences between the various parties. The underlying purpose was clearly to arbitrate in the matter of how much Antonio di Simone should receive for his labours. (‘quod dicti arbitri habeant declarere et judicare quantum dictus magister Antonius debeat habere de dictis picture ecc’). Interestingly, and despite having reneged on the commission from the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and the recent failure to obtain the post of factor at the Opera works, it was Francesco di Bartolomeo 1 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 327, no. 230. I have not so far found any further information about Fra Jeronimo da Padua, other than a reference in June 1450 to his having been associated with the hospital of Santa Maria della Scala – ASSi, Consiglio Generale 225, old fol. 172r (new fol. 183r). I am grateful to Stefano Cinelli Colombini for drawing my attention to the connection between the Trecerchi and Montalcino.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_iv_ch01

192 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Alfei, rather than Sano di Pietro, who appears to have assumed a key role in the Trecerchi affair. It is also interesting that it was Pietro Trecerchi’s procurator or legal representative who was in the first instance responsible for calling together another member of the family, Ser Mino, and the artist responsible for the work, Antonio di Simone: the initial expectation seemingly being that this was a ‘family matter’ that could be resolved ‘in house’. At that point it had already been established that overall payment for the work was to be left in the hands of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (acting for and appointed by Fra Jeronimo) and Sano di Pietro (acting on behalf of Antonio di Simone). It seems that this project had given rise to a number of disputes and that as a result Fra Jeronimo had become embroiled in several different negotiations. According to a record that was drawn up on 6 January 1464/5 – only a couple of months after the initial 7 November 1464 record – the said ‘frater Hieronymus’ and the said ‘magister Antonius’ had elected yet another adjudicator, the Sienese goldsmith ‘Tomassum Pauli’. This clearly resolved matters. Less than a fortnight later, on 18 January, Sano di Pietro and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei – in their guise as overall arbitors (‘albitri e abitratori’) – are recorded as filing their report.2 At that point, it was revealed that Antonio di Simone had only completed part of the work he had undertaken. The rest remained unfinished. Ironically, given Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s past history, non-completion rather than disagreement over payment may thus have been at the heart of the matter. The work already completed consisted of external fresco work in what was referred to as the loggia of the ‘palazeto’. In their January report, the arbitors recommended that Pietro Trecerchi should pay 50 lire to Antonio di Simone for his labour and expenses in carrying out the work in the loggia, but that judgement over the unfinished work – consisting of a pair of chests (‘gofani’), several roof tiles and two pairs of ‘dopieri’ (hangings) – should be reserved for another fifteen days, given that Antonio di Simone had not yet delivered either of the two chests to his patron. The final report was surprisingly detailed. Referring to Antonio di Simone’s expenses, the arbitors explained they meant anything spent on colours or other things (‘tendendossi colori, o altre cose’). Pietro Trecerchi, for his part, was not to claim back any money that he had already given to the artist. It seems clear that in this case at least, Antonio di Simone’s fellow artists were concerned that he should not be left out of pocket. More significantly, the report highlights Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s skills as a scribe. Francesco di Bartolomeo declared that he had written up the arbitration’s findings in his own hand; albeit with the full agreement of Sano di Pietro and Tommaso di Paolo. He also noted that all the arbiters had been in agreement about suspending judgement over the unfinished pieces of work. 2 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 329, no. 232.

Arbitr ator and Scribe for the Trecerchi 

As scribe, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei must have played a central role in completing the business. But why should Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei have been drawn into the discussions about work in the Trecerchi palace in the first place? Might his stint as ‘vicario’ in Rigomagno in 1460 have boosted his reputation not only as a government servant but also as an individual skilled in the art of mediation between dissenting parties? By the mid 1460s he might thus have been regarded as an individual who could be relied upon not only to negotiate, but also to give an objective opinion. Indeed, it could have been this, as well as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s reputation as a scribe, that caught the attention, not only of the procurator, Fra Jeronimo, but also of the latter’s employer, Pietro Trecerchi. Another possibility is that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was called in to the Trecerchi case after crossing paths with different members of that family as a direct result of his recent involvement in government service. Records of the office of the Balia during the second half of 1458 not only confirm that Francesco di Bartolomeo was carrying out official duties for it at that date, but also refer to the Trecerchi as likewise engaged in government business around the same time. Thus, in June 1458 and July 1459 ‘Domino petro de tricirculis’ is recorded as having assumed the post of ‘podestà’ at Grosseto.3 Assuming such a position, shortly after Orbetello and the surrounding region had been menaced by enemy forces, Pietro Trecerchi would no doubt have been particularly interested to scrutinise any panoramic view of the Argentario region that had been drawn up of the region he was then in charge of. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s name may indeed have been circulating amongst an inner circle of government advisers as a direct result of his mission at Orbetello late in 1455. Even if not personally engaging with the artist in the course of that work, Pietro Trecerchi may well have been aware not only that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had become involved with Siena’s military machine through his mapping work, but also that in doing so had become a trusted servant of central government. Ser Mino Trecerchi, for his part – was recorded as officially in post in the Balia office during the late 1450s.4 In the summer of 1464, only a few months before becoming involved with the discussions about Antonio di Simone’s payment, he was referred to as the ‘cancellario Primum’ of the Concistoro.5 Clearly a notary by profession, he may thus already have had dealings with Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in notarising government business. Indeed, these two individuals’ paths may have continued to cross. Ser Mino was, for example, referred to as the ‘notarii consilionis’ in the spring of 1466, just a couple 3 ASSi, Balia 10, fols. 53v and 93v. 4 ASSi, Balia 10. In the spring of 1458 Mino di Trecerchi was also elected to the post of ‘vicario’ of Seggiano (see ASSi, Balia 10, fol. 9v). 5 ASSi, Concistoro 2379, under the ‘Registum semestrale’ for July.

193

194 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

of months before Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s petition to assume the post of ‘vicario’ at Monte Orgiali was granted.6 Ser Mino’s involvement in Piero Trecerchi’s affairs at the end of 1464 may thus have rested not only on family relationships but also on his own government service and notarial skills. In effect, standing in as a second family procurator, it might have seemed appropriate that, in the f irst instance, Ser Mino should assume responsibility for Pietro’s affairs, including the question of payment for work that was being carried out in the Trecerchi ‘palazeto’. While Milanesi and more recent historians appear not to have concerned themselves with the location of the Trecerchi ‘palazeto’, there is some evidence to suggest that Ser Mino might also have had a personal interest in the little palace. I argue that this alone might explain why Ser Mino, rather than Pietro Trecerchi was initially named as the principal claimant in the litigation with Antonio di Simone. It seems that by the mid fifteenth century there were a number of buildings of differing sizes that were associated with the Trecerchi family inside the city walls. Moreover, at least three of these appear to have been embellished with a loggia. The broad façade of the so-called Palazzo Trecerchi Monaldi at Via di Città 2–8 in Siena was originally adorned, for example, by four ‘aperture ad arco senese dal fronte dell’arco ricassato’: constituting a reasonably capacious and open loggia surmounted by gothic arches.7 Another comparatively large structure, that was located in Banchi di Sotto before being destroyed in the eighteenth century to make way for the Collegio di San Vigilio, was likewise adorned with ogival openings and – from the evidence of a surviving seventeenth-century design – constituted an imposing façade almost opposite the Palazzo Piccolomini.8 By contrast, another structure that also appears to have belonged to the family (and which is still referred to as the Palazzo Trecerchi), but which is positioned a little distance away from both the Via di Città and the Banchi di Sotto properties – at Via di Pantaneto, 63–67 – while much narrower than the other two palaces, was likewise once adorned by open arches (‘aperture ad arco a tutto sesto dall’incorniciatura bugnata’).9 It is possible that Antonio di Simone had been commissioned to carry out work in the much larger palace in Banchi di Sotto. Alessandro Leoncini was certainly of that opinion.10 However, the use of the diminutive ‘palazzetto’ in the 1464 record indicates that the structure in question was comparatively small. Given its diminutive size, this third property in Via Pantaneto seems the most likely candidate for the ‘palazeto’ referred to in the context of the commission from 6 ASSi, Concistoro 1426, fol. 2r. 7 See Quast, Siena: Banca dati, scheda 247. 8 In this context, see Leoncini, “I Trecerchi”, p. 37, figure 3. 9 See Quast, Siena: Banca dati, scheda 413. 10 Leoncini, “I Trecerchi”, p. 36.

Arbitr ator and Scribe for the Trecerchi 

Pietro Trecerchi. Which member of the Trecerchi family owned it or was living in it towards the end of 1464 is less clear. I believe, however, that we can show that the ‘palazeto’ had in fact originally belonged to Ser Mino Trecerchi. There would have been very good reasons therefore why he, rather than Pietro Trecerchi, should play an active part in the dispute over Antonio di Simone’s work there. That said, there is also evidence to show that while the large building located in Banchi di Sotto belonged to Pietro di Giovanni Trecerchi in the mid 1460s, the much smaller structure in Via di Pantaneto was at that date listed under the name of Giorgio di Francesco di Mino Trecerchi.11 On that basis, it is perhaps not so strange that Ser Mino di Niccolò was initially drawn into the case. One notion pursued here is that as an older member of the family, Ser Mino may have been more directly involved than Pietro di Giovanni, because he actually owned the property in Via di Pantaneto, even though another, younger member of the family was actually living in it at the time. In analysing the fifteenth-century ‘Petizioni dell’Ufficio dell’Ornato’, Petra Pertici noted a reference in 1466 to one ‘casa Trecerchi’ inside the walls of Siena that was in particular need of renovation.12 The house in question was described as ‘in su la strada romana’ (or Via Francigena). In 1466 it was described as ‘bassa e disonorevole in quello luogo’ (‘low and undignified in such a location’).13 It seems that Giorgio di Francesco di Mino Trecerchi, the current occupant, had been ordered by the ‘Ufficio dell’Ornato’ to raise the façade of the building in order to render it ‘more dignified and more in keeping with its neighbours’ – ‘honorevole conferendo all’altre vicine’. There seems little doubt that the house in question was on the Via di Pantaneto – the main thoroughfare of the Terzo di San Martino – and also the place in which Giorgio di Francesco di Mino Trecerchi (presumably the grandson of Ser Mino) was said to be living in 1466 and from which he filed his tax report.14 Describing the building as a ‘mezza casa’, Giorgio di Francesco Trecerchi declared that he was living there ‘in discomfort’ because of the ‘partigioni facte infra noi’ (presumably as a result of divisions of living space drawn up by the various members of the Trecerchi family). As the youngest or least significant member of the clan – Giorgio di Francesco may possibly have drawn the short straw when it came to dividing up the family’s 11 Leoncini, “I Trecerchi”, p. 36. 12 Perticci, La città magnificata, p. 96. 13 In this context, see Nevola, “‘Per ornato della Città’”. 14 ASSi, Lira 161, fol. 144r. Although also noting a building at no. 100 Via di Pantaneto which likewise carried the Trecerchi coat of arms, Perticci (La città magnificatà) drew no links between this and the house which was occupied by Giorgio di Francesco di Mino Trecerchi in 1466. However, in a separate aside, she did refer to the work that had been commissioned from Antonio di Simone by Pietro Trecerchi, as if that had been carried out on a different site from no. 63–67 on the same street.

195

196 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

living quarters. According to Perticci, in 1466 Pietro Trecerchi was living in another part of Siena, in the ‘popolo di S. Vigilio’. It was indeed from this area of the Terzo di San Martino, that Pietro filed his own separate tax report.15 Petra Perticci was herself doubtful that Pietro Trecerchi was accommodated in either the palace on the Via di Città or the Via di Pantaneto. The conclusion I draw, however, is that the small building on the Via di Pantaneto, apparently so criticised by the officials of the ‘Ufficio dell’Ornato’ in 1466, was indeed the Trecerchi ‘palazeto’ that was referred to in the 1464 record: not least because of the diminutive term used in describing it. That being the case, the fresco decorations commissioned by Pietro Trecerchi for the loggia of the ‘palazeto’ could not have concerned his own private property. They might rather have constituted a first step in renovating another part of the family’s patrimony: one that had historically been associated with an older member of the clan, Ser Mino di Niccolò Trecerchi, but which – by 1466 – had been passed down to a younger member of the family (Giorgio di Francesco di Mino). There seems little doubt, though (as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei himself noted), that Pietro di Giovanni Trecerchi was footing the bill. By the date of the final stages of the arbitration process during the second half of January 1465, Pietro Trecerchi had indeed already handed over a certain amount of money to the artist. There, for the moment, the service offered by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to both the Franciscan friar Jeronimo and the Trecerchi family, must rest. The case remains open also about the precise location of the Trecerchi ‘palazeto’. However, what this case does throw light on is the artist’s established reputation as arbitrator and scribe by the end of 1464. This no doubt stood him in good stead when he petitioned for the vicariate of Monte Orgiali two years later. The question arises what he was doing between those two dates. Milanesi did not present any evidence for that period of time. So far, I have found no concrete evidence, either, of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei being active inside or outside Siena between January 1465 and April 1466. Against that background the artist’s appointment of an official representative to look after his personal affairs in July 1465 seems more significant. It might indeed indicate that at that date Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was envisaging not only being absent from Siena for some time but also, and as a direct consequence of that, having issues or interests that needed protection during his absence. These were surely not the pre-occupations one would expect from an impoverished and insignificant journeyman painter setting out once more to carry out innocent decoration work. Might he once more have been about to engage in covert agency on behalf of the Sienese government? If that were the case, we should not necessarily expect to find such employment recorded in any detail. In any event, and as Cecilia Alessi and Piero Scapecchi convincingly assert, the document lodged in the archive 15 ASSi, Lira 160, fols. 117r–117v.

Arbitr ator and Scribe for the Trecerchi 

of the Mercanzia, in which reference was made to the artist having engaged the procurator ‘Bartholomaeum Ser Jacobi Ser Francisi’ to act in the matter of ‘lites et causus ad agendum et defendendum suum forum situm Senis’, must confirm that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei intended being absent some time after 4 July 1465.16 According to Gaetano Milanesi’s findings, there were numerous occasions when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was either not working at all inside Siena, or was engaged peripatetically in work elsewhere. One prolonged absence from Siena appears to have opened up following the artist’s petition to the Sienese ‘Signoria’ for the vicariate of Monte Orgiali in April 1466 – six years after assuming a similar role at Rigomagno. Milanesi noted that there were no further records detailing Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s activities inside Siena until the spring of 1473. Even at that date, the artist seems once more to have been on the point of leaving the city, as – in the first week of March 1473 – efforts were being made by the ‘Signoria’ to find a position for ‘their’ painter ‘Francesco Alfei’ in the north of Italy, in the Marche.17 It seems from a letter that was despatched to the apostolic legate, the Cardinal of Ravenna, in March 1473, that the Sienese officials were particularly keen to promote Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s fortunes. Not only did they explain that the artist was for the moment out of work and thus needing to find a way to feed his large family; they also took pains to emphasise the justness of his cause (‘credimus caussas eius honestissimas’). They referred to Francesco di Bartolomeo as ‘Franciscus Alfeus pictor civis noster’, including quite specific details about his personal circumstances and character: ‘est qui filiis abundat, in quibus et femelle sunt jam mature’ and ‘est homo tenuis fortune’, almost as if they had intimate knowledge of him. Moreover, despite references to Francesco di Bartolomeo’s tenuous circumstances, the Sienese authorities expressed total confidence in him as being most trustworthy (‘sed plenus fidei’). The emphasis on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s honesty and trustworthiness prompts further speculation that he might have been engaged on a quite different kind of mission in the north-east of the peninsula, as opposed to seeking artistic patronage there. Despite a positive and prompt response despatched by the Cardinal of Ravenna on 16 March, assuring his ‘most beloved’ Sienese ‘brothers’ that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had indeed presented himself with his letter of recommendation and that measures were being taken to accommodate him in that ‘provincia’, no records have yet emerged to show that any artistic commissions were actually received or carried out by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in or around Ravenna.18 16 Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 128. 17 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 238–39, nos 142–43. 18 In this context, see Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, pp. 30–31 and Scapecchi, “Quattrocentisti senesi”.

197

198 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

There is, moreover, some evidence to suggest that this northern visit could not have been that prolonged, since – once more according to Milanesi – the artist was back in Siena in early 1474, painting the ‘chataletto’ (or funeral litter) for the Compagnia di Santa Lucia (for which he was paid in April of that same year).19 But a year later, in a record covering 17–26 April 1475, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s name was included in a list of eligible candidates for the post of ‘castellano’ or ‘consigliere’ to the Consiglio Generale e Camarlinghi.20 The assumption must surely be that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was yet again contemplating leaving Siena. There is, moreover, evidence to show how such government service may have interfered with work the artist had already undertaken inside the city. The case in question concerned work Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been commissioned to carry out inside the family seat of the Martinozzi, just up the road from the home of Giorgio di Mino Trecerchi in Via di Pantaneto.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Leoncini, Alessandro. “I Trecerchi nella Storia e nell’araldica senese.” Accademia dei Rozzi, Rivista 20 (March 2004): 34–43. Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856. Nevola, Fabrizio J. D. “‘Per ornato della Città’: Siena’s Strada Romana and Fifteenth-Century Urban Renewal.” The Art Bulletin 82, no. 1 (March 2000): 26–50. Perticci, Petra. La città magnificata: Interventi edilizi a Siena nel Rinascimento. L’Ufficio dell’Ornato (1428–1480). Siena: Il Leccio, 1995. Quast, Mattias. Siena: Banca dati delle facciate del centro storico. Translated from German, 2004–2006, Fondazione Monte dei Paschi di Siena and the Commune of Siena. Online at http//db.biblhertz.it/siena/siena.xq. Scapecchi, Pietro. “Quattrocentisti senesi nelle Marche: Il polittico di Sant’Antonio abate del Maestro dell’Osservanza.” Arte Cristiana 698 (1983): 287–90.

19 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 421, no. 299 (note). 20 ASSi, CG 435, fol. 37v, in a section headed 17 April and alongside a number of other artisans; including goldsmiths, painters, carpenters and ‘ligrittieri’.

2.

Martinozzi Patronage Abstract: Ten years after his assistance in payment disputes over decorations by Antonio di Simone in the Trecerchi ‘palazeto’, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was himself recorded as carrying out similar work for Lodovico Martinozzi, the legitimised son of Niccolò di Angelo di Giovanni. Like Antonio di Simone, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became embroiled in a dispute with his employer. This chapter considers whether the latter artist may have defaulted over completion of the work whilst involved in other commissions or because engaged in government service outside Siena. Analysing the significance of Lodovico Martinozzi’s legitimacy and inheritance as well as the prestigious location of the Martinozzi palace on the Croce del Travaglio in Siena, consideration is given to a number of threads linking the artist, the Martinozzi and the Friars Minor of San Francesco. Keywords: Martinozzi; palace on Croce del Travaglio; Franciscan connections; Beato Pietro Pettinaio; arguments and payment disputes.

According to Gaetano Milanesi, a record drawn up in late November 1475 showed that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had recently been involved in painting furniture and carrying out fresco work in one of the private chambers of Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi. Somewhere along the way, though, the two men appear to have fallen out. But there seems to be some confusion about the course of events in this particular case; not least about the identity of the individual Milanesi cites in the ‘Archivio detto, filza 1 dei Lodi di Ser Priamo Cecchini’.1 In a Mercanzia register entitled ‘Manualis Mei priami Ambrosis Not(ar)is: Curie mercantie in k(a)l(en)dis Julii vice prima’ there are indeed a number of references during the latter months of 1475 to an individual named Francesco di Bartolomeo, including several references to his being absent from Siena during those periods. However, no reference is made in any of the entries in that register to the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei or to the affairs of Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi. 1 See Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 355–56 and ASSi Mercanzia, fols. 1r, 2r, 9r, 9v, 10r, 10v, 11v, 14r, 15r, 21r, 23r, 24r, 25r, 48r, 49r, 50r, 51r, 54r, 55r, 63r, 72r, 164r, 167r, 169r and 170r.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_iv_ch02

200 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

It seems, in fact, that the Francesco di Bartolomeo cited there was Francesco di Bartolomeo di Francesco Guglielmi; his name being laid out in full by the notary Meo di Priamo on the first page and elsewhere, as one of the residing officials of the Mercanzia in the second half of 1475. Milanesi appeared to think that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s dealings with Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi was just another case of litigation between patron and artist over the amount of money that should or should not be paid for work done, or for work only partially completed. However, a number of other factors may have been in play: not least the social status aspired to by the patron in question – Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi – and his desire to be accepted as one of the leading members of Sienese society. Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi was the illegitimate son of Niccolò di Angelo Martinozzi who on his deathbed in August 1470, in his house on the Croce del Travaglio in Siena confirmed Lodovico as his one and only rightful heir.2 It seems that the work commissioned from Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was carried out in the same house, or palace, on the Croce del Travaglio, since after Niccolò di Angelo’s death, Lodovico became the sole owner of that Martinozzi seat. Apart from the question of mis-identification of the individual referred to by the Mercanzia notary, my curiosity about this commission was further aroused by the realisation that there was a strong connection between Lodovico di Niccolò and the Franciscan friars of San Francesco. It seemed, therefore, that this was yet another example of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s litigation with the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco not having sullied the artist’s copybook as far as members of the lay population of Siena were concerned. The Martinozzi are known to have established close links with the friars of San Francesco from an early date: an early member of the family, Giovanni (later ‘Beato’), having been martyred for his faith in 1345, even being included in the canon of Franciscan worthies.3 More significantly, a more recent member of the family, Messer Agnolo di Giovanni Martinozzi, had purchased a chapel and family crypt in the newly completed basilica in the mid 1440s. 4 2 For the original will countersigned by the notary Giacomo degli Umidi, see Scritture e diversi testamenti antichi di fidecommisi di Casa Martinozzi, Siena, 1470, Biblioteca Giuridica, Siena. See also, Gatti, Il Beato Giovanni, pp 18–20. 3 See Perticci, “Un caso di ‘politico vivere’, p. 4. See also, Gatti, Il Beato Giovanni, p. 18 and Gatti, Montelifrè, p. 20. 4 See Torriti, La Basilica di San Francesco, pp. 15–17. Torriti suggests that the chapel had originally been located inside the conventual complex. According to Gatti (Il Beato Giovanni, 19) the existing ‘Cappella del Sacramento’ in the south transept, had indeed belonged to the Martinozzi (having previously been founded by them in 1445 under the titulus Sant’Anna e San Martino). The chapel itself was constructed on the site of the basilica’s old sacristy. Gatti notes that following the great fire in 1655, when the existing

Martinozzi Patronage 

The Martinozzi’s involvement in the administration of the enlarged basilica of San Francesco is indeed well known. In the fifteenth century Niccolò d’Agnolo Martinozzi was for example employed in the role of ‘Operaio’ there.5 He was also instrumental in carrying out his father’s testamentary stipulations – as laid down in May 1449 – that, within six years from his death, the old sacristy chapel should be re-decorated and that such decorations should include the figures of San Biagio, San Bernardino da Siena and the Beato Giovanni Martinozzi.6 Interestingly, Agnolo di Giovanni Martinozzi had clearly been intent on celebrating not only his own family’s illustrious ancestors, but also the anticipated canonisation of a more recent ‘beato’ – Bernardino Albizzeschi. Niccolò d’Agnolo for his part appears to have been more intent on establishing a link with the Beato Pietro Pettinaio, by constructing his own funerary monument in proximity to the latter’s tomb. Indeed, shortly before his father’s death in 1449, Niccolò had set in action a plan to found a family tomb in the space directly below the old sacristy chapel.7 According to Lucia Gatti, this new memorial space subsequently became known as the ‘Cappella Nova’.8 It was in this space that Lorenzo di Pietro Vecchietta was commissioned to carry out a fresco of the Deposition from the Cross.9 This project, involving on-site fresco work, must presumably have brought Vecchietta in contact with Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro (and perhaps the young Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei), intent on producing a new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco.10 Against such a background it seems inappropriate to dismiss the 1475 record concerning Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s litigation with Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi as merely one of many such disputes that arose between artists and patrons over payment. This was not an insignificant commission. Not only did the Martinozzi palace dominate its surroundings in a central part of Siena. But its new occupant, Lodovico di Niccolò was clearly anxious to establish his credentials as his father’s rightful heir. It was also an undertaking that led back to San Francesco. sacristy had burnt down, the friars obtained permission from the Martinozzi to adapt the chapel once more to a sacristy – connecting it to the adjacent conventual complex. 5 See Ceppari Ridolfi, “Lucia di Tana”, See also, in the same volume, p. 227 (XV). 6 Gatti, Montelifrè, p. 19. 7 Gatti, Montelifrè, p. 19. 8 Gatti, Montelifrè, p. 19. 9 See Nicola, “Un affresco del Vecchietta”. See also Alessi, “San Francesco a Siena”, p. 186. 10 For further references to the Martinozzi, and in particular their artistic patronage, see Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 18 and p. 36, note 118, in which reference is made to the coat of arms of the Martinozzi which was inserted in the painting of Saint Anthony Abbot Distributing His Wealth to the Poor (Washington, Kress collection). Alessi and Scapecchi suggest that this panel (along with other parts presumably associated with the same altarpiece) was painted by the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, and that it was commissioned by a member of the Martinozzi family.

201

202 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

On his deathbed, Niccolò di Agnolo – as well as legitimising his bastard son Lodovico – had also confirmed and continued the link with the ‘frati minori’ through a testamentary legacy to them. His son Lodovico appears to have been anxious to continue in the same vein. There seems little doubt, either, that Lodovico was intent on carrying forward the reparation and redecoration work on the family seat in the Croce del Travaglio that Niccolò d’Agnolo had apparently initiated. On that basis alone, it seems unlikely that he would have lightly embarked on employing an individual who was frowned upon by the Franciscan community. Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi’s position in Sienese society and, in particular, the relationship that was established between his family and the Franciscan community of San Francesco add further support to the hypothesis pursued here; that despite reneging on the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli and Compagnia di San Francesco commission, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was sought after by leading members of Sienese society. In her 2014 article, “Un caso di ‘politico vivere’ a Siena tra Quattro e Cinquecento: I Martinozzi, signori di Montelifrè”, Petra Perticci pointed out that the Martinozzi family seat on the Croce del Travaglio was situated on a prime location in Siena.11 Subsequently known as the Palazzo Martinozzi Stasi, this was not an ostentatious structure, particularly by comparison (as Perticci herself noted) with palaces owned by other ‘Noveschi’. However, it was certainly not a ‘palazeto’. Moreover, its central position, at the meeting point of the city’s ‘Terzi’ and close to the seat of the Mercanzia, overlooking the Campo, must have lent it stature over and above its actual dimensions. Following his father’s death Niccolò d’Agnolo Martinozzi appears to have been intent on modernising the family seat. A certain amount of restructuring work was carried out on the palace around 1460, including the insertion of the Renaissancestyle portal, which has been attributed to Antonio Federighi.12 It seems that Niccolò d’Agnolo Martinozzi had been regarded as a man of culture and learning. Changing the look of the original pointed gothic-style façade through the insertion of the newly fashionable and rounded classical portico no doubt contributed to that reputation. It may be no coincidence, either, that Federighi had been engaged in work for the interior of the basilica of San Francesco in the closing years of the decade preceding the renovation of the Martinozzi palace.13 Niccolò may thus have looked to the Franciscan friars when selecting craftsmen for his own project. 11 See Pertici, “Un caso di ‘politico vivere’ a Siena”, p. 4. I am grateful to Mario Ascheri, not only for drawing to my attention Petra Perticci’s article, but also for pointing me in the direction of Quast, Banca dati, scheda n. 032, Banchi di Sotto, 6–8, Palazzo Martinozzi Stasi, with its associated images; one of which shows the Martinozzi coat of arms embedded in the central portal. 12 See Pertici, “Un caso di ‘politico vivere’ a Siena”, p. 4. 13 For Antonio Federighi’s work on two bas reliefs now displayed in the High Altar Chapel of San Francesco and the tomb for the parents of Pope Pius II, Vittoria Forteguerri and Silvio Piccolomini, see

Martinozzi Patronage 

One possibility is that the slightly later commission to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to decorate an internal space in what was presumably the same Martinozzi palace formed part of the same modernisation project (but at this point under the auspices of the palace’s new occupant, Niccolò d’Agnolo Martinozzi’s son, Lodovico). In doing so, Lodovico di Niccolò may also have been anxious to establish his own credentials as his father’s rightful and cultural heir. There may in fact have been a number of interconnecting threads between the artists that were called upon by different members of the Martinozzi clan, when giving a facelift to the family seat at Croce del Travaglio. Threads that once more led back to the Franciscan conventual complex. In that context, I argue once again, that the choice of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei reflected the fact that the artist was held in good regard by his fellow citizens, despite the dispute with the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco. Moreover, in this case it appears that it was his artistry rather than his skills as a scribe that was in demand. The fact that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was asked by Lodovico di Niccolò to produce a pair of painted ‘cassone’ might also reflect a reputation earned at a much earlier date through the family business established by his father. There may indeed have been a neighbourhood connection between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the Martinozzi, well before receiving the commission to decorate the family seat. Giovanni d’Agnolo Martinozzi is recorded as one of the ‘vexillarii’, or standard bearers of the Terzo di San Martino between March and April 1458/9 and again – in the first ‘pisside nobilium’ (drawn from a base of nobles of Siena) – for the same area between May and June 1459.14 His brother, Niccolò d’Agnolo Martinozzi, for his part, whilst also closely associated with the Terzo di San Martino appears in addition to have formed links with the Terzo di Camollia, as he was recorded as one of three ‘Capitani del popolo’ for that area between May and June 1458.15 Between July and August 1463, he was also recorded as one of three ‘consiliari’ of the Capitani del Popolo.16 Given what can now be established about the government duties undertaken by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei during the second half of the 1450s, it is not impossible therefore that he had crossed paths with both brothers on official business. There is in any event some evidence to show that Lodovico Martinozzi felt under some pressure to uphold the family’s profile when assuming his position as

Richter, The Sculpture of Antonio Federighi, pp. 51–56. 14 ASSi, Concistoro 2336, fols. 7v and 8r. 15 ASSi, Concistoro 2336, fol. 5. I am grateful to Paolo Toti for further information provided about Giovanni and Niccolò Martinozzi. According to Toti, both brothers were essentially associated with the ‘Terzo di San Martino’, although in 1468 Giovanni was recorded as in the ‘Terzo Città’. 16 ASSi, Concistoro 2336, fol. 20v.

203

204 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

legitimate owner of the family seat.17 Continuing the refurbishment of the Croce del Travaglio palace might have seemed a natural first step. It seems that Lodovico had not only taken up residence in his father’s palace after the latter’s death. He was also emboldened to embellish it with his own nuptial furniture and wall paintings. Given his previously contested state as the rightful heir of Niccolò, some have argued, he may have been doubly anxious not only to confirm his hereditary rights and position in Sienese society, but also to imitate his father’s cultural leanings.18 That being the case, he may thus have cast his eye not only over potential neighbourhood artists in the Terzo di San Martino, but also over individuals who – by their work or personal reputations – might confirm his own legitimacy and standing.19 That he selected Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei for the task of frescoing the internal space of the palace is thus significant. There is another factor that is also worth exploring. Lodovico di Niccolò must surely have been on familiar terms with Francesco di Bartolomeo, given that the artist was called in to carry out refurbishment work within what was essentially Lodovico’s own private living space in Siena. According to Maria Assunta Ceppari, not only had the chamber in question been re-decorated in celebration of the marriage between Lodovico Martinozzi and Agnolia di Bartolomeo Luti, but the price of it had raised Martinozzi eyebrows.20 In suggesting that Lodovico had questioned whether Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had actually paid for the colours he had used, Ceppari Ridolfi introduces a plausible subtext. Might it be that word had continued to circulate about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s not having honoured his debt for colours purchased in the context of decorating the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco? A reliable conduit for such information may well have been close at hand in November 1475 in the person of the Mercanzia lawyer, Lorenzo di Giusa. According to Maria Assunta Ceppar, this individual played a part in the negotiations over payment to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei for work carried out in the Martinozzi palace.21 This is an intriguing hypothesis, despite the fact that the notary Meo di Priamo’s Mercanzia manual of 1475 does not in fact contain 17 In this context, see Ceppari Ridolfi “Lucia di Tana”, p. 157. See also Gatti, Montelifrè, pp. 78–79, where the author draws attention to the following passage in Lodovico’s 1481 tax declaration: ‘La casa de la mia abitazione con massaritie in essa apartenenti posta nel terzo di sancto Martino et compagnia di Sancto Pietro a le Scale, in luogo dicto a la Croce al Travaglio’. 18 See Mario Ascheri’s end note “Le novelle: Una fonte per la storia di Siena”, in Ceppari Ridolfi, Jacona and Turrini, Schiave, p. 205. 19 For a detailed analysis of Lodovico’s illegitimacy and his subsequent ‘legitimisation’, see Ceppari Ridolf i, “Lucia di Tana”, pp. 147–61 and see also pp. 201–10 in the same volume for a consideration by Mario Ascheri about Lucia di Tana’s social standing in Siena. 20 Ceppari Ridolfi, “Lucia di Tana”, p. 161. 21 Ceppari Ridolfi, “Lucia di Tana”, pp. 160–61.

Martinozzi Patronage 

any references to that individual, either in general inserts or in the several lists of officials inserted there. It is in any event significant that Lorenzo di Giusa was closely involved in the affairs of Niccolò d’Agnolo (and especially in the context of legitimising the two children born to Niccolò’s slave, Lucia di Tana). While there is no evidence to suggest that he assumed responsibility for deciding the details of the final payment for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s work in the Martinozzi palace, or even that the matter itself came before the officials of the Mercanzia, given a chance, Lorenzo di Giusa would no doubt have been inclined to protect the interests of the family he had served for so long. Moreover, if still alive (although no longer in office), memory of his own frustrated attempts some twenty years earlier to cajole Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to return to the unfinished project to fresco the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco might well still have rankled. Yet not even evidence of Lorenzo di Giusa’s litigation with the painter had apparently dissuaded Lodovico di Niccolò from employing Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. However, once again, things appear to have gone wrong. According to Milanesi, by November 1475 patron and artist were locked in dispute. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s old colleague Sano di Pietro had been called in as a third party (and possibly even as the third person called) – ‘terzo chiamato’ – to act on behalf of both the patron and the artist concerning their arguments and questions – ‘sopra la loro lite e questione’.22 While one could argue that such litigation and arbitration had arisen, as was often the case, over the amount of money the artist should receive, or (as Ceppari in a light aside muses) following doubts about the extent to which the artist himself had covered the costs of his materials. I suggest there may have been other factors at play. While the date of the litigation is clear, no evidence has so far emerged to establish when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had received the commission to carry out fresco work in the Martinozzi palace. Might it be that his journey to the Marche in the spring of 1473 had set back work he had already undertaken for Lodovico, following the death of Niccolò d’Agnolo Martinozzi in August 1470? Or might Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei have turned his attention to other, possibly more remunerative commitments, such as the production early in 1474 of a funeral litter for the Compagnia di Santa Lucia?23 Or, might it be that disagreements between the patron and the artist were 22 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 356. 23 In this context, see Benvenuti and Piatti, Beata civitas, pp. 127–45. See also, Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 32 and p. 37, note 134, where the authors reference the document published by Milanesi in respect of the work for the Compagnia di Santa Lucia and note the payment of 12 lire that was made to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei on 24 April 1474. Alessi and Scapecchi suggest that this record provides the earliest evidence of a Sienese painter being involved in painting a ‘catalatto’ in the history of Sienese art. That being the case, one has once again to question whether

205

206 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

aggravated by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement in official government business? Might this thus have been yet one more example of government service taking precedence over pre-existing artistic commitments? There certainly seems to have been a gap in the artist’s undertakings in Siena after 1475. Following the work for Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears on Gaetano Milanesi’s account to have slipped once more into the shadows. That is, until 1483, when he was apparently sent to Sinalunga in the Val di Chiana to record the confines or limits of territory there, following a dispute between Siena and Florence.24 Although in Milanesi’s eyes, a mere footnote to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s artistic endeavours, this record of mapping in the vicinity of Sinalunga may in fact constitute another important piece of a larger, hitherto little explored jigsaw puzzle concerning Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s service to the Sienese government. The fact that the Val di Chiana commission involved the delicate issue of territorial rights – brought about as a result of political tensions between Siena and its traditional enemy Florence – implies at least some level of involvement and complicity on Francesco di Bartolomeo’s part as ‘esploratore’, or surveyor. That said, and quite apart from questions raised here in the context of work carried out for Lodovico di Niccolò Martinozzi, one constant piece of information that emerges from records published by Gaetano Milanesi was Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s continual state of impoverishment, regardless of whether or not he was engaged in official business for the Republic of Siena. In the last record published by Milanesi – Francesco di Bartolomeo’s tax declaration of 1488 – the artist describes himself as ‘già dipintore’ and refers to a number of outstanding debts, including one considerable sum of 100 florins that was owed to his son-in-law – indicating that the artist’s declared state of poverty some twenty years previously had not only persisted, but had worsened in old age.25 There, for the moment, our knowledge about this somewhat obscure artist’s career might have had to rest, were it not for the fact that several decades after the publication of Gaetano Milanesi’s Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese, Count Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not perhaps held in higher regard as a painter in his own time, than is now generally argued. 24 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 421, no. 299 (footnote). Alessi and Scapecchi (“Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 37, note 136) refer to the same work, but note a different date, citing a record of 1482 inserted in the Biccherna – ‘per sua fatica di aver fatto e dipenti certi disegni per la Valdichiana’. Alessi and Scapecchi also note that the same work was mentioned by Ettore Romagnoli (Biografia cronologica). They also refer to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei having painted the ‘Arme del Popolo’ in the communes of Asciano and Lucignano – citing a letter of 15 September 1482 (which was published by Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 396–97). 25 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, p. 421, no. 299.

Martinozzi Patronage 

Scipione Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi succeeded in filling in some of the gaps in Milanesi’s account of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s life, by publishing a new set of findings in 1898 under the title Nuovi documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. Appendice alla raccolta dei documenti pubblicati dal comm. Gaetano Milanesi. One of Count Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi’s key findings was to extend the previously established chronological limits of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s life, by tracing his 1491 tax declaration (once again filed from the ‘Terzo di San Martino, Rialto e Cartagine’). As the opening quotes of this book show, the 1491 record contained startling new information. Replicating details that were included in the declaration he had filed a few years previously, about no longer being a painter and being both old and poor and in ill health, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei announced that at the age of seventy he was planning to leave Siena and go to Rome, where he intended finding shelter and protection in the house of ‘Sinolfo da Chastello Otieri’, ‘el quale è ubrigato a ricevermi e farmi bene’.26 In publishing such details Bichi Borghesi and Banchi thus laid the ground for enquiries in the present book about the artist’s dealings with people in high places. It was in that context I constructed a case in support of the notion that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei came across the Ottieri during the 1450s whilst carrying out surveying work (thus perhaps gaining and maintaining the gratitude of various members of that clan). But Bichi Borghesi and Banchi’s findings facilitated a further hypothesis proposed in this book: that the artist’s association with the Ottieri depended on the fact that he was still engaged in surveying work in the early 1480s and that Sinolfo Ottieri was recorded as directly involved in discussions arising from such surveillance.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia. “San Francesco a Siena, mausoleo dei Piccolomini.” In Pio II e le arti: La riscoperta dell’antico da Federighi a Michelangelo, edited by Alessandro Angelini, 281–303. Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Silvana Editoriale, 2005. Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Benvenuti, Anna, and Pierantonio Piatti, eds. Beata civitas: Pubblica pietà e devozioni private nella Siena del ’300. Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2016. Bichi Borghesi, Count Scipione, and Luciano Banchi. Nuovi documenti per la storia dell’arte senese: Appendice alla raccolta dei documenti pubblicata dal comm. Gaetano Milanesi. Siena: E. Torrini, 1898.

26 Bichi Borghesi and Banchi, Nuovi documenti, pp. 350–51, no. 181.

207

208 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta. “Lucia di Tana.” In Schiave Ribaldi e Signori: A Siena nel Rinascimento, edited by Maria Assunta Ceppari Ridolfi, Erminio Jacona, and Patrizia Turrini, 147–61. Siena: Edizioni Il Leccio, 1994. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, Erminio Jacona, and Patrizia Turrini. Schiave Ribaldi e Signori: A Siena nel Rinascimento. Siena: Edizioni Il Leccio, 1994. Gatti, Lucia. Il Beato Giovanni da Montepulciano. Tricase (LE): Youcanprint Self-Publishing, 2012. Gatti, Lucia. Montelifrè, comune rurale Castello d’altura 1213–1527. Tricase (LE): Youcanprint Self-Publishing, 2013. Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856. Nicola, Giacomo De. “Un affresco del Vecchietta nella Chiesa di San Francesco in Siena.” Rassegna d’arte senese 6, no. 4 (1910): 74–77. Oliveti, Luigi, and others, Statuti e Regolamenti. Statuti del Comune di Montepescali (1427). Collana “Quaderni degli Usi Civici e dei Demani Collettivi” 2. Direttore della Collana, Luigi Oliveti. Ospedaletto, Pisa: Editrice Universitaria Litografia Felici, 1995. Perticci, Petra. La città magnificata: Interventi edilizi a Siena nel Rinascimento. L’Ufficio dell’Ornato (1428–1480). Siena: Il Leccio, 1995. Perticci, Petra. “Un caso di “politico vivere” a Siena tra Quattro e Cinquecento: i Martinozzi, signori di Montelifrè.’’ Accademia dei Rozzi, Rivista 9 (5 March, 2014): 4–8. Quast, Mattias. Siena: Banca dati delle facciate del centro storico. Translated from German, 2004–2006, Fondazione Monte dei Paschi di Siena and the Commune of Siena. Online at http//db.biblhertz.it/siena/siena.xq. Richter, Elinor M. The Sculpture of Antonio Federighi. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1994. Romagnoli, Ettore, Biografia cronologica de’ Bellartisti senesi dal 1200 al 1800. 13 vols. (ed. Stereotipa). Florence, 1976. Torriti, Paolo. La Basilica di San Francesco: L’Oratorio dei Santi Lodovico e Gherardo e l’Oratorio di San Bernardino a Siena. Genoa: Sagep Editrice, 1987.

3.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino, the Val di Chiana and Vergelle Abstract: Building on the earlier research of Romagnoli, Milanesi and Bichi Borghesi and Banchi, this chapter analyses government-sponsored work inside Siena and postings in Montalcino, the Val di Chiana and Vergelle. That the artist became scribe of the Tax and Duties Office at Montalcino as early as 1469 confirms Leonardo Benvoglienti’s claims that he was trustworthy, diligent and a good writer. But the artist was also apparently anxious to continue the visual propaganda of his earlier years: requesting permission to paint the symbols of Sienese power on the main gates at Montalcino in 1469. He made a similar request when assuming a second posting as scribe there in 1481: a posting that led to his becoming ‘vicario’ of nearby Vergelle and once more ‘establishing the honour’ of the Republic of Siena. Keywords: Duties as a scribe; Montalcino; survey work; Val di Chiana; Vergelle.

Count Scipione Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi did in fact provide a considerable amount of information about the ways in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was on occasion involved in what might best be described as secretarial or civil service duties. One record published by them – a request put to the ‘Signoria’ and putatively dating to 1481 (since recorded in the minutes of the Concistoro drawn up during that year) – confirms yet again what Leonardo Benvoglienti had claimed in his 1458 representation to the Cathedral Works: that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was skilled as a scribe. For, according to the 1481 Concistoro record, the artist was seeking at that date to assume the office of ‘scriptore delle Gabelle di Montalcino’ for the upcoming year.1 It seems that this was not the first time the artist had aspired to such an office. But this fact was apparently not known to Count Scipione Bichi Borghesi and 1

Bichi Borghesi and Banchi, Nuovi documenti, pp. 260–61, no. 163.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_iv_ch03

210 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Luciano Banchi. Over one hundred years later, Petra Perticci revealed, however, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had applied for a similar post in Montalcino on 13 May 1469.2 On that date the artist had apparently petitioned to be nominated ‘scrittore del Camarlingo’ (Chamberlain or Treasury) in Montalcino for the period of twelve months, starting on 1 July 1469. The role of ‘scriptore’ was not something one could walk into armed solely with a good hand for writing. According to the statute that was drawn up for Montepescali in 1427, the individual elected to that post was responsible not only for writing up the ‘entrate’ and the ‘uscite’ of the ‘camarlingo’ (treasurer) ‘ordenatamente et chiaro’ (in a clear and ordered way), so that all the dealings of the commune would be visible and transparent to all interested parties. He was also required to take notes during each of the sessions attended by the ‘vicario’. Indeed, he would be fined 5 soldi for every morning that he was not in attendance and this would be automatically deducted from his salary. It was also assumed that the ‘scriptore’ would be acquainted with all the legislation concerning ‘decime’ and civic affairs, as well as the relative fines associated with any misdemeanours. It was also their responsibility to have oversight of the reports drawn up by the ‘vicario’, especially in the matter of recording any fines levied or restitutions agreed.3 Such duties amounted to much more than those of a simple scribe. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei would clearly have been expected to digest, understand and replicate the findings and judgements of the chief official in the commune. His own experience as ‘vicario’ in Rigomagno must have stood him in particularly good stead for that. Despite the apparent rigours of such a role, it seems that in applying for the post in Montalcino Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was also anxious to continue his old profession as a journeyman painter: lodging a parallel request to paint the arms of Siena on all three of Montalcino’s main gates, as well as in the city’s main square. Petra Perticci notes that such insignia were to be painted ‘in colour’ and ‘according to the conditions’ expressed in the Signoria’s letter (‘chome si chontiene nella sopradetta vostra lettera’). It appears that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s request was approved, with one proviso, that the artist himself should cover all of the expenses. There was thus no question on this occasion that the individual commune or anyone else should be responsible for any of the artist’s costs. Perhaps the perception was that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s salary as ‘scriptore’ was more than sufficient to cover any activities he undertook outside that role. The 1481 petition for another posting in Montalcino appears to have contained a similar proposal; that – if it pleased central government – the artist was prepared to paint ‘arme suff itienti et belle’ on the two gateways lacking such 2 Perticci, La città magnificata, p. 113. 3 See Oliveti and others, Statuti e Regolamenti, vol. 1, p. 25, no. 7.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

embellishments in nearby San Quirico d’Orcia. Clearly, both in 1469 and 1481, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei not only believed that he was well qualified for the post of scribe in one of the local offices in Montalcino. He was also sufficiently well informed about affairs on the ground to be aware that there was also an opening for his journeyman skills and not only in Montalcino itself. He clearly knew that two of the gates in the nearby subject town of San Quirico still lacked appropriate signs of f idelity to the Sienese Republic. Even at the beginning of the ninth decade, when Francesco di Bartolomeo must have been nearing sixty, it appears that he was still looking to f ill some of the remaining gaps in the Republic’s visual propaganda programme. Surviving records indicate that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei fulfilled his duties as scribe to the Tax and Duties office in Montalcino during 1481 well. Indeed, it seems that the ‘Priori’ of Montalcino were so impressed by his expertise that they personally interceded on the artist’s behalf when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei subsequently sought the post of ‘vicario’ in the nearby commune of Vergelle. 4 In fact, the Montalcino officials appear to have regarded the artist as one of their own citizens. Therein possibly lies the misconception promoted by Gaetano Milanesi and others that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei came from Montalcino. In pointing up Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s activities as a government official, Count Scipione Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi clearly established a slightly different narrative from that previously constructed by Gaetano Milanesi. More recently, other historians have raised further doubts about whether Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was really as insignificant an individual as Milanesi implied. Petra Perticci’s findings, indicating that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was sufficiently well regarded as a scribe to have been offered two stints of government service in the same commune, are particularly relevant in that context. Moreover, while claims that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei could have been responsible for painting the magnificent altarpiece of The Birth of the Virgin at Asciano encountered considerable opposition, it is worth noting that Cecilia Alessi and Pietro Scapecchi (unlike Milanesi or Bichi Borghesi and Banchi) appear to have been amongst the very few to draw attention to the life of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei that was drawn up by Ettore Romagnoli around 1835, some two decades before Gaetano Milanesi.5 Ettore Romagnoli is not generally renowned for his factual accuracy in recording the biographical details of any of the individual artists included in his Biografia cronologica de bellartistisenesi. One example of his questionable accuracy is his reference to the artist as ‘Francesco di Bartolommeo, di Andrea Alfai da Montalcino’, this, despite the fact that by Romagnoli’s own account, in his 1488 tax declaration the 4 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 147. 5 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, pp. 139–48.

211

212 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

artist signed himself off as ‘Franc.o di Bart.o Alfei’.6 Nor does it seem that Romagnoli paid much attention to chronological consistency when tracing the careers of individual artists. Many of the records inserted in his life of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appear plucked out of time and order. Thus, Romagnoli’s first reference to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s activity as a painter dates to February 1463 (1464), when the artist was already middle-aged. This is followed by the transcription of the letter that the artist sent from Asciano in 1482. Romagnoli then returns to the letter dated 29 March 1466, written by the ‘Segretario della Repubblica Agostino’, in which it was noted that ‘Francesco di Bart.o Alfai (sic) dipentore et nostro dilecto cittadino’ should paint the Sienese coats of arms in any of those ‘terre’ (lands, or towns) belonging to Siena where such signs were missing.7 Romagnoli then darts forward once more to the artist’s activities during the 1480s. There is, moreover, as yet, no evidence to confirm Romagnoli’s or, indeed, Milanesi’s claim that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was born in Montalcino. That said, Romagnoli’s biography of the artist provides a number of additional pieces of information that are not only verifiable, but which appear to have escaped the notice of both Gaetano Milanesi and Count Scipione Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi. Romagnoli appears to have been particularly interested in the ways in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became involved in Siena’s civic and political affairs. In common with narratives established later in the nineteenth century, Ettore Romagnoli concluded that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was an artist of little significance, describing him as ‘piuttosto armista guazzarellatore, che pittore istorico’ (a decorator or ‘splasher’ of coats of arms, rather than an historical painter). However, the first artistic project cited by Romagnoli details the part played by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in producing decorations to celebrate the papal visit of Pope Pius II to Siena (according to Romagnoli, in February 1463/4). Citing a record lodged in the Riformagioni, Romagnoli notes that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been asked to paint a number of ‘cartelle’, or posters – each measuring 4 braccia – that were intended to be displayed above sixty ‘mazze’ (piles or standards) along the papal course as Pius moved about the city.8 It seems, though, that Romagnoli was incorrect in assuming a papal presence in Siena in 1464. Fabrizio Nevola makes reference to the Mass and processions that were celebrated in Siena on the occasion of the feast of San Bernardino on 6 May 1464.9 He queries, though, whether the 6 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 146. 7 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 144. 8 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 139. But see Alessi and Scapecchi, “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro”, p. 29, where the authors suggest that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was working on behalf of Pope Pius in both 1460 and 1463 as well as being involved in producing decorations for the papal visit to Siena, as if these were separate engagements. 9 Nevola, “Ritual Geography”, p. 84.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

pope or any of his retinue was involved in that event. In effect, and regardless of whether this involved the physical presence of the pope, it is nonetheless clear that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been commissioned to produce street decorations to line the course of a papal procession.10 Such large-scale painting must have involved him in a considerable amount of work. Moreover, a civic commission of this kind clearly had political significance. Such a project indicates that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not peripheral to either the artistic or the political events of his time. Presumably, any number of artists would have been capable of carrying out such work. The fact that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was selected for the job – rather than, say, Sano di Pietro – must at the least indicate that he was in the eye of government officials (and, particularly, as Nevola points out in the context of the authorities with oversight of such work, the Maestri sopra all’ornato) and that his skills were considered appropriate to the task. Further information included in Romagnoli’s biography confirms (as likewise indicated at a later date by Milanesi), that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was sought after as a draughtsman or cartographer even towards the end of his career. Citing a record lodged in the Biccherna, Romagnoli notes that in 1482 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was paid 18 lire (between 4 and 5 florins) in respect of a series of ‘disegni’ he had made and painted of the Val di Chiana.11 The details here are significant. Reference to a series of designs rather than one single image would seem to confirm that the coloured drawings produced by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei amounted, once again, to a kind of overall panoramic view. At first sight it would seem that this project was quite separate from the artist’s activity in Sinalunga in 1483, as noted by Gaetano Milanesi. But this is perhaps due to omissions in each account. Romagnoli did not specify where in the Val di Chiana the artist had been sent and Milanesi did not record that the drawings at Sinalunga were anything other than precise delineations of the borders between Sienese and Florentine territory in the vicinity of that commune; or that such drawings were painted. However, it seems likely that the Val di Chiana project cited by Ettore Romagnoli was indeed the same as that dated to a year later by Gaetano Milanesi, as an entry dated 23 September 1483 in the records of the Biccherna for 1482 and 1483 does indeed confirm that Francesco Alfei had received a payment of eighteen lire on that day for paintings he had carried out in the Val di Chiana.12 Although clearly on occasion inaccurate in terms of chronology, Romagnoli’s account of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s activities in the Val di Chiana reveals how mapping work in the form of painted panoramas continued to play a significant 10 In this context, see Nevola, “Ritual Geography”, pp. 80–82. 11 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 1. 12 ASSi, Biccherna 338, fol. CCIIIV.

213

214 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

part in both the territorial and the political interests of the Republic of Siena. As already noted, detailed and up-to-date records and descriptions of the territories to the east, south-east and south-west of Siena – whether in the form of rudimentary drawings delineating individual confines of territory owned by Siena or full-blown panoramic maps outlining possible areas of weakness in the case of attack – must have been invaluable to the central government: both in the context of those districts which needed strengthening in terms of military tactics, and – more practically – in terms of those communes from which the central government might expect to extract tax, or request armed support. According to the records cited here, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement in such work must have spanned a period of some thirty or so years. Public decorations, whether in the form of street hangings advertising and welcoming a papal visit to Siena, or in celebration of the Feast of San Bernardino, or the more obviously propagandist application of Sienese coats of arms on the gates, walls and public buildings of subject communes must have contributed to the sense of Siena’s power and authority both at home and abroad. More significantly, all such work was presumably regarded as significant by those government officials who called upon Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s skills, even though this did not involve them in much expenditure and there was apparently not much financial gain in it for the artist himself. Several of the records cited by Romagnoli (like those published a few years later by Milanesi and Bichi Borghesi and Banchi) show that the artist continued to paint Sienese coats of arms on the gates and walls of subject communes throughout his life, even during those periods when he was claiming in his tax declarations that he was no longer painting.13 Romagnoli also notes how such work involved the artist in local disputes and confrontations. Clearly, such setbacks were not isolated incidents. Indeed, it seems unlikely that the Rigomagno and Asciano reports were the only despatches to be sent back to Siena by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. Therein lies a whole new research project, tracking other letters in the artist’s own hand. Although Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was apparently engaged to carry out roving journeyman painter work between Asciano and Rapolano during the latter part of 1482, Romagnoli (like Count Scipione Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi) suggested that the artist was also engaged in government work inside Siena at around the same time. Thus, Romagnoli notes that in 1482 Francesco di Bartolomeo – together with another painter, Benvenuto – was associated with the office of the Balia (‘dei Signori di Balia’).14 While Romagnoli gives no further details, one notion pursued here is that the two men may indeed have been occupying an official post 13 See, for example, Bichi Borghesi and Banchi, Nuovi documenti, p. 229, no. 137, in respect to work carried out on the gate and ‘a chapo la casa del comune’ at Montepescali. 14 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 144. Unusually, Romagnoli does not cite a source.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

within what was the government Tribunal at the beginning of the 1480s. Francesco di Bartolomeo had certainly been engaged in work for that office previously. There seems little reason why they should not have called upon him again. Once more, this opens up a new challenge: to explore what other references (if any) survive in the Balia archive concerning Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s employment inside that government office. It also offers further support for the notion pursued here that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was one of the ‘esploratori’ involved in gathering the information about Florentine aggression that was relayed to Sinolfo Ottieri in 1482. He may even have been charged with delivering those findings to Rome. As an official government envoy he would presumably have delivered any despatch directly to the ambassador’s home or office. Such a personal encounter could have laid the ground for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s claim nearly a decade later that he and his wife not only intended going to Rome to stay in the house of Sinolfo Ottieri, but that Sinolfo was under an obligation to receive him and treat him well. One more significant encounter between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Sinolfo Ottieri may, however, have occurred during the mid 1470s when the family’s possessions at Castello Ottieri and Montorio were officially handed over to the Republic of Siena. According to a long and detailed record drawn up by the Consiglio Generale on 19 October 1475, Sinolfo and his brothers submitted at that date to having the arms of the commune of Siena painted and maintained in perpetuity on the door of the Ottieri castle and on the door of their own living quarters.15 On the one hand, this could be represented as a humiliating submission. On the other hand, it constituted a formal recognition of the alliance between the Ottieri and the Republic of Siena and the support they might expect from each other. The fact that Sinolfo himself subsequently attained high office as a Sienese representative indicates the clear advantages of the latter. More significantly, given Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s key role in painting the Sienese coats of arms on the walls of subject communes throughout Sienese territory during the previous two decades or so, it seems very likely that he, personally, would have been called in to carry out that task. In doing so, he may thus have become engaged in Sinolfo’s personal affairs: not least in assessing and reporting on that individual’s fealty to central government. What Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have done for the Ottieri family (thus earning Sinolfo Ottieri’s gratitude), either in Ottieri territory during the 1450s and 1470s, or if sent to Rome in 1482 in order to report in person to Sinolfo Ottieri as ambassador, remains an open question. But in the context of the latter event, the artist could not have stayed long in Rome, as Romagnoli cited a couple of other records, which (according to him) showed that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei 15 ASSi, CG 236, fols. 161v. –162v.

215

216 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

was resident, or at least back in Siena in 1484. The first of these records involved the payment of a ‘presta’, or loan, of 13 lire; 16 the second – an insert in the 1484 records of the Consiglio Generale – referring to ‘Francesco Alphai dipentore’ as ‘signore residente’.17 Yet Romagnoli also noted that shortly after 1484 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was once more engaged in the service of the Republic outside Siena: this time at Vergelle, in the vicinity of Montalcino. Citing a document of 1484 that recorded the ‘Fede degli huomini di V(er)gelle)’ that ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Montalcinese (vicario)’ had returned to them (‘era ritornato’), Romagnoli suggested somewhat perversely that the artist (although referred to by Romagnoli himself as ‘of Montalcino’ in another part of his life of the artist) may actually have come from Vergelle. In fact, neither Romagnoli’s assertions concerning Vergelle and Montalcino, nor Milanesi’s suggestion that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was born in Montalcino are any longer tenable.18 My own reconsideration of the surviving records shows that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had in fact already been associated with Vergelle prior to the 1484 record, in which – according to Romagnoli – the people there had voiced their satisfaction about the artist’s ‘return’. It also seems clear that on that earlier occasion the artist had been called to Vergelle in an 16 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 147. 17 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 147. Mario Ascheri suggests that such a reference must confirm that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was, at least at this date, a member of the Concistoro. 18 Another individual, ‘Francesco di Bartolomeo da Sant’Angelo in Colle’, not only appears to have assumed official roles in the service of the Republic around the same time as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, but also to have lived in the same district of Siena – filing his tax declarations from the Terzo di San Martino. He also appears to have had interests in both Siena and Sant’Angelo in Colle, to the south of Montalcino. It may be significant in this context to note the reference to Francesco di Bartolomeo di Francesco ‘di minozo’ (?minoccio) in the artist’s denuncia of 1481, as well as the inclusion of ‘Alfei’ through an inter-line insert (see ASSi, Lira 193, fol. 342r). See also, Burrini, ‘I cittadini senesi’, p. 440, no. 172, where the author refers to the artist as Francesco di Bartolo (sic) di Francesco di Minoccio Alfei and notes a debt of 100 florins owed to his ‘generi’). The fact that this individual was filing from the Rialto e Cartagine and that he described himself as poor and ill with an old wife and two daughters, as well as owing a debt of 100 florins to his in-laws, provides powerful evidence that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s paternal grandfather was indeed Francesco di Minoccio Alfei. Interestingly, the same 1481 register contains a reference to the spice merchant Bartolomeo di Minoccio in the denuncia of ‘Messer Francesco di Nanni Patrizi’, bishop of Gaeta. According to that individual, a workshop below a house of considerable size belonging to him in Siena in the Terzo di San Martino was let out to ‘Minoccio speziale’ at the annual rate of 34 florins. While not providing definitive evidence of a relationship between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Francesco di Minoccio, such details conf irm that in 1481 the spice merchant Minoccio was working (or more likely had worked) in the same area as what was by then the impoverished and ailing artist Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. Further support for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s claims of poverty in his own tax declaration lie in the 1481 denuncia filed by ‘Ser Iacomo Venturini di Paolo, notaio’ from the same ‘Terzo di San Martino, Compagnia Rialto e Cartagine’ (see ASSi, Lira 193, fol. 126). In this, the notary reported that he owed a debt of about 40 florins to ‘Francesco Alfei, dipintore’ for the house that he, Jacopo Venturini, was presently living in. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s precarious financial affairs may thus have resulted as much from money owed to him as from his own lack of employment.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

official capacity, rather than because it was his birthplace. That said, Romagnoli’s comments stimulate further consideration of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s role as a roving official in the service of the Republic of Siena. The proceedings of the Consiglio Generale on 14 October 1483 show that the painter Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had assumed the role of ‘vicario’ of Vergelle during the previous six months.19 But, because of the ‘sterilita’ and the ‘tempi forti’, he had been unable to carry out much of his official duties there. Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had, however, used his time at Vergelle to construct what he referred to as an ‘official’s room’ (‘affare una stanza p[er] loffitiale’) in nearby Torrenieri. Explaining that this was where such an office had been at an earlier date (‘dove era gia antiorame[n]te’), Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei reported that the newly created structure – presumably a new office for the vicariate of Vergelle – was intended for the ‘use and honour’ of the Sienese ‘Signoria’. Francesco di Bartolomeo asked, however, that he should be offered the same role of ‘vicario’ of Vergelle for another year, backdated to April 1483. According to the Consiglio Generale records, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s petition was approved on 13 October. Presumably, as a result, he had ‘returned’ to Vergelle. The fact that we can now show that the artist had busied himself in construction work whilst hunkered down as ‘vicario’ of Vergelle during the first half of 1483 – presumably because of unrest in the surrounding countryside – throws further light on the kinds of activities such officials could become involved in. Making sure the ‘vicario’ had a decent house to stay in was not always the local official’s responsibility though. According to a deliberation drawn up by the Consiglio Generale on 29 August 1385 the people of Buonconvento, Percenna and Borgo Furello were ordered to construct an ‘honourable and comfortable house’ that was to serve as the residence of the ‘vicario’ in Buonconvento.20 Apparently, such a residence had previously been established at Percenna. It seems that the new ‘casa del vicario’ was intended to be fortified, since the 1385 record included the stipulation that the complex should include a tower containing a substantial bell (weighing between 1000 and 1200 pounds). It also appears that the new house was intended to be comparatively large, as the time stipulated for its construction was five years. The structure erected by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei a century later at Torrenieri must, by contrast, have been comparatively small, given that it was erected in a matter of months. Interestingly, the building which was constructed in Buonconvento was originally described as a ‘casa’, but when completed was referred to as a ‘palazzo’. Indeed, it became known as the ‘Palazzo Podestarile’, following the foundation of a ‘Podesteria’ in Buonconvento on 20 October 1410. 19 ASSi, CG 239, old fol. 145v. 20 See Carli, Civitelli and Pellegrini, Buonconvento, p. 61.

217

218 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The room for officials that Francesco di Bartolomeo had had constructed in nearby Torrenieri some time between April and October 1483 must, regardless of its actual size and components, have nevertheless been something of a symbolic gesture; replicating as it did a similar structure that had previously been erected on the same spot. It is possible that the earlier building had been destroyed – perhaps following enemy action – or that it had deteriorated to the point that it was no longer regarded as fit for purpose as an outpost of Sienese authority. The fact that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei refers to it in terms not only of its use, but also of the honour it would bring the Republic of Siena, does indeed confirm that the new room amounted to a kind of visual propaganda: a statement of Sienese power and presence in Torrenieri in concrete form. This was no doubt important, given the apparent instability at that time in the nearby Val d’Orcia. It is relevant that we can also now show that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had been involved in undercover work as an ‘esploratore’ during his first stint as ‘vicario’ at Vergelle: producing the series of painted drawings of the Val di Chiana and – more specifically – of Sinalunga to the north-east of Torrenieri. Milanesi referred to this work in terms of its simply delineating the boundaries of Florentine and Sienese territory. Romagnoli’s description of that project revealed that Francesco di Bartolomeo’s work was more complex. Amounting, as they appear to have done, to an overall panorama of the Val di Chiana, these drawings must have provided a detailed map that could be used to good military effect: indicating ways in and out of the territory, as well as pinpointing areas vulnerable to attack. No doubt Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s view of Orbetello that was produced so many years earlier had been drawn up in a similar way and served a similar purpose. A picture thus emerges from Ettore Romagnoli’s account of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s life of an individual who was not only a practising agent in the field of visual propaganda, but was also engaged as an undercover government official in Sienese outposts; even into old age. It is significant that Milanesi referred to the 1482 Val di Chiana expedition in terms of its involving the delineation of what were possibly hotly contested boundaries between Siena and Florence in that area. Given Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s track record as outlined in this book, it seems fair to assume that he would have reported back to central government any evidence of hostile activities on the part of Florentine agents or the local populace in and around Sinalunga. Might this have been the intelligence that was sent to Sinolfo Ottieri in Rome? It is worth noting that it was around the same date that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei reported back to the ‘Signoria’ (on 24 October 1482) about the difficulties he had encountered in nearby Asciano and Lucignano di Val di Chiana when carrying out journeyman painting there. Twenty years earlier, he had even been afraid to send out any messengers from Rigomagno half way between Asciano and Lucignano. In

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

many ways these must have been considered the badlands. Small wonder, perhaps, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had turned to the ‘podestà’ of the well-defended Torrita di Siena, advanced stronghold of the Republic of Siena to the south-east. A penultimate (but chronologically inconsistent) record inserted by Romagnoli in his biography of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei concerns a commission in 1470 to assist Pellegrino di Mariano and Agostino di Andrea in finishing the painting of the ‘palco’, or public platform, of the ‘church of the Spedale’ (presumably the Ospedale della Scala in Siena).21 For his part in this work, which had been left unfinished by Benvenuto di Giovanni, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was paid 5 florins (20 or so lire) – much the same amount as he was subsequently paid for his mapping work in the Val di Chiana. Either the painting work was relatively insignificant, or the value of territorial mapping has been underestimated. Given the evidence presented in this book, I would argue that the monetary recompense for undercover agency was indeed not that high. Its strategic value could, however, be immense. At times it could affect whether an individual faithful to the Republic of Siena died or survived; and whether an allied Sienese outpost stood or fell. That aside, Romagnoli’s biography is useful for the evidence it provides that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not only still alive several years after the 1491 end stop indicated by Count Scipione Bichi Borghesi and Luciano Banchi, but that his financial affairs remained a problem. According to Romagnoli, one record drawn up in 1495, details interest that was being paid by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei on a loan of 150 lire.22 As well as extending the span of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s life by a number of years, Romagnoli was thus able to show that the artist continued in debt. Romagnoli’s biography also provided a slightly different narrative to the artist’s last years; indicating as it did that Francesco di Bartolomeo remained in Siena, despite claiming in his 1491 tax declaration that he was intent on seeking out Sinolfo Ottieri in Rome. Perhaps he had presumed too much. Perhaps he did not receive the permission he clearly sought to absent himself from the city with the assurance that he was in compliance with the commands or requirements of the ‘Signoria’ and ran no risk of ‘alcuno pregiudizio’ (causing offence). Maybe, as the artist may himself have anticipated, various steps had indeed been taken in respect of the outstanding debts he and his wife owed to ‘in-laws’ and ‘several other people’. Debts which he was apparently unable to honour in 1491, having divested himself of all of his possessions – passing these 21 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, pp. 147–48 (apparently in the Libro de Conti of the treasurer Raffaello Floriani, in the archive of Santa Maria della Scala and also, according to Romagnoli, mentioned by Padre Della Valle in his Lettere senesi). 22 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 148 (apparently recorded in Tomo 145 classe =O= of the Riformagioni. Romagnoli also cites further loan payments in another tome: Presta dell’onoranza del Re cristianissimo no. 145 della classe =O=, in contrada Spadaforte, fo. 86: fol. 12).

219

220 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

down to his daughters and grandchildren (‘nipoti’). On the surface, it seems that the artist was bankrupt in 1491. Moreover, if the details of the 1495 record cited by Romagnoli were correct, not only did one sizeable debt remain unpaid four years later, but Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was still being held to account through the payment of interest on it. All in all, Romagnoli’s account would seem to imply that this was a miserable end to a long and insignificant life. That said, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s documented attempts to improve his financial affairs by assuming civic duties on behalf of the Republic of Siena – ostensibly in the interest of earning enough money to marry off at least one of his female offspring – appear in one instance to have paid off. According to Romagnoli, the artist had managed to accumulate enough money by 1468 to arrange for the marriage of one of his daughters, Camilla, to the painter Battista di Fr(u)osino.23 This was only two years after the artist’s request that he should be allowed to assume the post of ‘vicario’ at Orgiali: a petition in which Francesco di Bartolome Alfei described himself as having ‘una grande et disutile famiglia di otto figliuoli quasi tutti piccoli, et la maggiore è una fanciulla grande da marito’. Perhaps Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s role as ‘vicario’ at Orgiali did indeed temporarily set his financial affairs on a more even keel. His earlier stint as ‘vicario’ at Rigomagno may likewise have had a similarly stabilising effect. The artist’s recorded involvement in government business in and around Montalcino and Vergelle during the early 1480s could also have provided further financial assistance as the artist edged into old age. Surviving records do in fact provide some insight to the varying salaries associated with the posts of ‘podestà’ and ‘vicario’: the former invariably being offered considerably more than the latter. These indicate that any easing of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s affairs by being involved in such government service could only have been temporary. In 1453, the six-monthly salary for the post of ‘podestà’ in Grosseto was fixed at 810 lire.24 At the same date the post of ‘vicario’ at Paganico offered a mere 47 lire for the same period of service.25 Interestingly, salary rates for the role of ‘podestà’ also varied from place to place. Thus – assuming there were no drastic changes between 1453 and 1455 – when Leonardo Benvoglienti took up his post in Montalcino, he would most probably have anticipated receiving some 1137 lire at the end of his six-month stint there.26 Had he been posted just 23 Romagnoli, Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 148. Cross-referencing this information to his life of Onofrio di Fruosino Giusi, Romagnoli somewhat confusingly dates the marriage between Camilla and Battista to 1508, see Biografia cronologica, vol. 5, p. 194. 24 ASSi, Concistoro 2391, fol. 2r. 25 ASSi, Concistoro 2391, fol. 13r. 26 ASSi, Concistoro 2391, fol. 3r. As ‘castellano’ in the same commune and at the same date, he would have earned less than half that amount, see ASSi, Concistoro 2388, fol. 27v.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

down the hill at San Quirico, he would probably have looked to receive around a third of that sum.27 So far, I have not discovered what the ‘vicario’ rates were for Rigomagno in 1460 and Vergelle in 1483. But, if Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei remained in the former commune for the normal run of six months, he might have expected to receive at least the same as the ‘vicario’ at Paganico in 1453. Given the different sizes and varying strategic significance of individual communes, the artist may not have received much more, though, for his two stints as ‘vicario’ in Vergelle a couple or so decades later. On that basis, the twenty or so lire Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei received in 1470 for his work on the hospital ‘palco’ may have seemed quite handsome. In any event, and as I show in the final section of the book, the artist appears to have received considerably much more than this when he became involved in a project to repair the bridge over the River Arbia towards the end of the 1450s.

Bibliography Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Ascheri, Mario. “Lo Stato di Siena: Un introduzione alla sua organizzazione politicoamministrativa.” In In memoria di Ginevra Zanetti. Collana dell’Archivio Storico e giuridico sardo di Sassari. Nuova serie 1. Studi e Memorie. Università degli Studi di Sassari, Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, 73–95. Sassari: Moderna, 1994. Bichi Borghesi, Count Scipione, and Luciano Banchi. Nuovi documenti per la storia dell’arte senese: Appendice alla raccolta dei documenti pubblicata dal comm. Gaetano Milanesi. Siena: E. Torrini, 1898. Burrini, Elisabetta. ‘I cittadini senesi del terzo di S. Martino e il fisco nel 1481: Inventario analitico delle denunce della Lira conservate nell’Archivio di Stato di Siena.’ Tesi di laurea, Università degli Studi di Siena, Faccoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, relatore Giuliano Catoni. 2 vols. 1989/1990. Carli, Nello, Gino Civitelli, and Benito Pellegrini, eds. Buonconvento dal ’500 all’800 (notizie e curiosità). Circolo Culturale Amici di Buonconvento. Sovicille, Siena: Cassa Editrice I Mori, 1993. Nevola, Fabrizio. “Ritual Geography: Housing the Papal Court of Pius II Piccolomini in Siena (1459–60).” In Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena, edited by Philippa Jackson and Fabrizio Nevola, 65–88. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

27 See ASSi, Concistoro 2391, fol. 8v, where the six-monthly salary for the ‘podestà’ at San Quirico was set at 450 lire. In this context, see Ascheri, “Lo Stato di Siena”, pp. 82–83.

221

222 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Oliveti, Luigi, and others. Statuti e Regolamenti: Statuti del Comune di Montepescali (1427). Collana “Quaderni degli Usi Civici e dei Demani Collettivi” 2. Ospedaletto, Pisa: Editrice Universitaria Litografia Felici, 1995. Perticci, Petra. La città magnificata: Interventi edilizi a Siena nel Rinascimento. L’Ufficio dell’Ornato (1428–1480). Siena: Il Leccio, 1995. Romagnoli, Ettore. Biografia cronologica de’ Bellartisti senesi dal 1200 al 1800. 13 vols. Edizione Stereotipa. Florence: SPES, 1976.

Part Five The Ponte d’Arbia Project: Preserving the ‘Honour’ of Siena

Abstract: Part Five considers Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement towards the end of the 1450s in a prestigious project to repair the bridge over the River Arbia, south of Siena: his brief apparently being to fresco the walls of a new chapel there (for which he was well paid; earning more pro rata than his contemporaries, Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro had done when producing the new altarpiece for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco). The contract to repair the bridge is analysed in detail with particular focus on the relationship between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the individual who was put in charge around 1457: Agostino delle Bombarde, Siena’s official engineer and canon maker. Keywords: River Arbia bridge; strategic repair work; Siena; Agostino delle Bombarde; Leonardo Benvoglienti; a new chapel.

When first embarking on this account of the art and government service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei I was not optimistic that I would find any startling new evidence about him. It was enough perhaps, to set him in the context of his time and outline as clearly as possible the various commissions he was involved with. I was in fact extremely fortunate in uncovering a large amount of material that threw new light on the artist’s involvement with the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, as well as stimulating new perspectives on the ways in which little-known artists like Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have contributed to the societies into which they were born. One set of records appeared in the most exciting and unexpected way to draw together several diverse themes I had been working on. Viewed in the round they concerned what I refer to here as the Ponte d’Arbia project: ‘Preserving the Honour of Siena’. The records indicate that some time between 1458 and 1462 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei became involved in a prestigious government project to repair the deteriorated bridge over the Arbia river to the south of Siena. Significantly, this project appears to have involved not only the city’s chief canon maker and engineer, Agostino delle Bombarde – who had previously been co-opted to the war effort waged against Jacopo Piccinino – but also Leonardo Benvoglienti, the individual who, in 1458, referred to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei as his friend. Thus, several strands of enquiry considered in this book were brought together.

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_v

226 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 27  Map of the River Arbia and Its Bridge and Surrounding Territory, 1644, pen and ink and coloured print, Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Corporazioni religiose soppresse dal governo francese, 132 (Religione dei Cavalieri di Malta), n. 184.

That the Ponte d’Arbia and its surroundings (and especially its position on the ‘Strada Romana’ to the south of Siena) was regarded as particularly significant – not only to the Sienese Republic, but also to the later Medicean Grand Duchy – is confirmed by the fact that Bartolomeo Ammannati was commissioned between 1558 and 1559 to oversee yet another restoration there.1 Both the bridge and its surroundings are included in a seventeenth-century ‘cabreo’, or topographical map, which is now housed in the State Archives in Florence.2 (See Figure 27.) This image, as well as delineating the surrounding countryside, clearly depicts the ‘Osteria’ at one end 1 Sembranti, “Bartolomeo Ammannati”, pp. 357–59. 2 Archivio di Stato, Florence, Corporazioni religiose soppresse dal governo francese 132 (Religione dei Cavalieri di Malta), no. 184. But see also Sembranti, “Bartolomeo Ammannati”, p. 362, footnote 16, for the reference to Archivio di Stato, Florence, Mediceo del Principato, 1864, carte non numerate (4 dic. 1554) – entitled ‘foglio allegato contenente il disegno acquarellato del ponte’ (recto of first sheet is blank. Verso of second sheet entitled ‘Disegno del ponte a Arbia’) – and Archivio di Stato, Florence, Compagnie religiose soppresse, 1036, vol. G – XII – 240, fols. 114r–129v, which contains various designs of the bridge and the Val d’Arbia territory.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

of the bridge, the ‘Mulino’ on the southern side and a small chapel surmounted by a cross that was positioned at the bridge’s middle point. The decision to repair the bridge over the River Arbia in the mid fifteenth century – no doubt a direct consequence of depredations in the immediate surroundings and military engagements in Siena’s southern territories against the hostile forces of, amongst others, Jacopo Piccinino – appears to have resulted in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei being called upon by Agostino delle Bombarde to carry out decorations on the walls of a chapel that was intended to crown the reconstruction work there. It seems that in carrying out this work, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was in some senses consolidating the role he had already adopted in the context of Siena’s propaganda machine. According to the records, this project and particularly the frescoes inside the new chapel were intended not only to reflect the power and authority of the Republic of Siena in protecting travellers along the route to the south of the city, but also to glorify Siena itself. Repair work on the bridge continued for many years, but the decorations inside the chapel must presumably have been commissioned some time after May 1458, when Agostino delle Bombarde was formally put in charge of the project.3 On this occasion, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to have completed the work commissioned from him, as according to a record that was drawn up by the General Council in Siena in May 1466, he had received the not inconsiderable payment of 400 lire out of money that had been extended to Agostino delle Bombarde by the commune of Siena to cover the overall costs of the project. Set in context against the 320 lire that Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro are known to have received for the altarpiece they had produced a couple of decades earlier for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, such a sum must have seemed princely. It could hardly have been the case therefore, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s fortunes as a fresco painter waned in the wake of abandoning his work for the Sienese confraternity. Given the daily rate that was generally paid for fresco work during that period, it seems reasonable to assume that the project itself had consumed a large part of the artist’s energies and time. 4 More significantly, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement in the Ponte d’Arbia project fills an important gap in our knowledge about that artist’s career and professional skills as a fresco painter. It also strengthens the hypotheses pursued here concerning the roles this artist assumed in service to the Republic of Siena; but first, a word about Agostino delle Bombarde.

3 ASSi, CG 479, fol. 213. See also, ASSi, Concistoro 2462, fols. 102r–105v. 4 In this context, see Thomas, Painter’s Practice, pp. 274–78.

227

228 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

The Engineer and Cannon Maker Agostino delle Bombarde Takes Control According to the statement compiled by a number of elected citizens and deputies of the Sienese government that was recorded in the proceedings of the Consiglio Generale on 18 May 1466, consideration was being given at that date to the estate of the deceased bombardier Agostino delle Bombarde and dues owed by his heirs.5 Surviving records indicate that Agostino delle Bombarde had been an individual of some distinction and standing. As the maker of cannons and other military paraphernalia, he had attracted the attention of powerful patrons far beyond Siena’s borders. As well as being the city’s chief engineer, it seems he had also been drawn into the affairs of both the ‘frati minori’ of San Francesco and the lay religious who assembled there. Amongst other things, the May 1466 statement reveals that an unspecified amount of money was still owed on the ‘forme di bombarde’ or cannons that Agostino had made for the commune of Siena and the considerable sum of 3000 lire owing for his work on the construction of the bridge. Agostino’s heirs recorded debts owed by such illustrious patrons as Pope Pius, the Count of Urbino and the Marchese of Mantua. Clearly, Agostino delle Bombarde had operated not only in direct service of the Republic of Siena, but also much further afield. However, in the early summer of 1466, the bombardier’s heirs appear to have been facing a crippling number of debts piled up by their deceased relative, many of which had been incurred during repair work on the Ponte d’Arbia. It seems that at that date the heirs were attempting to write off some of these debts, as well as finally setting the records straight so that they in turn could realise their own assets and carry on with their own lives. According to the 1466 statement, it was not just the personal affairs of the bombardier’s heirs that were under consideration. Among those who were mentioned in the context of Agostino delle Bombarde’s debts was the painter, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei. Agostino delle Bombarde, whose full name was Agostino di Niccolo di Plagienta (?Piacenza), is recorded in his guise as official cannon maker to the commune of Siena as early as 1454, but he appears only to have become officially engaged in the Ponte d’Arbia project in May 1458. Moreover, he seems to have remained in that post for a comparatively short period of time. In an index of deliberations and orders decided by the General Council in Siena between 1438 and 1464, an entry under the date 1462 indicates that the bombardier was already dead, since reference was made in that section to his heirs.6 Nevertheless, the 1458 appointment clearly 5 ASSi, CG 231, fols. 140r–141r (old fols. 126r–127r) [fol. 140r.] – ‘Certi cittadini electi e deputati p(er) li Ma(gistr)ri e potenti S.S priori Governate del co(mun)e e capit(an)i di p(o)p(o)lo de la citta di Siena p(er) autorita de co(n)sigli aloro co(n)cessa affare p(ro)visioni allam…a? dele her(e)de di M(aestr)o Augustino dele bombarde han(n)o facte le infrascripte p(ro)visioni…’. 6 ASSi, CG 479, fol. 101v.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

marked an important juncture, not only in terms of the defence of the city and its southern territories, but also in the context of travel to and from Rome. The bridge over the Arbia river was vital not only for those wishing to travel south, but also for those moving northwards and in doing so, passing through Siena.7 Contemporary records indicate that the extent to which the bridge was or was not in good condition had a direct bearing on the honour of the Sienese Republic itself. As with the coats of arms and other symbols of Sienese power that were attached to the gates and walls of subject communes, the general upkeep of roads and bridges was clearly seen as an important propaganda tool in the context of impressing those passing through Sienese territory. Thus, while no doubt a practical necessity, the involvement of the Siena’s chief engineer and cannon maker in the Ponte d’Arbia project carried considerable political undertones; not least because it followed several years of acute anxiety about the bridge’s deteriorating condition, as well as increasing enemy action in Siena’s southern territories. According to the surviving records, the mill house at the southern edge of the bridge and its wooden wheel had been leased out to Bambo Puccini and Petrino Burelli (described as a merchant of Siena), for the period of twenty years from July 1442.8 At that date, it was agreed that Bambo would supply the city of Siena with a certain amount of grain each year. But, he was to be released from such an undertaking in the event of the mill being destroyed in war or attacked by hostile forces.9 The name of a third individual, Checco – Petrini Burelli’s brother – was included in the confirmation of the rental agreement that was drawn up in August of the same year, when Bambo Puccini agreed to keep the property in good order.10 Only a few years later, though, anxieties were being voiced not only about the condition of the mill and its wheel, but also about the state of the nearby bridge. The earliest references I have traced in that context date to 1450 and 1453.11 It seems that by December 1453 Bambo Puccini was dead and his son Urbano had taken over the rental of the mill.12 At that date, Urbano Puccini agreed, along with the woodworker Maestro Antonio del Minella and a stone mason, Maestro Luca di Bartolomeo, to reconstruct the mill’s wheel; on the understanding that such repair work should be completed within two years. It seems they failed. On 25 May 1458, the bombardier Agostino was officially asked to take over the restoration work and commissioned to prop up the partially ruined bridge (two of its arches having in the 7 In this context, see Mariotti (with Laura Martini, Massimo Pedrini, Guido Pratesi, Luigi Pratesi and Paolo Volpi), Ponte d’Arbia. 8 ASSi, Concistoro 2462, fols. 33v–35v. 9 ASSi, Concistoro 2462, fol. 35r. 10 ASSi, Concistoro 2462, fols. 36v–40r. 11 ASSi, CG 235, new fol. 93v (old fol. 82v) – new fol. 94r (old fol. 83r) and CG 479, fol. 128v. 12 ASSi, Concistoro 2462, fols. 95r–97v.

229

230 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

meantime collapsed). The following month, on 4 June, records of the Balia confirm that Agostino delle Bombarde had taken over the whole project. At the same time reference was made to the ‘heirs’ of Urbano and his two assistants, indicating that at least one of them was by that date dead.13 The records show that the parlous condition of the bridge over the Arbia was already widely acknowledged by the middle of the sixth decade of the f ifteenth century. Indeed, it seems that off icials in Siena had been informed that the bridge was in danger of collapse in the early 1450s. In March 1453 fear had been voiced that unless something was done during the forthcoming summer months, there was a risk that the whole bridge would be swept away.14 Some of the protracted discussions indicated that the honour of the commune of Siena itself was at risk. In one meeting of the General Council on 10 May 1453, the point was made that the bridge over the Arbia not only secured the way to Rome, but also in effect paved the way for access to Siena itself.15 It was thus imbued not only with strategic signif icance in terms of travel and transport of goods, but also with civic kudos. If the way to Siena from the south was blocked as a result of irresponsibility or carelessness on the part of central government in maintaining its highways and bridges in good condition, the reputation of the city itself was likely to suffer. Whilst noting that no agreement had yet been established on how best to proceed with the repair of the bridge, the plea put forward on 10 May 1453 was that at least the ‘stechaia’, or wooden piling, of the nearby mill should be repaired. How (and whether) to take action to avoid the bridge itself collapsing altogether continued over a number of weeks and months. On 26 October 1453, the General Council finally came to an agreement. According to this, work should be carried out not only on the mill and its ‘stechaia’, but also on the bridge itself.16 There are in fact references to the replacement of the bridge’s ‘stechaia’, or framework in 1453. It is not clear whether Agostino delle Bombarde was personally involved in discussions about repair work of the mill and bridge during 1453. The first concrete evidence of his involvement so far discovered dates to some time around October 1457.17 However, it seems that some preparatory work had been done before the autumn of 1457 since the following year the bombardier was recorded as having been offered a loan of 500 florins ‘pro reparatione pontis arbie’.18 13 ASSi, Concistoro 2462, fols. 102r–105v. 14 ASSi, CG 226, fol. 67r (new pencil fol. 67). 15 ASSi, CG 226, old fols. 98v–99r. 16 ASSi, CG 226, old fol. 157v. 17 ASSi, Balia 6, fol. 21v and fol. 32. See also fol. 131v, where there is a direct reference to a one-off payment to ‘Magister Augustinus Niccole dplagentia Bombardreio’ and promise of a future salary. 18 ASSi, CG 479, fol. 106v.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

It is possible therefore, that Agostino delle Bombarde had been drawn into discussions about the repair to the bridge several years prior to his official appointment there. There is certainly evidence to show that he was engaged in work for the commune’s military engagements in the city’s southern territories during the first half of the 1450s. On 28 June 1454, for example, the General Council reported that Siena was in need of three new decorated ‘bombarde’, or battering rams, and that three ‘operai’ or workmen were to be elected to that task.19 It seems that Agostino delle Bombarde was put in charge of the project, as in records of the Balia that were drawn up between 1456 and 1457, reference was made to the three bombardiers who had been elected to work alongside him during that period.20 A year or two earlier – on 9 August 1455 – Agostino was documented as having received a loan for ‘refining’ a bronze cannon.21 That record also reported that the bombardier’s work was in connection with an assault on the castle at Cetona – confirming that Agostino delle Bombarde had been co-opted to the military campaign being waged by Siena against Count Jacopo Piccinino. Another record dated 8 December 1455 concerns the amount of salary paid to Agostino delle Bombarde and includes a quite lengthy assessment of his work, including his involvement at Sorano and Pitigliano.22 A couple of months earlier, in September 1455, the records of the Balia had also noted that ‘Leonardus’ and ‘Petrus Turchius’ had been directly involved in making a payment to the bombardier, presumably in the context of the latter’s contribution to the war effort.23 At around the same time, and as we have seen, the same two individuals were engaged in seizing back Orbetello from Piccinino and his allies. For his part, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei – fresh from the uncompleted task of frescoing the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and soon to be publicly acknowledged as Leonardo Benvoglienti’s friend – was apparently engaged in the same region, supporting the Sienese military machine through his panoramic mapping. It should not perhaps surprise us, then, to find that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was absorbed into the retinue of Agostino delle Bombarde and other government officials involved in the Ponte d’Arbia project. Archival searches indicate that the project to repair the Ponte d’Arbia continued well after the death of Agostino delle Bombarde, some time around or before 1462. By that date the project had clearly involved the commune of Siena in considerable expense, not only in covering the running costs of Agostino delle Bombarde and his fellow workers, but also through numerous personal loans made to the bombardier himself. Much of this is laid out in the May 1466 proceedings of the General 19 ASSi, CG 226, old fols. 228v. –230r. 20 ASSi, Balia 2, fol. 50v. 21 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 34r. 22 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 207v. 23 ASSi, Balia 1, fol. 80v, in a record of 17 September 1455.

231

232 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Council. This reveals in minute detail how the accumulation and non-repayment of loans to Agostino delle Bombarde had led to special measures being adopted to set matters straight, several years after the bombardier’s death. The complex and detailed nature of the May 1466 statement shows that the authorities were anxious to establish what had actually been spent, what expenses Agostino had incurred and precisely how many of his own personal debts had been honoured. They were also anxious to know what materials remained in the bombardier’s workshop and how these might subsequently be used in ongoing work on the bridge. It was in this part of the record that a reference was made to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei.

Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Joins the Project The opening paragraph of the May 1466 record refers to the extraordinarily large sum of 16,459 lire and 12 soldi that was owed by Agostino’s heirs to the commune of Siena in respect of costs incurred during Agostino’s work on the Arbia bridge project.24 At the same time, reference was made to a number of account books belonging to the office of the Biccherna which showed that Agostino delle Bombarde had in fact paid some 12,340 lire out of the recorded debt to a number of other individuals, one of whom was ‘the painter’ Francesco di Bartolomeo. While the sum of 400 lire recorded in respect of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei pales by comparison with some of the other itemised sums, it may well have reflected the efforts of several months’ work by that artist. It is worth noting that when Giovanni di Paolo and Sano di Pietro received the somewhat lower sum of 320 lire for their joint pains, the project itself had involved them in at least two years’ work. Even if involved over a similar period of time on the Ponte d’Arbia project, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s remuneration was by contrast, handsome. While no reference was made in the 1466 statement of the specific services rendered by the painter, the comparatively large debt recorded there implies either that he had been involved for some time in the Ponte d’Arbia project, or that he had carried out a number of individual pieces of work for the bombardier. One possibility considered here – given what we now know about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement in drawing up a map of Orbetello and Monte Argentario at around the same time as Leonardo Benvoglienti and others were charged with liberating that area – is that the painter had been asked to do similar work in connection with the Arbia bridge project. The panoramic view of the Argentario area must have involved not only details of land, but also of sea and, 24 ASSi, CG 231, fol. 140r.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

especially, the directional flow of a number of nearby waterways.25 Francesco di Bartolomeo would thus have been well placed to provide detailed drawings of the River Arbia, as well as the lay of the land around the existing bridge. In any event, association with the Ponte d’Arbia project may well have seemed an attractive proposition to the newly independent painter. It would not only have offered him a highly publicised chance to further establish his credentials as a draughts man/ cartographer and ‘esploratore’. It might also have provided opportunities for further work in the service of the Republic, since it would once again have brought the artist into contact with a number of government officials. That said, another narrative presents itself: one in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was called upon not as a draughtsman or ‘esploratore’, but in his professional guise as a fresco painter. The December 1454 reference to Lorenzo di Giusa having already filed claims against Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei for non-completion (or non-continuation) of the fresco work for the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco and the confraternity’s own records detailing Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s debts would seem to confirm the artist had already abandoned or interrupted work in the confraternity chapel. Yet the denuncia that was filed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei some time before 3 December 1453 (in a script not dissimilar from that of the 1460 report from Rigomagno) indicates that he was present in Siena for at least part of that year. There was thus a window of time, between the date at which the 1453 denuncia was filed and December of the following year when the artist could have been called upon to contribute to a project outside Siena. It is surely no coincidence that this corresponded with the span of time during which members of the General Council considered various options about how best to repair the existing bridge as well as the nearby ‘mulino’. It is not impossible, therefore, that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was asked to produce designs in the context of those discussions: necessitating on-site reconnaissance and absence from the city and thus once more interrupting the work he had previously undertaken for the Sienese confraternity. That said, and while the artist’s involvement in the early stages of the Ponte d’Arbia project has yet to be proved, it seems likely that the 400 lire noted in the May 1466 petition was in respect of fresco work undertaken by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei for Agostino delle Bombarde. We can now show that when Agostino delle Bombarde was formally asked in May 1458 to assume full responsibility for the repair of the bridge over the Arbia, it was agreed that a chapel should be erected there in honour of the Virgin.26 This structure, which was to be 10 braccia wide (‘larga’) and 2 braccia in depth, was to be positioned on the bridge and was, in addition, to be 25 For the history of nautical mapmaking, see Almagià, Planisferi carte. 26 ASSi, Concistoro 2462, fols. 102r–105v.

233

234 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

embellished with decorations. Agostino delle Bombarde was charged with having the chapel painted with an image of the Virgin and Child (‘in braccio’ – held in her arms) with eight (sic) other figures. Four of these were to depict the patron saints of Siena: Ansano, Sano, Crescenzio and Vettorio. The other figures were to depict the Beato Bernardino, Saint John the Baptist and Saint Christopher. Given Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s recent commission from the Franciscan confraternity in Siena, he may well have seemed an obvious candidate for the proposed decorations in the new chapel. At the very least, he may have been approached to provide drawings showing a proposed scheme for such work. But the reference to the not inconsiderable payment of 400 lire – if indeed in respect of one particular piece of work – must indicate that Francesco di Bartolomeo played a more significant role in the project. There can be no doubt that a small chapel was indeed erected on the bridge, since a structure of that kind appears in the etching dating to 1629, attributed variously to Pietro Petruccini and Bernardino Capitelli). (See Figure 28.) Indeed, it seems to have survived intact into the nineteenth century, when it was included in the view of the bridge drawn by Ettore Romagnoli in his Vedute dei contorni di Siena.27 It remained in place until destroyed during the Second World War.28 The chapel appears to have been large enough to accommodate individual festivities and commemorations over the years. Thus, as late as June 1854, there is a reference to the ‘Festa dell’acque nella Cappella del Ponte d’Arbia’.29 Given what has now been established about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s appointment as ‘vicario’ in Rigomagno some time around the autumn of 1460, one conclusion must be that any work on the decorations inside the new chapel were at least under way, if not completed, in the two-year period between May 1458 and November 1460. One hypothesis I raise and consider here is that Leonardo Benvoglienti might have been instrumental in introducing Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei to the Ponte d’Arbia project, following his failed attempt in April 1458 to position his painter friend inside the Cathedral Works in Siena. While no documentary evidence has emerged in confirmation of such a chain of events, there can have been no misunderstanding of the significance of the iconography intended in the decoration of the new chapel, or of the contribution in terms of visual propaganda any painter involved in such work would have provided. Whatever the direction of travel anyone crossing the River Arbia at that point must have been reminded that the city of Siena was protected by the Virgin Mary, 27 Romagnoli, Vedute, fig. 58. Interestingly, in the caption inserted to this sketch, Romagnoli notes not only the precise location and thus significance of the Ponte d’Arbia, as reconstructed under Mattias dei Medici in 1629, but also the fact that it had been rebuilt several centuries earlier by the Sienese. 28 Carli, Civitelli and Pellegrini and others, Buonconvento. 29 Mariotti and others, Ponte d’Arbia, p. 74.

Government-Sponsored Work Inside Siena and Official Postings in Montalcino 

Figure 28  Pietro Petruccini (?and Bernardino Capitelli), View of the Bridge over the River Arbia, 1629, etching, Biblioteca Comunale, Siena.

and that the city’s four patron saints interceded with the Virgin on behalf of those who turned to them. At the same time, further kudos and protection lay in the fact that the newly canonised Bernardino Albizzeschi was included amongst the ranks of those who guarded Siena’s interests. More generally, in including the figure of Saint Christopher, any traveller passing over the bridge would have sensed that their journey was indeed blessed, regardless of the direction of their travel. The iconography selected for the decorations in the new chapel thus reflected both the significance of Siena and the umbrella of protection it offered to all those passing through its territory. One of the more intriguing aspects of the Ponte d’Arbia documents concerns the relationship that was established between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Agostino delle Bombarde and how these two might have already come across each other in a different context. It is possible that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s previous association with the ‘frati minori’ and lay religious of San Francesco played a part in forging the connection with the city’s chief engineer and cannon maker. Some of the material uncovered whilst constructing a back history to the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco suggests that the two men could have come across each other as early as the beginning of 1446. In January 1445/6 ‘Magistrum Augustinum Bombarderium’, in his guise as ‘Sindicum minorem cois senara’ (minor syndic of the commune of Siena) was cited in connection with the donation of a

235

236 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

farm by Cecco di Mino Piccolomini and litigation involving Francesco di Meo, ‘sindicum’ (or syndic) of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco.30 The dispute, which continued for a number of years, concerned ownership of property and in particular a house in Siena that Agostino delle Bombarde wished to live in. It is possible that, in being drawn into the affairs of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco in the second half of the 1440s, Agostino delle Bombarde was made aware of that confraternity’s refurbishment plans, and in particular the current project involving the production of a new altarpiece. He may even – in his official guise as sindico minore – have been involved in discussions about the uncompleted fresco work in the confraternity’s chapel. The Ponte d’Arbia project may thus not only have cemented a previous relationship that had been established between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and Agostino delle Bombarde inside the city, but also, through the involvement of a third individual in the same endeavour – the diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti – have contributed to the artist’s subsequent service outside the city, as official and agent to the Republic of Siena.

Bibliography Almagià, Roberto. Planisferi carte nautiche e affini dal secolo 14. al 17. esistenti nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Monumenta cartographica Vaticana 2. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica, 1944. Carli, Nello, Gino Civitelli, and Benito Pellegrini, eds. Buonconvento dal ’500 all’800 (notizie e curiosità). Circolo Culturale Amici di Buonconvento. Sovicille, Siena: Cassa Editrice I Mori, 1993. Mariotti, Roberta, with Laura Martini, Massimo Pedrini, Guido Pratesi, Luigi Pratesi, and Paolo Volpi, eds. Ponte d’Arbia: I luoghi della fede. Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 2003. Romagnoli, Ettore. Vedute dei contorni di Siena. Edited by Roberto Morrocchi. Siena: Biblioteca comunale degli intronati and Betti Editrice, 2000. Rosselli Del Turco, Niccolò, and Federica Salvi, eds, Bartolomeo Ammannati: scultore e Architetto 1511–1592. Florence: Alinea, 1995. Sembranti, Saverio. “Bartolomeo Ammannati a Siena tra il 1558 e il 1559: Consulenze e progetti per il Ponte d’Arbia, il duomo e la Torre del Mangia.” In Bartolomeo Ammannati: Scultore e architetto 1511–1592, edited by Niccolò Rosselli Del Turco and Federica Salvi, 357–69. Florence: ADSI Alinea, 1995. Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 30 ASSi, Patri. resti 177, fols. 1r–6r.

Conclusion Much of the evidence considered here shows that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei continued in the eye and favour of the central government in Siena for the next thirty or so years following his involvement in the Ponte d’Arbia project. But until, or unless other fortuitous archival findings reveal otherwise, it seems that the artist’s engagement in exploration work and visual propaganda painting signs on the gates and walls of subject communes from the mid 1450s onwards, and in particular following his posting as ‘vicario’ to Rigomagno around 1460, steered him away from commissions frescoing the walls of chapels to a very different and much less public kind of world. Several aspects of the life and career of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei as presented by nineteenth-century historians are thus confirmed by my own recent reconsideration of surviving records. Not the least of these is evidence of the precarious state of the artist’s finances throughout his life and the peripatetic nature of his profession as a journeyman painter. Romagnoli’s research in particular laid the ground for my own attempts to understand the nature and scope of the work that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei undertook in the service of the central government in Siena. Curiously, none of the earlier historians provided insights to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s workshop training; or, indeed, to the circumstances under which he established himself as an independent painter. That task, as I have illustrated here, fell to historians working almost a century later. Indeed I outline in this book how more recent research has not only furthered our understanding of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s position as an emerging artist within the artistic community of Siena around the middle of the fifteenth century, but also encourages us to position him within a broader narrative of service to the Republic of Siena. Following the commission to paint the chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco it does indeed seem as if the artist moved on seamlessly to a different kind of life; engaged in government business in Siena’s southern territories and possibly already employed in the retinue of Leonardo Benvoglienti. And, this is where an analysis of the life and career of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have ended, were it not for the chance discovery of evidence indicating that shortly after abandoning the confraternity project in Siena the artist become involved in another project outside Siena, decorating a new chapel that

Thomas, A., The Art and Government Service of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421–c. 1495): Visual Propaganda and Undercover Agency for the Republic of Siena. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2023 doi 10.5117/9789463721585_con

238 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

had been erected on the bridge over the River Arbia. Frescoing the company chapel of the Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco, even though a commission unfulfilled, was clearly not the only contract of substance Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei received during his middle years. However, it seems that in the case of the Ponte d’Arbia project, the artist had switched camps. From the inner world of the lay religious of San Francesco, he had been officially co-opted to the more public needs of the Republic of Siena. Attention has focussed throughout this assessment of Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei on whether this individual may, throughout his long career, have been conducting a parallel life. More specifically, I have considered the possibility that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, while assuming the appearance of an impecunious journeyman painter, was in reality receiving an income as an undercover operative in the service of the Republic of Siena. Much of the archival evidence I cite here confirms that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s involvement as a journeyman painter in various parts of the Sienese contado was indeed on occasion combined with a different kind of role, reporting back about conditions on the ground in the Republic of Siena’s subject communes. The two letters in Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s hand included in the book illustrate particularly well how journeyman painting could indeed constitute a kind of cover for complex investigations behind the scenes. While it seems that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was reduced on numerous occasions to seeking out relatively minor commissions (at least in terms of remuneration), contemporary records presented and considered here imply that he enjoyed the patronage and protection of friends in high places, many of them representatives of the central government in Siena. It is noticeable how, more often than not, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to have received a sympathetic press when mentioned in official records. There is little doubt that he was regarded as utterly trustworthy, despite his apparently tenuous fortunes. An obvious example of that being the reference in the record drawn up by the General Council in 1473 in which Francesco di Bartolomeo was described as ‘homo tenuis fortune, sed plenus fidei’. It seems therefore that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was held in much higher esteem in his own time than – on the basis of more recent analysis – one might suppose. The Sienese authorities were clearly anxious, for example, to provide for and improve the personal circumstances of what is now regarded as a virtually unknown artist of little consequence, when they intervened on Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s behalf with the apostolic legate to the Marche, the Cardinal of Ravenna, in the spring of 1473. From the Cardinal’s friendly and positive response, it seems that the Sienese authorities had achieved their aim. Set beside a eulogy acknowledging the firm friendship existing between Ravenna and Siena, we read that ‘Franciscus Alfeus’ had not only duly presented himself together with his

Conclusion 

written credentials, but that the authorities there were doing their best to find employment for him. Yet, and as already noted, although the artist did indeed present himself to these new ‘masters’, absenting himself from Siena for a number of months, no documents appear to survive in testimony of any artistic work he actually carried out in the north-east. As we have seen, there could have been a number of ways in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei might have been gainfully employed in the Marche. Apart from draughtsmanship and mapping in which the artist was well experienced by the beginning of the eighth decade, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s skills as a scribe – pointed out as early as 1458 by Leonardo Benvoglienti – and possibly also as a courier, may well have been put to good use by the apostolic legate. The 1473 letter of recommendation from the Republic of Siena to the Cardinal of Ravenna is not the only example of its kind. Several years earlier, in April 1466 (when Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was in his mid-forties), the artist was described in an assembly of the Sienese Consiglio generale, not only as ‘dipintore’, but also as ‘nostro dilecto cittadino’.1 The inclusion of the adjective ‘dilecto’ is surely significant. By the mid 1460s Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was not just regarded as a simple artisan, but as a valued Sienese citizen. That this accolade was in response to the artist requesting the ‘Signori e Capitano di popolo’ to bestow on him the vicariate of Monte Orgiali is intriguing. The question arises, how might friendship – whatever way that term was coined – or emotional engagement have entered into negotiations about whether or not to bestow on a particular individual an official role in one of Siena’s subject communes? Might such an accolade have arisen from Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s official activities in Rigomagno only a few years earlier than the 1466 petition in respect of Monte Orgiali? As the artist’s letter of November 1460 reveals, as ‘vicario’ of Rigomagno he had not only been attempting to keep the peace and good civic order in that vicariate. He had also used his position to identify the individual troublemakers who were flouting the authority of the Sienese ‘Signoria’ in Rigomagno; reporting back not only their names, but also their standing within the community. So, what can we conclude about Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s network of association both within and outside Siena? Were these the normal dealings that regularly took place between members of the ruling elite and the artisan class in pursuit of embellishments for their own private dwellings or for the more public adornment of the institutions they endowed; the family chapels they founded and/ or the religious orders they favoured? And in what professional niche should we now best place Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, bearing in mind the several public offices he is known to have assumed throughout his life and the comparatively 1 Milanesi, Documenti, vol. 2, pp. 227–29, no. 137 (p. 228).

239

240 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

few artistic commissions of note that we can now show he was involved in during forty or so years as an independent painter? Were the official roles assumed by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in connection with such offices as the Biccherna, the Balia, the Concistoro and the Consiglio Generale commonplace amongst his contemporaries? Was it normal for artists to boost their personal finances by taking on the position of ‘castellano’ or ‘vicario’ in one or other of the Republic of Siena’s subject territories? How common was it for journeyman painters like Francesco di Bartolomeo to travel from one small commune to another adorning gates and other public spaces with Siena’s coats of arms and other symbols of the Republic? Was it mere coincidence, simple philanthropy or professional familiarity that prompted Leonardo Benvoglienti to seek an opening for Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei in the position of ‘fattore’ in the Cathedral Works in Siena in 1458? Or were there other issues at play? How and why was it, that at the end of his life Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei considered leaving Siena and going to live in Rome, counting on the hospitality of a powerful member of the Ottieri clan who was intimately involved in the affairs of the Vatican as well as acting in an official guise on behalf of the Republic of Siena? Many of these questions have been considered here. I have put forward some answers and offered some conclusions. Others remain in the balance. Yet others still need further investigation. However, one firm conclusion emerges. When all is said and done, the government duties and associations subjected to analysis here were hardly the kinds of situations one might expect an artist operating on the fringes of the Sienese artistic community to have become involved in, if based solely on latter-day perceptions of his artistic expertise. There seems little doubt that cartography and mapping, as well as the associated art of the ‘esploratore’ – involving, as all three activities did, the drawing up of boundaries and the marking of fields and water systems – must on many occasions have amounted to a primitive form of spying. Whilst many other Sienese artists may have been involved in similar activities – indeed, records of the Biccherna and other government offices do on occasion refer to such employment; both in the context of artists witnessing appointments to the role of ‘castellano’ and to other local postings in Sienese territory – few of the individuals listed there appear to have left such a clear trail as Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, in terms of their moving between careers or their assuming government postings. Many surviving records indicate that it was common practice for individual artists to be called upon to evaluate the work of other artists and even to be responsible for drawing up their own reports, but Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to have been something of an anomaly in being so actively involved and so well documented for his work as a government employee and scribe. The fact that as a government official he also became personally engaged in the diplomacy

Conclusion 

of local affairs, negotiating between dissident and angry residents and sending reports back to central government about the bad behaviour of others – both as a younger man and in his later years – also indicates that he may have been invested with more authority than some of his contemporaries. More specifically, and while many further questions may continue to emerge in response to those already raised, two issues that have been subjected to particularly close scrutiny here have opened up rich new seams for further research. The first of these concerns the amicable relationship that was established between Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei and the diplomat Leonardo Benvoglienti and the opportunities this appears to have afforded the artist in pursuing a second career. The second concerns the personal debt that was said to be owed to the artist by a member of a family (the Ottieri) with a chequered history of allegiance to Siena before the fifteenth century, but one which had not only been drawn under the protection of the Republic by the time Francesco di Bartolomeo emerged as an independent painter, but had also become embroiled in Siena’s exploits in defence of its southern territories. Both of these deserve further investigation; not least because they provide two very different viewing platforms from which to evaluate the painter himself. The fact that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei felt he was in a sufficiently strong position at the end of his life to call in a debt or debts owed to him by Sinolfo Ottieri – an influential representative of the Republic of Siena in the sphere of the papal court – must at the least prompt further questions about his own social standing and reputation. As I have shown here, the Ottieri, counts of Castello Ottieri – the structure which was at one time the political hub of their eponymous duchy – were caught up in the hostilities waged between Siena and Count Aldobrandino degli Orsini of Pitigliano around 1455/6. More significantly, the castle itself came under direct attack during the autumn of 1455. This was a conflict during which Leonardo Benvoglienti was despatched to Rome to exert his ambassadorial skills on behalf of Siena, calling upon support from the pope and from papal forces. It was also a conflict in which Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was called upon to play his own, smaller part, mapping the area around Orbetello and Monte Argentario. Thus the hypothesis raised and considered here, that by becoming embroiled as a much younger man in Siena’s military interests in the southern provinces, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei had come into direct contact with the affairs of the Ottieri family and their holdings and as a result had earned their friendship and gratitude, seems entirely plausible. That being the case, and quite apart from dealings the artist may then have had with the Ottieri in the 1470s, Sinolfo Ottieri may have had a number of reasons to feel gratitude to the journeyman painter from Siena even in the 1480s. While it is quite likely that questions of fealty were running high in 1475, it is also possible that whilst engaged in work in the Maremma Francesco di Bartolomeo

241

242 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Alfei at a much earlier date had found himself in a good position to report back to Siena about whether or not the Ottieri stood firm in their reputed allegiance to the Republic. Had such a report been favourable, that would not only have been a source of immediate diplomatic relief to the Ottieri family, but would also have reassured them that they might expect protection from Siena when their territory came under threat and Castello Ottieri itself was besieged. That said, I believe Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s reference in 1491 to the debt of gratitude owed to him by Sinolfo Ottieri may in fact have been based on a much more recent encounter: either during the formal submission ceremonies in the mid 1470s, or as a direct consequence of reconnaissance work carried out in the Val di Chiana on behalf of the Republic of Siena in 1482. On that occasion, Sinolfo Ottieri was apparently charged by the Sienese ‘Signoria’ to pass on the information about Florentine aggression that had been obtained by their ‘esploratori’ to the papal authorities. While the ‘esploratori’ engaged in such undercover work were not identified by name, it is worth noting that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei appears to have been absent from Siena on government business on a number of occasions during the early 1480s. He may thus have been involved in a number of projects surveying Sienese territory: from Lucignano and Asciano in the east to Vergelle and San Quirico d’Orcia in the south. In any event, as Sienese ambassador Sinolfo Ottieri must, like Leonardo Benvoglienti, have established a number of personal relationships with the couriers who ferried information backwards and forwards from Siena to Rome and from Rome to Siena. A further area of research is thus to establish whether Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei was associated with such a pool of messengers. By the 1480s Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei must surely have been regarded as an ideal candidate for such work. As I have shown in this book, the painter had gained the admiration and trust of Leonardo Benvoglienti at a much earlier date. There seems little doubt, moreover, from the analysis of ambassadorial reports filed by Leonardo Benvoglienti, that he was operating at the centre of a complex and vast web of information. That much of this was ferried backwards and forwards by trusted couriers and messengers seems equally clear. That couriers were entrusted with explaining at least some of the contents of the missals they carried, was touched upon by Leonardo Benvoglienti himself, in several of his reports. That parts of many of these reports were written in code in order to keep vital information safe is equally clear. What part Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei played within such networks of communication, although hinted at, remains unproved. But the artist’s own despatches from Rigomagno in 1460 and Asciano in 1482 leave us in no doubt that he was not only a skilled scribe, but was also an experienced and efficient informant. When set against the background of his contemporaries and the politics and diplomacy of the Republic of Siena during the second half of the fifteenth century,

Conclusion 

I have come to the conclusion that the archival evidence presented in this book indicates that Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei has in some quite specif ic ways been unjustly consigned to a different kind of shadow. While this artist may, with some justif ication, be considered in terms of his being – as Ettore Romagnoli opined – a simple ‘guazzatore’ (paint splasher), Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei himself clearly took pride not only in his journeyman painting work, but also in his personal mission, promoting the authority and power of the Republic through the depiction of Siena’s symbols and coats of arms in the city’s subject communes. That much is clear from the indignation the artist expressed in the report he sent back to the central government officials from Asciano in 1482. Quite apart from the artist’s obvious familiarity with the officials of the ‘Signoria’ at that date, the way in which he expressed his opinions in that report implies an unusual degree of self-confidence. This is significant, especially when considered against the central question raised here as to whether or not Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei’s profession was, in effect, a convenient cover for another kind of work. The tone adopted by Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei – whether in addressing his Sienese masters in official reports or in asides about his personal affairs – reveals a surprising amount of inside knowledge as well as a sense of entitlement. When set aside the terms of affection, trust and respect voiced in his regard in contemporary records, the conclusion must be that there is more to Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei than has hitherto met the eye.

Bibliography Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856.

243

Bibliography Unpublished Archival Sources (full references are supplied in the footnotes)

Published Sources Adams, Nicholas. “The Life and Times of Pietro dell’Abaco, a Renaissance Estimator from Siena (Active 1457–1486).” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 48, no. 3 (1985): 384–95. Adams, Nicholas, Daniela Lamberini, and Simon Pepper. “Un disegno di spionaggio cinquecentesco: Giovanni Battista Belluzzi e il rilievo delle difese di Siena ai tempi dell’assedio.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 32, no. 3 (1988): 558–79. Agosti, Giovanni, and Cecilia Alessi, eds. Domenico Beccafumi e il suo tempo. Milan and Siena: Electa, 1990. Alessi, Cecilia, and Pietro Scapecchi. “Il ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’: Sano di Pietro o Francesco di Bartolomeo?.” Prospettiva 42 (1985): 13–37. Alessi, Cecilia. In La Cattedrale di San Lorenzo a Grosseto: Arte e storia dal XIII al XIX secolo. Exhibition catalogue, Grosseto, Fortezza medicea, Cassero senese, 29 June–29 September 1996. Edited by Cristina Gnoni Mavarelli and Laura Martini, 133–34, cat. 9. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 1996. Alessi, Cecilia. “Il nuovo Museo tra dispersioni, conferme e scoperte.” In Palazzo Corboli: Museo d’arte sacra, edited by Cecilia Alessi, 74–76 and 138–41. Siena: Protagon, 2002. Alessi, Cecilia, ed. Palazzo Corboli: Museo d’arte sacra. Siena: Protagon, 2002. Alessi, Cecilia. La Confraternita ritrovata: Benvenuto di Giovanni e Girolamo di Benvenuto nello Spedale Vecchio di Siena. The Rediscovered Confraternity: Benvenuto di Giovanni and Girolamo di Benvenuto in Siena’s Spedale Vecchio. Quaderni della Soprintendenza per il patrimonio storico, artistico e demoetnoantropologico di Siena e Grosseto 1 (2003). Alessi, Cecilia. “San Francesco a Siena, mausoleo dei Piccolomini.” In Pio II e le arti: La riscoperta dell’antico da Federighi a Michelangelo, edited by Alessandro Angelini, 281–303. Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Silvana Editoriale, 2005. Almagià, Roberto. “Una carta della Toscana della metà del secolo 15.” Rivista geografica italiana (1921): 9–17. Almagià, Roberto. Planisferi carte nautiche e affini dal secolo 14. al 17. esistenti nella Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Monumenta cartographica Vaticana 2. Città del Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica, 1944. Almagià, Roberto, “Leonardo da Vinci geografo e cartografo.” In Scritti geografici, edited by Roberto Almagià, 603–11. Rome: Edizioni Cremonese, 1961.

246 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Almagià, Roberto. “Monumenta Italiae Cartographica” Riproduzioni di carte generali e regionali d’Italia dal secolo 14. al 17. (collected and illustrated by the author. Florence, 1929.) Reprint, Sala Bolognese: Forni, 1980. Angelini, Alessandro, ed. Pio II e le arti: La riscoperta dell’antico da Federighi a Michelangelo. Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena / Silvana Editoriale, 2005. Angelis, Padre Luigi De. Vita del B. Pietro Pettinaio sanese del Terz’ordine di San Francesco volgarizzata da una leggenda latina del 1333 per F. Serafino Ferri Agostiniano di Lecceto l’anno 1508: Corretta, e riordinata con annotazioni, ed aggiunte dal Padre Maestro de Angelis minor conventuale. Siena: Rossi e Figlio, 1802. Archivio della Biccherna del comune di Siena: Inventario. Archivio di Stato di Siena. Rome: s.n., 1953. Archivio di Balia: Inventario. Introduction by Giulio Prunai and Sandro De’ Colli. Archivio di Stato di Siena. Rome: s.n., 1957. Ascheri, Mario. Siena nel Rinascimento: Istituzioni e sistema politico. Siena: Il Leccio, 1985. Ascheri, Mario, and Donatella Ciampoli. Siena e il suo territorio nel Rinascimento 1, “Documenti.” (1986) and 2, “Documenti.” (1990). Siena: Il Leccio, 1986–1990. Ascheri, Mario. “Legislazione, statuti e sovranità.” In Antica legislazione della Repubblica di Siena, edited by Mario Ascheri, 1–40. Siena: Il Leccio, 1993. Ascheri, Mario. Il Rinascimento a Siena (1355–1599). Siena: Nuova Immagine, c. 1993. Ascheri, Mario. “Siena in the Fourteenth Century: State, Territory, and Culture.” In The “Other Tuscany”: Essays in the History of Lucca, Pisa, and Siena during the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries, edited by Thomas W. Blomquist and Maureen F. Mazzaoui, 163–97. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, 1994. Ascheri, Mario. “Lo Stato di Siena: Un introduzione alla sua organizzazione politicoamministrativa.” In In memoria di Ginevra Zanetti. Collana dell’Archivio Storico e giuridico sardo di Sassari. Nuova serie 1. Studi e Memorie. Università degli Studi di Sassari, Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, 73–95. Sassari: Moderna, 1994. Ascheri, Mario. Siena nella storia e Lo spazio storico di Siena. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, Cinisello Balsamo, c. 2000. Ascheri, Mario, ed. Siena e Maremma nel Medioevo. Siena: Betti, 2001. Ascheri, Mario. “Il palazzo del Comune e il Campo: É tempo per una proposta.” La Voce del Campo 1 (21 January 2020): 10–11. Ascheri, Mario, and Petra Pertici, “La situazione politica senese del secondo Quattrocento (1456–1479).” In La Toscana al tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico: Politica economia cultura arte. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi, Florence, Pisa, Siena, 5–8 November 1992. 3 vols. Vol. 3, 995–1012. Pisa: Pacini Editore, 1996. Ascheri, Mario, and Lucio Niccolai, eds. Gli Aldobrandeschi: La grande famiglia feudale della Maremma Toscana. Arcidosso: C&P Adver Effigi, 2002. Ascheri, Mario, and Mario De Gregorio, eds. Reprint of Giovanni Antonio Pecci, Storia del Vescovado della Città di Siena (Lucca, 1748). Siena: Betti, 2003.

Bibliogr aphy 

Ascheri, Mario, and others. Asciano e le sue terre fra Tre e Quattrocento: Per i 650 anni della cittadinanza senese. Sinalunga, 2019. Azzolini, Monica, and Isabella Lazzarini, eds. Italian Renaissance Diplomacy: A Sourcebook. Durham Medieval and Renaissance Text and Translations 6. Durham, UK: Institute of Medieval and Early Modern Studies, Durham University; Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2017. Bacci, Peleo. “Documenti e commenti per la Storia dell’Arte: Ricordi della vita e dell’attività artistica del pittore senese Giovanni di Paolo di Grazia detto Boccanera.” Le Arti A. 20 (1941): 11–39. Bacci, Peleo. Fonte e commenti per la storia dell’arte senese. Siena: Accademia degli Intronati, 1944. Bagnoli, Alessandro, Roberto Bartalini, and Max Seidel, eds. Ambrogio Lorenzetti. Exhibition catalogue, Siena, Santa Maria della Scala, 22 October 2017–21 January 2018. Cinisello Balsamo, Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2017. Baldacci, Valentino, Zeffiro Ciuffoletti, and Riccardo Nencini, eds. La soppressione degli enti ecclesiastici in Toscana secoli 18–19: Nodi politici e aspetti storiofrafici. Florence: Regione Toscana, Consiglio regionale, 2008. Balestracci, Duccio. Stato d’Assedio: Assedianti e assediati dal Medioevo all’età moderna. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2021. Balestracci, Duccio, and Gabriella Piccinni. Siena nel Trecento: Assetto urbano e strutture edilizie. Florence: Edizione Clusf, 1977. Banchi, Luciano. Istruzioni ad ambasciatori senesi e relazioni di essi alla Repubblica (per le nozze G. Ricci-S. Pianigiani-Sanfranceschi, 29.4.1863). Siena: Mucci, 1863. Banchi, Luciano, ed. Alcuni documenti storici di Lucignano di Val di Chiana. Siena: Tipografia sordo-muti di L. Lazzeri, 1877. Banchi, Luciano. “La guerra de’Senesi col Conte di Pitigliano (1454–1455).” Archivio Storico Italiano serie Quarta 3, no. 110 (1879): 184–97. Banchi, Luciano. “Il Piccinino nello Stato di Siena e la Lega Italica (1455–1456).” Archivio Storico Italiano serie Quarta 4, no. 112 (1879): 44–58 and serie Quarta 4, no. 113 (1879): 225–45. Baratta, Mario. “La carta della Toscana di Leonardo da Vinci.” Memorie geografiche (1911): 5–76. Barlucchi, Andrea. Il contado senese all’epoca dei Nove: Asciano e il suo territorio tra due e trecento. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1997. Barlucchi, Andrea. “Il territorio di Rignano nel trecento.” In Antica possessione con belli costumi. Due giornate di studio su Lapo da Castiglionchio il Vecchio, Florence–Pontassieve, 3–4 October 2003. Edited by Francek Sznura, 186–204. Florence: Aska, 2005. Barr, Cyrilla. The Monophonic Lauda and the Lay Religious Confraternities of Tuscany and Umbria in the Late Middle Ages. Early Drama, Art and Music Monograph Series 10. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1988.

247

248 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Bartolomei Romagnoli, Alessandra, and Daniele Solvi, eds. Le vite quattrocentesche di S. Bernardino da Siena. Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2014. Bartolomei Romagnoli, Alessandra. “Lo spazio simbolico: Politica della santità e agiografia a Siena tra duecento e trecento.” In Beata civitas: Pubblica pietà e devozione privata nella Siena del ’300, edited by Anna Benvenuti and Pierantonio Piatti, 473–516. Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2016. Barzanti, Roberto, Alberto Cornice, and Ettore Pellegrini, eds. Iconografia di Siena: Rappresentazione della città dal 13. al 19. secolo. Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena; Città di Castello: Edimond per Banca Monte dei Paschi, 2006. Bellosi, Luciano. “La tavoletta di Gabella del 1444, il ‘Maestro di Monticiano’ e un probabile modello perduto di Ambrogio Lorenzetti.” Prospettiva 100 (October 2000): 36–40. Benvenuti, Anna, and Pierantonio Piatti, eds. Beata civitas: Pubblica pietà e devozioni private nella Siena del ’300. Florence: Sismel Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2016. Bernardino, Beato. Le prediche volgari di San Bernardino da Siena dette nella Piazza del Campo l’anno 1427. Edited by Luciano Banchi. 3 vols. Siena: San Bernardino, 1880–1888. Bernardino, Beato. Le prediche volgari: Predicazione del 1425 in Siena. Edited by Cirro Cannarozzi. 2 vols. Florence: E. Rinaldi, 1958. Bertagna, Martino. L’Osservanza di Siena: Studi storici. 3 vols. Siena: Osservanza, 1963–1964. Bichi Borghesi, Count Scipione, and Luciano Banchi. Nuovi documenti per la storia dell’arte senese: Appendice alla raccolta dei documenti pubblicata dal comm. Gaetano Milanesi. Siena: E. Torrini, 1898. Biondi, Angelo. “Le alleanze matrimoniali tra Sforza, Farnese, Orsini, Ottieri e la figure di Costanza Farnese.” Tracce 14 (2009): 47–61. Biondi, Angelo, ed. “Anonimo Apatista”: Descrizione della Contea di Pitigliano. 2 vols. Pitigliano: Editrice Laurum, 2004. Biondi, Angelo, ed. Il Castello di Montorio: Dalla Contea degli Ottieri alla rinascità di Carlo Goria. Pitigliano: Editrice Laurum, 2010. Black, Christopher F. Italian Confraternities in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Blaeu, Willem, and Jan Blaeu. Novum Italiae Theatrum sive Accurata Descriptio ipsius urbium, palatorium, sacrarum aedium, &c. 4 vols. Amsterdam: P. Mortier, 1705. Borgia, Luigi, Enzo Carli, Maria Assunta Ceppari, Ubaldo Morandi, Patrizia Sinibaldi, and Carla Zarrilli, eds. Le Biccherne: Tavole dipinte delle magistrature senesi (secoli 13.–18.). Rome and Florence: Le Monnier, 1984. Borroni, Fabia. Carte piante e stampe storiche delle raccolte lafreriane della Biblioteca nazionale di Firenze. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato, 1980. Borsook, Eve, and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, eds. Italian Altarpieces 1250–1550: Function and Design. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Bowsky, William M. “The Medieval Commune and Internal Violence: Police Power and Public Safety in Siena 1287–1355.” American Historical Review 73 (1967): 1–17.

Bibliogr aphy 

Bowsky, William. “A New Consilium of Cino of Pistoia (1324): Citizenship, Residence, and Taxation.” Speculum 42, no. 3 (July 1967): 431–41. Brandi, Cesare, ed. Il Palazzo Pubblico di Siena: Vicende costruttive e decorazione. Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Milan: Silvana Editoriale, Cinisello Balsamo, 1983. Brandi, Don Antonio. Transcribed edition of Tullio Canali, Notizie istoriche della Città di Montalcino in Toscana (c. 1750). Montalcino: Il Leccio, 2014. Bratchel, Michael. “Vicars and Citizen Office-Holding in the Dominions of Fifteenth-Century Lucca, 1430–1501.” Urban History 42, no. 2 (May 2015): 183–203. Bruscalupi, Giuseppe. Storia della Contea di Pitigliano. Rome: Multigrafica Editrice, 1986. Bruschettini, Olivia. Contributi per l’arte in Maremma. Vol. 3. Restauri e valorizzazione del patrimonio artistico. Arcidosso: C&P Adver Effigi, 2013. Bruschettini, Olivia, and Tamara Gigli, eds. Contributi per l’arte in Maremma. Vol. 2. San Francesco a Grosseto. Arcidosso: C&P Adver Effigi, 2010. Burgalassi, Serena. “Storia della Nobil Contrada del Bruco dal Secolo XIII al Secolo XIX.” In La Nobil Contrada del Bruco e il suo Territorio dalle Origini al XIX Secolo, edited by Paolo Nardi, 59–168. Dalle Stanze della Nobil Contrada del Bruco. Siena: Nobil Contrada del Bruco, 1980. Burrini, Elisabetta. ‘I cittadini senesi del terzo di S. Martino e il fisco nel 1481: Inventario analitico delle denunce della Lira conservate nell’Archivio di Stato di Siena.’ Tesi di laurea, Università degli Studi di Siena, Faccoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, relatore Giuliano Catoni. 2 vols. 1989/1990. Butters, Humfrey, and Gabriele Neher, eds. Warfare and Politics: Cities and Government in Renaissance Tuscany and Venice. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019. Caciorgna, Marilena, and Roberto Guerrini. “Imago urbis: La lupae l’immagine di Roma nell’arte e nella cultura senese come identità storica e morale.” In Siena e Roma: Raffaello, Caravaggio e i protagonisti di un legame antico, edited by Bruno Santi and Claudia Strinati, 99–118. Siena: Protagon, 2005. Cairola, Aldo, and Enzo Carli. Il Palazzo Pubblico di Siena. Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena, 1963. Caleca, Antonino, and Renzo Mazzanti. “Le carte del Valdarno Inferiore e della Toscana marittima di Leonardo da Vinci: Sintesi di un territorio agli inizi del XVI secolo.” Bollettino della Società grafica italiana (1982): 691–719. Cammarosano, Paolo, ed. Le forme della propaganda politica nel Due e Trecento. Rome: École française de Rome Scuola Tipografica S. Pio X, 1994. Cammarosano, Paolo, and Vincenzo Passeri. I castelli del senese: Strutture fortificate dell’area senese-grossetana. Milan and Siena: Electa, 1985. Cammarosano, Paolo, Elio Torriti, and others. Le campagne senesi dalla fine del secolo 12. 13. e 14.: Dinamica interna e forme del dominio cittadino la proprietà fondiaria in Castelmuzio agli inizi del secolo 14. Castelmuzio: s.n., 2000. Canali, Tullio. Notizie istoriche della Città di Montalcino in Toscana. (c. 1750). New transcribed edition by Don Antonio Brandi. Montalcino: Il Leccio, 2014.

249

250 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Cannon, Joanna, and Beth Williamson, eds. Art, Politics and Civic Religion in Central Italy 1261–1352: Essays by Postgraduate Students at the Courtauld Institute of Art. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000. Carli, Enzo. L’Arte nella Basilica di San Francesco a Siena. Siena: U. Periccioli, 1971. Carli, Enzo. “Luoghi ed opere d’arte senesi nelle prediche di Bernardino del 1427.” In Bernardino Predicatore nella Società del suo Tempo. Convegno del Centro di Studi sulla Spiritualità Medievale 16, 153–82. Todi: Presso l’Accademia Tudertina, 1976. Carli, Enzo, ed. Capolavori dell’arte senese. Florence: Electa, 1947. Carli, Nello, Gino Civitelli, and Benito Pellegrini, eds. Buonconvento dal ’500 all’800 (notizie e curiosità). Circolo Culturale Amici di Buonconvento. Sovicille, Siena: Cassa Editrice I Mori, 1993. Carter, Charles, ed. From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation: Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly. New York: Random House, 1965. Castano, Rossana, Fortunata Latella., and Tania Sorrenti, eds. Comunicazione e propaganda nei secoli 12. e 13. Rome: Viella, 2007. Cattana, Valerio, and Tagliabue, Mauro, eds. Da Siena al desertum di Acona. Atti della giornata di studio per il 7 centenario del ritiro di Bernardo Tolomei a vita penitente ed eremitica (1313). Abbazia di Monte Oliveto Maggiore, 26 August 2014. Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2016. Causarano, Marie-Ange. La cattedrale e la città: Il cantiere del duomo di Siena tra 11. e 14. secolo. Sesto Fiorentino: All’Insegna del Giglio, 2017. Celuzza, Mariagrazia, ed. Guida alla Maremma antica: Da Vulci a Populania, dal Monte Argentario al Monte Amiata. Rotary Club della Provincia di Grosseto. Siena: Nuova Immagine Editrice, 1993 (later editions, 1997 and 2002). Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta. “Lucia di Tana.” In Schiave Ribaldi e Signori: A Siena nel Rinascimento, edited by Maria Assunta Ceppari Ridolfi, Erminio Jacona, and Patrizia Turrini, 147–61. Siena: Edizioni Il Leccio, 1994. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, ed. Le pergamene delle confraternite nell’Archivio di Stato di Siena (1214–1785). Siena: Accademia Senese degli Intronati, 2007. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta. “Esperienze Confraternali nella Chiesa Senese del ’300: Nello specchio della documentazione.” In Beata civitas: Pubblica pietà e devozione privata nella Siena del ’300, edited by Anna Benvenuti and Pierantonio Piatti, 89–126. Florence: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2016. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, Erminio Jacona, and Patrizia Turrini. Schiave Ribaldi e Signori: A Siena nel Rinascimento. Siena: Edizioni Il Leccio, 1994. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, and Patrizia Turrini. “Il movimento associativo e devozionale dei laici nella Chiesa senese (secc. XIII–XIX).” In Chiesa e vita religiosa a Siena dalle origini al grande Giubileo. Atti del Convegno di studi, Siena, 25–27 October 2000. Edited by Achille Mirizio and Paolo Nardi, 247–303. Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 2002.

Bibliogr aphy 

Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, Maria Raffaella de Gramatica, Patrizia Turrini, and Carla Zarrilli, eds. Archivio di Stato di Siena, Museo delle Biccherne. Viterbo: BetaGamma, 2008. Ceppari Ridolfi, Maria Assunta, and Patrizia Turrini, eds. Le pergamene del comune di Montalcino (1193–1594). Siena: Extempora, 2019. Chiantini, Monica. La Mercanzia di Siena nel Rinascimento: La normativa, 1376–1475. Siena: Cantagalli, 1996. Christiansen, Keith. “Sano di Pietro’s S. Bernardino Panels.” The Burlington Magazine 133 (1991): 451–52. Christiansen, Keith, Laurence B. Kanter, and Carl Brandon Strehlke, eds. Painting in Renaissance Siena 1420–1500. Exhibition catalogue, New York, 1988–1989. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1988. Ciampoli, Donatella. Il Capitano del Popolo a Siena nel primo Trecento con il rubricario dello statuto del comune di Siena del 1337. Siena: Consorzio Universitario della Toscana Meridionale, 1984. Ciampoli, Donatella, and Thomas Szabó, eds. Lo statuto dei Viarî di Siena: Viabilità e legislazione di uno Stato cittadino del Duecento. Siena: Accademia senese deli Intronati, 1992. Cirier, Aude. “La fine dei conti Aldobrandeschi: Il crollo di un mito (sec XIII–XV).” In Gli Aldobrandeschi: La grande famiglia feudale della Maremma Toscana, edited by Mario Ascheri and Lucio Niccolai, 173–90. Arcidosso: C&P Adver Effigi, 2002. Cirier, Aude. “Diplomazia e rettorica comunale: La comunicazione attraverso lo spionaggio politico nell’Italia medievale (secc. 12. –13.).” In Comunicazione e propaganda nei secoli 12. e 13., edited by Rossana Castano, Fortunata Latella, and Tania Sorrenti, 199–215. Rome: Viella, 2007. Cirier, Aude. “De l’informateur à l’agent: Mise en place et fonctionnement des réseaux de renseignement en Italie medievale (12. – 14. siècles).” In Moyen Âge et medievale en réseau. Actes du colloque du RMBLF. Brussels, 2008. Cirier, Aude. “La face cachée du pouvoir: L’espionnage au service d’États en construction en italie à la fin du Moyen Âge (13. – fin 14. siècle).” Publications du Centre européen d’Études bourguignonnes 4 (2008): 7–28. Cirier, Aude. “Un altro aspetto della battaglia di Montaperti: Lo spionaggio al servizio del comune di Siena.” In Alla ricerca di Montaperti: Mito, fonti documentarie e storiografia, edited by Ettore Pellegrini, 125–40. Siena: Betti, 2009. Citter, Carlo. “Lo sviluppo di Grosseto nel quadro della formazione della signoria territoriale degli Aldobrandeschi (secoli VII–XII): I punti fermi e le questioni aperte.” In Archeologia urbana a Grosseto: Origine e sviluppo di una città medievale nella “Toscana delle città deboli.” Le ricerche 1997–2005. Vol. 2. Edizione degli scavi urbani 1998–2005, edited by Carlo Citter, 429–36. Florence: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio, 2007. Civai, Mauro, Elena La Spina, and Annalisa Pezzo, eds. L’immagine di Siena: Le due Città. Le vedute e le piante di Siena nelle Collezioni Cittadine (dal XVI al XIX secolo). Exhibition

251

252 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

catalogue, Siena, Palazzo Pubblico, Magazzini del Sale, 25 March–9 May 1999. Siena: Nuova Immagine Editrice, 1999. Collavini, Simone M. “I Conti Aldobrandeschi nel contesto storico generale e locale.” In Gli Aldobrandeschi: La grande famiglia feudale della Maremma Toscana, edited by Mario Ascheri and Lucio Niccolai, 21–36. Arcidosso: C&P Adver Effigi, 2002. Comitato di studi sulla storia dei ceti dirigenti in Toscana. I ceti dirigenti nella Toscana tardo comunale. Atti del Convegno, Firenze, 5–7 December 1980, 221–36. Monteroriolo, Impruneta: Papafava, 1983. Comucci, Alberto. Siena e le sue contrade: Brevi cenni storici. Siena: Tipografia dell’Ancora, 1926 (later edition, Siena: Betti, 1994). Cordaro, Michele. “Le vicende costruttive.” In Palazzo Pubblico: Vicende costruttive e decorazione, edited by Cesare Brandi, 27–82. Siena and Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 1983. Corridori, Ippolito. Gli Aldobrandeschi della Storia Maremmana. Pitigliano: Editrice Laurum, 2004. Corridori, Ippolito. Il Palazzo Orsini di Pitigliano nella storia e nell’arte: Dai Conti Aldobrandeschi ai Conti Orsini, dai Granduchi di Toscana ai Vescovi di Sovana. Florence: Aska, 2004. Cunningham, Charles. “For the Honour and Beauty of the City: The Design of Town Halls.” In Siena, Florence and Padua: Art, Society and Religion 1280–1400, edited by Diana Norman, vol. 1, 29–53. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press in association with the Open University, 1995. Dean, Trevor, and Kate J. P. Lowe, eds. Crime, Society and the Law in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Della Valle, Guglielmo. Lettere Senesi di un socio dell’Accademia di Fossano sopra le Belle Arti. 3 vols. Venice: Presso Giovambatista Pasquali, 1782–1786 (repr. Bologna: Arnoldo Forni, 1975–1976). Donati, Fortunato. “Il palazzo del comune di Siena.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 11 (1904): 311–54. Doyno, Mary Harvey. The Lay Saint: Charity and Charismatic Authority in Medieval Italy, 1150–1350. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2019. Eisenbichler, Konrad, ed. Crossing the Boundaries: Christian Piety and the Arts in Italian Medieval and Renaissance Confraternities. Early Drama, Art and Music Monograph Series 15. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1991. Eisenbichler, Konrad, ed. A Companion to Medieval and Early Modern Confraternities. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2019. Fabriziani, G. I Conti Aldobrandeschi e Orsini. Pitigliano: Tip. Poggi, 1897. Falcone, Maria. “La giovinezza dorata di Sano di Pietro: Un nuovo documento per la ‘Natività’ della Vergine’ di Asciano.” Prospettiva 138 (2010): 28–34. Faluschi, Giovacchino. Breve relazione delle cose notabili della città di Siena ampilata e corretta dal sacerdote Giovacchino Faluschi senese al nobil signore Guido Savini provveditore

Bibliogr aphy 

dell’università e rettore della pia casa di Sapienza. Siena: Francesco Rossi, 1784 (second edition, 1815). Farinelli, Roberto, and Michele Pellegrini. “Casseri e fortezze senesi a Grosseto e in altri centri della Toscana meridionale (secc. XIII–XIV).” In Castelli e fortezze nelle città italiane e nei centri minori italiani (secoli XIII–XV), edited by Francesco Panero and Giuliano Pinto, 161–96. Cherasco: Centro Internazionale di studi sugli insediamenti medievali, 2009. Fattorini, Gabriele, ed. Sano di Pietro: Qualità, devozione e pratica nella pittura senese del Quattrocento. Giornate di studio nel sesto centenario della nascita, 5 dicembre 2005, Siena, Aula Magna dell’Accademia dei Fisiocritici e 6 dicembre 2005, Asciano, Sala Convegni del Museo Cassioli. Cinisello Balsamo, Milan: Silvana Editoriale, 2012. Ferente, Serena. La sfortuna di Jacopo Piccinino: Storia dei bracceschi in Italia 1423–1465. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2005. Fiore, Francesco Paolo, ed. Francesco di Giorgio alla corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Conference proceedings, Urbino 2001. Florence: Olschki, 2004. Frank, Thomas. “Confraternite e assistenza.” In Studi confraternali: Orientamenti, problemi, testimonianze, edited by Marina Gazzini, 217–38. Medievali E-Book 12. Florence: Florence University Press, 2009. Freuler, Gaudenz. “Sienese Quattrocento Painting in the Service of Spiritual Propaganda.” In Italian Altarpieces 1250–1550: Function and Design, edited by Eve Borsook and Fiorella Superbi Gioffredi, 81–116. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Frigo, Daniela, ed. Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy: The Structure of Diplomatic Practice. Translated by Adrian Belton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Fumi, Luigi. Francesco Sforza contro Jacopo Piccinino (Dalla Pace di Lodi alla Morte di Calisto 3). Perugia: Unione Tipografica Cooperativa, 1910. Fusai, Luca. La storia di Siena dalle origini al 1559. Siena: Il Leccio, 1987 (later editions, 1991 and 2002). Gaillard, Émile. Sano di Pietro: un peintre siennois au 15. siècle 1406–1481. Chambéry: Dardel, 1923. Gallavotti Cavallero, Daniela. Lo Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala in Siena: Vicenda di una committenza artistica. Pisa: Pacini, 1985. Garollo, Gottardo, and Ulrico Hoepli. Dizionario biografico universale. Milan: Libraio della Real Casa, 1907. Garosi, Gino, ed. Inventario dei manoscritti della Biblioteca comunale di Siena. Florence: Giunta regionale Toscana La nuova Italia, 1980 (later edition, Siena: Giuseppe Chiacheri editore, 2002). Gatti, Lucia. Il Beato Giovanni da Montepulciano. Tricase (LE): Youcanprint Self-Publishing, 2012. Gatti, Lucia. Montelifrè, comune rurale Castello d’altura 1213–1527. Tricase (LE): Youcanprint Self-Publishing, 2013.

253

254 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Gazzini, Marina. “Gli archivi delle confraternite: Documentazione, prassi conservative, memoria comunitaria.” In Studi confraternali: Orientamenti, problemi, testimonianze, edited by Marina Gazzini, 369–89. Medievali E-Book 12. Florence: Florence University Press, 2009. Gazzini, Marina. “Costruire la Comunità: L’Apporto delle Confraternite fra Due e Trecento. Alcuni esempi dal nord e centro Italia.” Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 68, no. 2 (2014): 331–48. Gigli, Girolamo. La città diletta di Maria, ovvero, Notizie storiche appartenenti all’antica denominazione, che ha Siena di città della Vergine. Rome: ‘Presso Francesco Gonzaga’, 1716. Gigli, Girolamo. Diario sanese: In cui si veggono alla giornata tutti gli avvenimenti più ragguardevoli spettanti sì allo Spirituale sì al Temporale della Città e Stato di Siena. 2 vols. Lucca: Leonardo Venturini, 1723. Giorgi, Andrea, and Stefano Moscadelli. Costruire una cattedrale: L’Opera di Santa Maria di Siena tra 12. e 14. secolo. Italienische Forshungen, Sonderreihe, Die Kirchen von Siena. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2005. Grassi, Virgilio. Le Contrade di Siena e le loro feste: Il Palio attuale. Siena: San Bernardino, 1937. Graziani, Alberto. “Il Maestro dell’Osservanza.” In Proporzioni. Text of conference held at the Istituto tedesco di Storia dell’Arte, Florence, 17 February 1942. Vol. 2, 75–87. 1948. Guerrini, Roberto. Vincenzo Tamagni e lo scrittoio di Montalcino. Siena: Rotary Club Siena Est, 1991. Guerrini, Roberto, ed. Siena, le Masse: Il Terzo di Città. Siena: Banca di Credito Cooperativo di Sovicille Caleido, 1994. Guerrini, Roberto, ed. Siena, le Masse: I Terzi di Camollia e San Martino. Siena: Banca di Credito Cooperativa Sovicelle and Grafiche Alsaba, 1996. Hicks, David. “The Sienese State in the Renaissance.” In From the Renaissance to the CounterReformation: Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly, edited by Charles Carter, 77–80. New York: Random House, 1965. Hoeniger, Cathleen. The Renovation of Paintings in Tuscany, 1250–1500. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Hyde, John Kenneth. Society and Politics in Medieval Italy: The Evolution of the Civil Life, 1000–1350. London and Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1973. Ilari, Maria. Famiglie, Località, Istituzioni di Siena e del suo territorio: Indice di armi e di fonti documentarie dell’Archivio di Stato di Siena. Siena: Betti, 2002. Interguglielmi, Francesca. “Il ciclo di affreschi della capitolare di San Francesco di Siena.” In Ambrogio Lorenzetti. Exhibition catalogue, Siena, Santa Maria della Scala, 22 October 2017–21 January 2018. Edited by Alessandro Bagnoli, Roberto Bartalini, Max Seidel, 132–51. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, Cinisello Balsamo, 2017. Jackson, Philippa, and Fabrizio Nevola, eds. Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006.

Bibliogr aphy 

Jenkins, A. Lawrence, ed. Renaissance Siena. : Art in Context. Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies 71. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2005. Kawsky, Deborah L. ‘‘The Survival, Revival and Reappraisal of Artistic Tradition: Civic Art and Civic Identity in Quattrocento Siena’. PhD diss., Princeton University, 1995. Kent, F. W., and Caroline Elam. “Piero del Massaio: Painter, Mapmaker and Military Surveyor.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 57, no. 1 (2015): 64–89. Koeper, Bettina. ‘‘Die Ausstättung der oberen Kapelle des ‘Oratorio di San Bernardino’ in Siena.’ Magisterarbeit zur Erlangung des Grades eines Magister Artium, Philosophischen Fakultät der Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, Bonn, 1991. Lamberini, Daniela. “Alla bottega del Francione: L’architettura militare dei maestri fiorentini.” In Francesco di Giorgio alla corte di Federico da Montefeltro. Conference proceedings, Urbino 2001. Edited by Francesco Paolo Fiore, 493–516. Florence: Olschki, 2004. Lamberini, Daniela. Il Sanmarino: Giovan Battista Belluzzi architetto militare e trattista del Cinquecento. Florence: Olschki, 2007. Lazzarini, Isabella. Communication and Conflict: Italian Diplomacy in the Early Renaissance, 1350–1520. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Lazzarini, Isabella. “Lettere, minute, registri, pratiche della scrittura diplomatica nell’Italia tardomedievale fra storia e paleografia.” Quaderni Storici, nuova serie 51, no. 152 (2) (August 2016): 449–70. Lazzarini, Isabella. L’ordine delle scritture: Il linguaggio documentario del potere nell’Italia tardomedievale. Rome: Viella, 2021. Leoncini, Alessandro. “I Trecerchi nella Storia e nell’araldica senese.” Accademia dei Rozzi, Rivista 20 (March 2004): 34–43. Liberati, Alessandro. “Famiglia Trecerchi.” Miscellanea Storica Senese 3 (1895): 30. Liberati, Alfredo. “Le prime manifestazioni di devozione a S. Bernardino dopo la sua morte da parte del Comune di Siena.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 6, no. 13, 2 (1935): 143–61. Liberati, Alfredo. “Asciano.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 8, no. 3 (1937): 292–323. Liberati, Alfredo. “Chiese, monasteri, oratori e spedali senesi: Ricordi e notizie.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 46–68 (1939–1961). Liberati, Alfredo. “Spedaletto di Santa Elisabetta ed Oratorio della Visitazione della Vergine Maria.” In “Chiese, monasteri, oraori e spedali senesi.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 65 (1958): 137–52. Lucatti, Renato. Asciano: Racconti storici sul “Paese del Garbo.” Florence: Edito a cura della Cassa Rurale ed Artigiana, 1987. Lusini, Vittorio. Storia della Basilica di S. Francesco in Siena. Siena: Tip. edit. San Bernardino, 1894. Lusini, Vittorio. “Notizie storiche sulla topografia di Siena nel secolo 13.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 28 (1921): 241–341. Maginnis, Hayden B. J. The World of the Early Sienese Painter. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.

255

256 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Malavolti, Orlando. Historia de’ fatti, e guerre de’ Sanesi, così come esterne, come civili seguite all’origine della loro città fino all’anno MDLV. Venice: Per Salvestro Marchetti Librari in Siena all’Insegna della Lupa, 1599. Mallory, Michael, and Gaudenz Freuler. “Sano di Pietro’s Bernardino Altar-Piece for the Compagnia della Vergine in Siena.” The Burlington Magazine 133 (1991): 186–92. Mariotti, Roberta, with Laura Martini, Massimo Pedrini, Guido Pratesi, Luigi Pratesi, and Paolo Volpi, eds. Ponte d’Arbia: I luoghi della fede. Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 2003. Marrara, Danilo. Storia istituzionale della Maremma senese: Principi e istituti del governo del territorio grossetano dall’età carolingia all’unificazione d’Italia. Siena: Meini, 1961. Martini, Laura. “L’Oratorio di San Bernardino.” In Domenico Beccafumi e il suo tempo, edited by Giovanni Agosti and Cecilia Alessi, 600–621. Milan and Siena: Electa, 1990. Masotti, Egidio, and others, eds. Compendio istorico su l’origine e progressi degli antichi e moderni stabilmenti di Carità e di Misericordia. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1846. Mattingly, Garrett. Renaissance Diplomacy. Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, 1954 (and Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1955). Mavarelli, Cristina Gnoni, and Laura Martini, eds. La Cattedrale di San Lorenzo a Grosseto: Arte e storia dal XIII al XIX secolo. Exhibition catalogue, Grosseto, Fortezza medicea, Cassero senese, 29 June–29 September 1996. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, Cinisello Balsamo, 1996. Meersseman, Gilles Gérard. “Note sull’origine delle confraternite dei laudesi (Siena 1267).” Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia 17 (1963): 394–405. Meersseman, Gilles Gérard. Ordo fraternitatis: Confraternite e pietà dei laici nel medioevo. 3 vols. Rome: Herder Editrice e Libreria, 1977. Milanesi, Gaetano. Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese. 3 vols. Siena: Onorato Porri, 1854–1856. Mischiatelli, Piero. Mistici Senesi. Siena: Giuntini Bentivoglio, 1913. Monti, Gennaro Maria. Le confraternite medievali dell’alta e media Italia. 2 vols. La nuova Italia, 1907 (later editions, 1927 and 1950 and digitised, University of Michigan, 2009). Morandi, Ubaldo. Le Biccherne Senesi: Le tavolette della Biccherna della Gabella e di altre magistrature dell’antico stato Senese conservate presso L’Archivio di Stato di Siena. Siena: Monte dei Paschi di Siena; Bergamo: Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche, 1964. Morandi, Ubaldo. “Documenti.” In Palazzo Pubblico di Siena: Vicende construttive e decorazione, edited by Cesare Brandi, 413–36. Milan: Silvana Editoriale, Cinisello Balsamo, 1983. Morelli, Emanuela, and Roberto Germogli. Castell’Ottieri: Pitigliano, Sovana, Sorano e la civiltà del tufo. Polistampa, 2007. Mormando, Franco. The Preacher’s Demons: Bernardino of Siena and the Social Underworld of Early Renaissance Italy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Mucciarelli, Roberta. I Tolomei banchieri di Siena: La parabola di un casato nel XIII e XIV secolo. Siena: Protagon Editori Toscani, 1995. Mussolin, Mauro. “La chiesa di San Francesco a Siena: Impianto originario e fasi di cantiere.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 106 (1999): 115–55.

Bibliogr aphy 

Nardi, Paolo. “I borghi di S. Donato e di S. Pietro a Ovile.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 83–85 (1966–1968): 7–59. Nardi, Paolo. “I borghi di S. Donato e di S. Pietro a Ovile: ‘Populi’. Contrade e compagnie d’armi nella società senese dei secoli XI–XIII.” In La Nobil Contrada del Bruco e il suo territorio dalle origini al XIX secolo, edited by Paolo Nardi, 7–56. Siena: Dalle Stanze della Nobil Contrada del Bruco, 1980. Nardi, Paolo, ed. La Nobil Contrada del Bruco e il suo territorio dalle origini al XIX secolo. Siena: Dalle Stanze della Nobil Contrada del Bruco, 1980. Nevola, Fabrizio J. D. “Siena nel Rinascimento: Sistemi urbanistici e strutture istituzionali (1400 circa–1520).” Bullettino senese di storia patria 106 (1999): 44–67. Nevola, Fabrizio J. D. “‘Per ornato della Città’: Siena’s Strada Romana and Fifteenth-Century Urban Renewal.” The Art Bulletin 82, no. 1 (March 2000): 26–50. Nevola, Fabrizio. “Ritual Geography: Housing the Papal Court of Pius II Piccolomini in Siena (1459–60).” In Beyond the Palio: Urbanism and Ritual in Renaissance Siena, edited by Philippa Jackson and Fabrizio Nevola, 65–88. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Nevola, Fabrizio. “Surveillance and Control of the Street in Renaissance Italy.” I Tatti Studies in the Italian Renaissance 16, no. 1/2 (September 2013): 85–106. Nicola, Giacomo De. “Un affresco del Vecchietta nella Chiesa di San Francesco in Siena.” Rassegna d’arte senese 6, no. 4 (1910): 74–77. Norman, Diana, ed. Siena, Florence and Padua: Art, Society and Religion 1280–1400. 2 vols. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press in association with the Open University, 1995. Norman, Diana. Siena and the Virgin: Art and Politics in a late Medieval City State. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 1999. Norman, Diana. Painting in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena (1260–1555). New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2003. Norman, Diana. “Santi cittadini: Vecchietta and the Civic Pantheon in Mid-Fifteenth Century Siena.” In Art as Politics in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena, edited by Timothy B. Smith and Judith B. Steinhoff 115–40. Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012. Norman, Diana. Siena and the Angevins 1300–1356: Art, Diplomacy and Dynastic Ambition. Turnhout: Brepols, 2018. Oliveti, Luigi, and others. Statuti e Regolamenti: Statuti del Comune di Montepescali (1427). Collana “Quaderni degli Usi Civici e dei Demani Collettivi” 2. Ospedaletto, Pisa: Editrice Universitaria Litografia Felici, 1995. Ortalli, Gherardo, ed. Gioco e giustizia nell’Italia di Comune. Treviso and Rome: Viella, 1993. Ortroy, François Van. “S. Bernardin de Sienne par Leonard Benvoglienti.” Analecta Bollandiana 21, no. 1 (1902): 53–80. Panero, Francesco, and Giuliano Pinto, eds. Castelli e fortezze nelle città italiane e nei centri minori italiani (secoli XIII–XV). Cherasco: Centro Internazionale di studi sugli insediamenti medievali, 2009.

257

258 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Pannilunghi Castore Ciapetti, Avv. Girolamo. Alcuni documenti storici di Lucignano di Val di Chiana. Siena: Tipografia Sordo-Muti di L. Lazzeri, 1877. Pàsztor, Edith. “I papi del Duecento e Trecento di fronte alla vita religiosa femminile.” In Il movimento religioso femminile in Umbria nei secoli XIII–XIV. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studio nell’ambito delle celebrazioni per l’VIII centenario della nascita di S. Francesco d’Assisi, Citta’ di Castello, 27–29 ottobre 1982. Edited by Roberto Rusconi, 29–65. Scandicci, Florence: La Nuova Italia Editrice, 1984. Pazzelli, Raffaelli, and Lino Temperini, eds. La “Supra Montem” di Niccolò IV (1289): Genesi e diffusione di una regola. Rome: Analecta Tor, 1988. Pecci, Giovanni Antonio. Ristretto delle cose più notabili della Città di Siena. Siena: Bonetti, 1759. Pecci, Giovanni Antonio. Memorie storico-critiche della città di Siena. 4 vols. Siena, 1755–1760 (modern edition, Siena: Cantagalli, 1988). Pecci, Giovanni Antonio. Storia del Vescovado della Città di Siena. Lucca 1748 (‘ristampa anastatica’ edited by Mario Ascheri and Mario De Gregorio. Siena: Betti, 2003). Pellegrini, Ettore. Le fortezze della repubblica di Siena: Vicende edilizie, significato strategico, condizioni operative dell’architettura fortificata rinascimentale nel conflitto tra Francia e Impero per il controllo del territorio senese. Siena: Il Leccio, 1992. Pellegrini, Ettore. Tra arte e scienza: La “Sena Vetus Civitas Virginis” di Francesco Vanni. Monteriggioni, Siena: Il Leccio, 2008. Pellegrini, Ettore. ed. Iconografia di Siena nelle opere a stampa: vedute generali della città dal 15. al 19. secolo. Siena, Palazzo Pubblico, Sala della Quadreria, 28 June–12 October 1986. Siena: Lombardi, 1986. Pellegrini, Ettore, ed. Alla ricerca di Montaperti: Mito, fonti documentarie e storiografia. Siena: Betti, 2009. Pellegrini, Ettore, ed. Fortificare con Arte: Vicende storiche ed architettoniche di quattro castelli senesi: Torrita di Siena, Sarteano, Lucignano della Chiana, Caldana di Maremma. Accademia dei Rozzi. Monteriggione, Siena: Il Leccio, 2009. Pellegrini, Ettore, and Renato Lugarini. Il territorio senese nella cartografia antica: Le carte geografiche della Toscana meridionale dalle prime rappresentazioni “misurate” del Rinascimento alle elaborazioni della geodesia post illuminista. Siena: Protagon, 2003. Pellegrini, Ettore, and Gianni Resti. Viaggio iconografico nell’Antico Stato Senese. Ospedaletto, Pisa: Pacini Editore, 2007. Pellegrini, Letizia. Il processo di canonizzazione di Bernardino di Siena: Studio ed edizione. Rome: Aracne, 2004 (later editions, 2007 and 2009). Pellegrini, Luigi. “Cura parrocchiale e organizzazione territoriale degli ordini mendicanti tra il secolo XIII e il secolo XVI.” In Pievi e parrocchie in Italia nel basso Medioevo, sec. 13. –15. Atti del 6 Convegno di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, Florence, 21–25 September 1981. 2 vols. Vol. 1, 279–305. Rome: Herder Editrice e Libreria, 1984.

Bibliogr aphy 

Pellegrini, Michele. “Istituzioni ecclesiastiche, vita religiosa, e società cittadina nella prima età comunale.” In Chiesa e vita religiosa a Siena dalle origini al grande giubileo. Atti del convegno di studi, Siena, 25–27 October 2000. Edited by Achille Mirizio and Paolo Nardi, 101–34. Siena: Cantagalli, 2002. Pellegrini, Michele. Chiesa e Città: Uomini, comunità e istituzioni nella società senese del XII e XIII secolo. Italia Sacra. Studi e Documenti di Storia Ecclesiastica 78. Rome: Herder Editrice e Libreria, 2004. Pellegrini, Michele. “Vita religiosa e società a Siena al tempo delle origini di Monte Oliveto.” In Da Siena al desertum di Acona. Atti della giornata di studio per il 7 centenario del ritiro di Bernardo Tolomei a vita penitente ed eremitica (1313). Abbazia di Monte Oliveto Maggiore, 26 August 2014. Edited by Valerio Cattana and Mauro Tagliabue, 1–42. Cesena: Badia di Santa Maria del Monte, 2016. Pepper, Simon, and Nicholas Adams. Firearms and Fortifications: Military Architecture and Siege Warfare in Sixteenth Century Siena. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Perticci, Petra. La città magnificata: Interventi edilizi a Siena nel Rinascimento. L’Ufficio dell’Ornato (1428–1480). Siena: Il Leccio, 1995. Perticci, Petra. Siena quattrocentesco: Gli anni del pellegrinaio nell’ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala. Siena: Protagon, 2012. Perticci, Petra. “Un caso di ‘politico vivere’ a Siena tra Quattro e Cinquecento: I Martinozzi, signori di Montelifrè.” Accademia dei Rozzi, Rivista 9 (5 March 2014): 4–8. Pertusi, Agostino, ed. La caduta di Costantinopoli. 2 vols. (Vol. 1, Le testimonianze dei contemporanei and vol. 2, L’eco nel mondo). Milan: Mondadori, 1976. Pesciolini, Conte Giulio Venerosi. “La strada francigena nel contado di Siena nei secoli 13. –14.” La Diana 8 (1933): 116–56. Piccinni, Gabriella. “Modelli di organizzazione dello spazio urbano dei ceti dominanti del Tre e Quattrocento: Considerazioni sul caso senese.” In I ceti dirigenti nella Toscana tardo comunale. Atti del Convegno, Florence, 5–7 December 1980. Comitato di studi sulla storia dei ceti dirigenti in Toscana, 221–36. Florence: Francesco Papafava, 1983. Piccinni, Gabriella, and Lucia Travaini. Il libro del pellegrino (Siena 1382–1446): Affari, uomini, monete nell’Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala. Naples: Ligouri, 2003. Presciutti, Diana Bullen, ed. Space, Place, and Motion: Locating Confraternities in the Late Medieval and Early Modern City. Art and Material Culture in Medieval and Renaissance Europe 8. Leiden: Brill, 2017. Preto, Paolo. I servizi segreti di Venezia: Spionaggio e controspionaggio ai tempi della Serenissima. Milan: Il Saggiatore, 1994. Prunai, Giulio, and Sandro De’ Colli. Introduction to Archivio di Balia: Inventario. Archivio di Stato di Siena. Rome: s.n., 1957. Prunai, Giulio. “Benvoglienti, Leonardo.” In Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana, 1925–2020) 8 (1966): 703–5.

259

260 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Quast, Matthias. “Palace Façades in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena: Continuity and Change in the Aspect of the City.” In Renaissance Siena: Art in Context, edited by A. Lawrence Jenkens, 47–80. Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2005. Quast, Mattias. Siena: Banca dati delle facciate del centro storico. Translated from German, 2004–2006, Fondazione Monte dei Paschi di Siena and the Commune of Siena. Online at http//db.biblhertz.it/siena/siena.xq. Richter, Elinor M. The Sculpture of Antonio Federighi. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, 1994. Rocchigiani, Roberto. “Un’altra grande famiglia del Senese: Gli Ardengheschi.” In Gli Aldobrandeschi: La grande famiglia feudale della Maremma Toscana, edited by Mario Ascheri and Lucio Niccolai, 77–85. Arcidosso: C&P Adver Effigi, 2002. . Romagnoli, Ettore. Biografia cronologica de’ Bellartisti senesi dal 1200 al 1800. 13 vols. Edizione Stereotipa. Florence: SPES, 1976. Romagnoli, Ettore. Vedute dei contorni di Siena. Edited by Roberto Morrocchi. Siena: Biblioteca comunale degli Intronati and Betti Editrice, 2000. Rombai, Leonardo. “Una carta geografica sconosciuta dello stato Senese: La pittura murale dipinta nel Palazzo Pubblico di Siena nel 1573 da Orlando Malavolti, secondo una copia anonima secentesca.” In I Medici e lo Stato Senese: Storia e territorio 1555–1600, edited by Leonardo Rombai, 205–24. Rome: De Luca editore, 1980. Rombai, Leonardo. “Siena nelle sue rappresentazioni cartografiche fra la metà del ’500 e l’inizio del ’600.” In I Medici e lo Stato Senese: Storia e territorio 1555–1600, edited by Leonardo Rombai, 91–109. Rome: De Luca editore, 1980. Rombai, Leonardo, ed. I Medici e lo Stato Senese: Storia e territorio 1555–1600. Rome: De Luca editore, 1980. Rombai, Leonardo, ed. Imago et descriptio Tusciae: La Toscana nella geocartografia dal 15. al 19. secolo. Florence and Venice: Giunta Regionale Toscana Marsilio, 1993. Rosselli Del Turco, Niccolò, and Federica Salvi, eds. Bartolomeo Ammannati: Scultore e architetto 1511–1592. Florence: Alinea, 1995. Rossetti, Gabriella. “Gli Aldobrandeschi.” In I ceti dirigenti in Toscana nell’età precomunale. Atti del 1 convegno, Florence, 2 December 1978, 151–63. Florence: Alma-Unisi, 1978. Rossi, Maria Clara, “Vescovi e confraternite (secoli XIII–XVI).” In Studi confraternali: Orientamenti, problemi, testimonianze, edited by Marina Gazzini, 126–65. Medievali E-Book 12. Florence: Florence University Press, 2009. Salem Elsheikh, Mahmoud. “Testi senesi dello Duecento e del primo Trecento.” Studi di Filologia Italiana 29 (1961): 112–44. Santi, Bruno, and Claudia Strinati, eds. Siena e Roma: Raffaello, Caravaggio e i protagonisti di un legame antico. Siena: Protagon, 2005. Scapecchi, Pietro. “Quattrocentisti senesi nelle Marche: Il polittico di Sant’Antonio abate del Maestro dell’Osservanza.” Arte Cristiana 698 (1983): 287–90. Schiferl, Ellen. “Italian Confraternity Art Contracts: Group Consciousness and Corporate Patronage, 1400–1525.” In Crossing the Boundaries: Christian Piety and the Arts in Italian Medieval

Bibliogr aphy 

and Renaissance Confraternities, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler, 121–40. Early Drama, Art and Music Monograph Series 15. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1991. Sebregondi, Ludovica. “Religious Furnishings and Devotional Objects in Renaissance Florentine Confraternities.” In Crossing the Boundaries: Christian Piety and the Arts in Italian Medieval and Renaissance Confraternities, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler, 141–60. Early Drama, Art and Music Monograph Series 15. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 1991. Sebregondi, Ludovica. “Arte confraternale.” In Studi confraternali: Orientamenti, problemi, testimonianze, edited by Maria Gazzini, 337–68. Medievali E-Book 12. Florence: Florence University Press, 2009. Seidel, Max. “Gli affreschi di Ambrogio Lorenzetti nel Chiostro di San Francesco a Siena: Ricostruzione e datazione.” Prospettiva 18 (1979): 10–20. Sembranti, Saverio. “Bartolomeo Ammannati a Siena tra il 1558 e il 1559: Consulenze e progetti per il Ponte d’Arbia, il duomo e la Torre del Mangia.” In Bartolomeo Ammannati: Scultore e architetto 1511–1592, edited by Niccolò Rosselli Del Turco and Federica Salvi, 357–69. Florence: ADSI Alinea, 1995. Sestan, Ernesto. “Siena avanti Montaperti.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 68 (1961): 3–20. Settia, Aldo A. “‘Pro novis inveniendis’: Lo spionaggio militare senese nei ‘Libri di Biccherna’ (1229–1231).” Archivio Storico Italiano 156, no. 1 (575) (January–March 1998): 3–23. Smith, Timothy B., and Judith B. Steinhoff, eds. Art as Politics in Late Medieval and Renaissance Siena. Farnham, UK and Burlington VT: Ashgate, 2012. Stubblebine, James. Guido da Siena. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964. Syson, Luke, and others, eds. Renaissance Siena: Art for a City. London: National Gallery, 2007. Szabò, Thomas. “Visualizzazioni del potere a Siena e in altre città comunali (sec. XII–XIV).” In Siena e Maremma nel Medioevo: Documenti di storia, edited by Mario Ascheri, 229–49. Siena: Redazione di Luca Betti, 2001. Sznura, Francek, ed. Antica possessione con belli costumi. Due giornate di studio su Lapo da Castiglionchio il Vecchio. Florence–Pontassieve, 3–4 October, 2003. Florence: Aska, 2005. Terpstra, Nicholas, ed. The Politics of Ritual Kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Thomas, Anabel. The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Thomas, Anabel. Garrisoning the Borderlands of Medieval Siena: Sant’Angelo in Colle: Frontier Castle under the Government of the Nine (1287–1355). Farnham, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011. Thomas, Anabel. Jacques Courtois at Villa Lappeggi: Seventeenth Century Military Exploits and Medici Self-Referencing in the Visual Arts. Siena: Nuova Immagine, 2018. Tomei, Alessandro, ed. Le Biccherne di Siena: Arte e finanza all’alba dell’economia moderna. Exhibition catalogue, Rome–Washington–Siena, 2002–2003. Rome: Retablo CulturaArte-Immagine, 2002.

261

262 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Torriti, Elio, ed. Castelmuzio: Storia di un piccolo castello fortificato con notizie storiche su: Confraternità di S. Bernardino, Pieve S. Stefano in Cennano e omonimo distretto plebano, S. Anna in Camprena, Petroio, Abbadia Sicille. Cortona: Calosci, 1991. Torriti, Paolo. La Basilica di San Francesco: L’Oratorio dei Santi Lodovico e Gherardo e l’Oratorio di San Bernardino a Siena. Genoa: Sagep Editrice, 1987. Torriti, Piero. La Pinacoteca nazionale di Siena. 2 vols. Genoa: Sagep Editrice, 1977–1978 (later editions, 1980–1981 and 1999). Torriti, Piero. Tutta Siena: Contrada per contrada. Florence: Bonechi-Edizioni il turismo, 1992 (later edition, 1998). Trübner, Jörg. Die stilistische Entwickelung der Tafelbilder des Sano di Pietro (1405–1481). Strassburg: J. H. Heitz, 1925. Turrini, Patrizia. “Per honore et utile de la città di Siena”: Il comune e l’edilizia nel Quattrocento. Siena: Tip. senese, 1997. Turrini, Patrizia. “Religiosità e spirito caritativo a Siena agli inizi della reggenza lorenese: Luoghi pii laicale, contrade e arti” (part 3). In Istituto Storico Diocesano, Siena, Annuario, 2002–2003, 1–234. Monteriggione, Siena: Il Leccio, 2004. Ugurgieri-Azzolini, Isidoro. Le pompe sanesi, o’vero Relazione delli huomini e donne illustri di Siena e suo stato. 2 vols. Pistoia: Pier’Antonio Fortunati, 1649. Vigni, Laura. L’immagine di Siena: Le due città. Le vedute e le piante di Siena nelle collezioni cittadini. Exhibition catalogue, Siena, 1999. Siena: Nuova Immagine, 1999. Viola, Federica. Montalcino nel Quattrocento: Lo Statuto dei Danni Dati e degli Straordinari (1452) edizione e note storiche. Arcidosso: Effigi, 2018. Wisch, Barbara, and Diane Cole Ahl, eds. Confraternities and the Visual Arts in Renaissance Italy: Ritual, Spectacle, Image. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Zoi, Piero. “Prof ilo storico di Lucignano.” In Fortificare con arte: Vicende storiche ed architettoniche di quattro castelli senesi: Torrita di Siena, Sarteano, Lucignano della Chiana, Caldana di Maremma, edited by Ettore Pellegrini, 131–37. Accademia dei Rozzi. Monteriggione, Siena: Il Leccio, 2009.



Photograph credits and copyright notices

Book cover and Figure 5: copyright ASSi, as Muratore al lavoro in una fortezza; by concession of the Ministero della Cultura, Archivio di Stato di Siena, 12 November 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition, November 2022. Divieto di ulteriore riproduzione (Further reproduction not allowed) Frontispiece: copyright ASSi; by concession of the Ministero della Cultura, Archivio di Stato di Siena, 12 November 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition, November 2022. Divieto di ulteriore riproduzione (Further reproduction not allowed) Figure 1: copyright 2021 Archivio Betti, Siena; by concession of the Direzione Santa Maria della Scala e Sistema Museale del commune di Siena, prot. No. 9465 of 7 February 2022 for both paper and ebook editions. Figure 2: copyright Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon/François Jay (Pôle Recherche – Photothèque), as Le Christ au Tombeau; by concession of the Musées et patrimoine de Dijon, 1 September 2021 for both paper and ebook editions. Figure 3: copyright Opera della Metropolitana, as San Bernardino che predica in Piazza del Campo; by concession of Dr. Guido Pratese, Rettore, Opera della Metropolitana di Siena, prot. No. 713 of 7 October 2021. Concession for inclusion in ebook edition by Prof. Giovanni Minucci, prot. No. 800/2022 of 10 November 2022. Figure 4: copyright 2021 Foto Archivio Betti, Siena. Figure 5: copyright ASSi, as Muratore al lavoro in una fortezza; by concession of the Ministero della Cultura, Archivio di Stato di Siena, 12 November 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition, November 2022. Divieto di ulteriore riproduzione (Further reproduction not allowed) Figures 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21 and 22: copyright ASSi; by concession of the Ministero della Cultura, Archivio di Stato di Siena, 12 November 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition, November 2022. Divieto di ulteriore riproduzione (Further reproduction not allowed) Figure 10: copyright AOMS, as lettera di Leonardo Benvoglienti in Roma a Cristofano Felice in Siena, 14 aprile 1458; by concession of Dr. Guido Pratesi, Il Rettore, Opera della Metropolitana di Siena, prot. No. 652 of 14 September 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition by Prof. Giovanni Minucci, prot. No. 800/2022 of 10 November 2022. Figure 11: Archivio Betti, Siena. Copyright Opera della Metropolitana, as San Bernardino che predica davanti la chiesa di San Francesco; by concession of Dr. Guido Pratese, Rettore, Opera della Metropolitana di Siena, prot. No.713 of 7 October 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition by Prof. Giovanni Minucci, prot. No. 800/2022 of 10 November 2022. Figures 16 and 17: copyright 2021 Collezione di Ettore Pellegrini, courtesy of Ettore Pellegrini.

264 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Figure 18: copyright ASSi, as the ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, San Michele Arcangelo combatte contro il drago; by concession of the Ministero della Cultura, Archivio di Stato di Siena, 12 November 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition, November 2022. Divieto di ulteriore riproduzione. Figure 19: Archivio Betti, Siena. Copyright Opera della Metropolitana; by concession of Dr. Guido Pratesi, Il Rettore, Opera della Metropolitana di Siena, prot. No. 713 of 7 October 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition by Prof. Giovanni Minucci, 10 November 2022. Figure 20: Foto Ministero della cultura, Direzione regionale musei della Toscana, Pinacoteca Nazionale di Siena, prot. 5897–A; copyright Diocesi di Grosseto Ufficio Beni Culturali Ecclesiastici; courtesy of Mons. Franco Cencioni, Direttore and by concession of the Ministero della Cultura – Direzione Regionale Musei della Toscana, prot. No. 27625 of 14 October 2021. Concession in respect of the ebook edition, November 2022. Figures 23 and 24: copyright 2022, Foto Lensini, Siena. Figures 25 and 26: copyright 2022, Foto Lensini, Siena; courtesy of Laura Ponticelli and Don Enrico Grassini, and by concession of il Direttore Don Enrico Grassini, Arcidiocesi di Siena, Colle di Val d’Elsa, Montalcino, Curia Metropolitana, Ufficio per i Beni Culturali Ecclesiastici, prot. No. BC 73/022 AI of 10 November 2022 for both paper and ebook editions. Figure 27: Foto Donato Pineider. Copyright ASFi, as Cabreo, borgo d’Arbia ed il territorio circostante nell’anno 1644; by concession of the Ministero della cultura/ Archivio di Stato di Firenze, prot. No. 5019 of 2 November 2021 for both paper and ebook editions. Figure 28: copyright 2021, Biblioteca comunale degli Intronati, Istituzione del Comune di Siena; by concession of Biblioteca comunale degli Intronati, Istituzione del Comune di Siena, prot. No. 1298/13.3 of 22 November 2021 for both paper and ebook editions, November 2022.



General Index

Abruzzo 106 Acquapendente 42, 106 Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini: see Piccolomini, Popes, and Papacy and papal retinue Agostino delle Bombarde 23, 225, 227, 228, 228 n.5, 230–32, 233, 234, 235, 236; see also Ponte d’Arbia Alberto di Montaguto (podestà): see Siena: government departments, institutions, offices and officials Aldobrandeschi 37, 42, 57, 58 Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei: see Tolomei, and Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco allies, allegiances and alliances 17, 18, 21, 38, 41, 43, 43 n.12, 44, 50, 51, 79, 80, 82, 83, 91, 92, 93, 98, 99, 105, 123, 134, 136, 139, 215, 231, 241, 242 ambassadors and ambassadorial duties 12, 17, 61, 61 nn.3 and 4, 62, 76, 77, 77 nn.42 and 43, 78, 79, 80, 81 n.46, 82, 83, 83 n.48, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 106, 107, 128, 134, 189, 215, 242 Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo: see Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco Aquila 63, 64 arbitration, disputes and arbitrators 32, 54, 96, 181 n.15, 191–93, 194, 196, 199, 200, 201, 203, 205, 206, 236 Archangel Michael Enthroned (painted ‘tavoletta’) 119; see also Siena: Biccherna Archangel Michael fighting the Dragon (painted ‘tavoletta’) 116, 117, 118; see also Siena: Biccherna and artists and artisans: Ambrogio Lorenzetti Arezzo 49, 70, 71 Argentario 68, 69, 102–3, 105, 130, 133, 192, 232, 241; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei artists and artisans: Agostino di Andrea 219 Ambrogo Lorenzetti 116–17, 131, 160, 171 Ammannati (Bartolomeo) 226, 236 Antonio di Simone 181, 190–95, 199 Antonio Federighi 202, 203, 207 Baldassare di Marco di Giovanni 174 Battista di Fruosino 220 Benvenuto di Giovanni 108, 214, 219 Bernardino Capitelli 234, 235 Bernardino di Pietro 75 Domenico di Bartolo 184 Dietisalvi di Speme 16 Giovanni di Paolo 15, 22–23, 27, 38, 64, 66, 113, 114, 116–18, 122, 131, 141, 143, 145, 148, 153–58, 162–64, 167–71, 175–77, 178, 201, 225, 227, 232 Giunta di Jacopo 115 Gottifredo Deiscaichi 102, 104

Guido da Siena 16, 261 Leonardo di Nanni 116 Lippo Vanni 162 ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ 27–29, 32, 33, 37, 44, 57, 108, 113, 117–18, 118 n.9, 120–22, 121, 131, 153, 201 Maestro Antonio del Minella 229 Maestro Giovanni di Francesco ‘detto’ delabbolo’ 155 Maestro dei monocromi di Monticiano 117–18 Maestro Paolo della Testa 150 Master of San Bernardino 16, 145–46, 167 Marco di Giovanni 174 Matthäus Merian the Younger 102–104 Onofrio di Fruosino Giusi 220 Paolo della Testa 149 Pellegrino di Mariano 219 Piero del Massaio 103–4, 109 Pietro Petruccini 234, 235 Priamo della Quercia 184 Rossello Franchi 115 Sano di Pietro 15, 22, 27–28, 31, 38, 64 –66, 113–114, 116–18, 118 n.10, 120–22, 121, 122, 124, 128, 141, 146, 148, 153–62, 163–64, 167–71, 175–77, 192, 201, 205, 213, 226–27, 232 Sassetta 27 Tamagni (Vincenzo) 98 Tommaso di Paolo 192) Vecchietta 109, 184, 201, 208, 257 Asciano 27, 27 n.2, 34, 37–38, 41, 42, 46, 47, 47, 48, 48 n.21, 49, 50, 53, 54–58, 67, 74–75, 97, 106, 113, 120–22, 206 n.24, 211, 212, 214, 218, 242–43 Bagni Petriolo 136 Balia (government tribunal, initially the principal organ of government) 44, 45, 46, 58, 63, 68, 69, 73, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 129, 130, 133, 140, 182, 193, 214, 215, 230, 231, 240; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials Barnabò (Sienese humanist) 66 Batignano 41, 42, 44; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Beato Bernardino (Albizzeschi) 30, 31, 59, 61 nn.3 and 4, 63, 64, 65, 65, 66, 66 n.15, 67, 69, 108, 109, 145, 146, 154, 161, 184, 201, 234, 235: see also saints: Bernardino Beato Bernardino Albizzeschi Preaching in the Piazza del Campo (painted panel) 31 Beato Bernardino Albizzeshi Preaching on the Sacrato of San Francesco (painted panel) 65 canonisation 61 n.3, 63, 64, 65, 146, 154, 184, 201, 235; see also Leonardo Benvoglienti Bartolomeo di Pietro Pecci 64 Capriola (Convento) 64, 65, 66

266 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

funeral 64, 69 Ildibrandino di Manetti 66 Beato Pietro Pettinaio (Blessed Peter of Siena) 153, 161, 162, 199, 201; see also San Francesco (Siena) Benvoglienti (Leonardo Benvoglienti) 16, 17, 21, 45, 57, 59, 60–69, 71, 73, 75–101, 103–7, 109–10, 128–29, 136, 139, 190, 209, 220, 225, 232, 234, 236–37, 239–42 ambassador 61, 61 n.4, 62, 76–94, 105–07, 128 and his ‘amico’, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei 59, 60, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 75, 209, 234, 240 ‘capitano del popolo’ 61, 261 Capriola (Convento) 64, 65, 66 ‘commissario’ 61, 62, 76, 92, 95, 97, 98, 100 couriers 45, 69, 75, 105, 106, 107 ‘amico speciale’ 106 n.86 Averuccio 89 Fierabosco (also ‘fante’) 85, 87–88 Francesco 84– 90 Francesco ‘Spera’ 85, 88–90, 92 Giorgio 87 Giovanello 89 Giovanni ‘grande’ 87–90 Giovanni ‘piccinni’ from Bergamo 89 Piero from Bergamo 89 Ronchone 87 Rossetto from Bergamo 79, 85, 89–90, 107 usual ‘famulo’ 107 Cristofano Felice, association with 59, 60, 60, 62, 62 n.9, 63, 67, 69, 75, 107, 113, 116, 209, 234, 240 Life of San Bernardino 61 nn.3 and 4, 63, 64, 65, 66, 66 n.15 Montalcino 21, 61, 76, 77, 92, 94, 95–105, 220 Naples 59, 62, 66, 68, 82, 81 n.46, 82, 83, 83 n.48, 88, 91, 105, 106, 107 Orsini 139 Rome 18, 21, 59, 60, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 77, 88 n.46, 92, 105–07, 241, 242 Venice 18, 21, 59, 61, 62, 76–107, 128, 129 Bergamo 79, 85, 89–90, 107 Berlin, Gemäldegalerie: St Anthony Abbot at Mass (predella panel) 27 n.1 Biccherna (chancellery of finance) 21, 40, 61, 70, 74, 107, 110, 113, 115, 116 n.6, 117, 117, 117 n.8, 118, 118 n.9, 119, 119, 120, 122, 123, 127–28, 129, 133, 206 n.24, 213, 232, 240; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials officials ‘custode dei libri’ 127; see also Meo di Lorenzo ‘custodi dei locali di ufficio’ ‘guardia’ 115, 120, 127; see also Meo di Lorenzo ‘provveditore’ 61, 128 Quattro di Biccherna’ 127, 128; see also Meo di Lorenzo scribe and notary 127

Treasurer 127 Birth of the Virgin (altarpiece) 27, 27 n.2, 113, 120, 122, 211; see also Asciano Buonconvento 46, 217, 221 Callisto III (Pope) 105; see Popes Capestrano (Fra Giovanni di Capestrano) 65; see the Life of San Bernardino ‘capitano del popolo’ 18, 44, 37, 61, 203, 239; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials Capriola (Convento) 64, 65, 66 ‘castellani’ 18, 30, 30 n.9, 129, 130, 135, 139, 140, 198, 220 n.26; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials Castelmuzio 44, 45, 46, 57, 63, 105, 140, 182; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Castelpiano 129 Castiglione della Pescaia 266 Castiglione Val d’Orcia 139 Caterina d’Appiano (wife of Rinaldo Orsini): see Orsini Celle 129 Censi 118, 119, 191; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials) Cetona 72, 100, 135, 231 Christ in the Tomb (predella panel) 27, 28, 122 Cinelli Colombini (Stefano Cinelli Colombini) 191 n.1 Circumsessio Orbetelli (coloured print) 103, 103; see also Orbetello: siege of Città di Castello 61 n.4 coats of arms 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 48, 50, 76, 189, 195, 201 n.10, 202 n.11, 212, 214, 215, 229, 240, 243; see also Siena: coats of arms and insignia Colle 134 ‘commissario’ 61, 62, 76, 92, 95, 97, 98, 100; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials Concistoro (the supreme organ of government) 31 n.9, 39, 40, 42, 47, 48, 48 n.21, 51, 52–53, 60, 61, 64, 72, 73, 75, 77, 80, 81, 81 n.46, 85, 87, 106, 129, 135, 136, 193, 209, 216 n.17, 240; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials ‘condottieri’ and mercenary soldiers 44, 46, 72, 72 n.29, 83, 106, 134 Pietro Belanti 106 Simonetto da Castelpiero 46, 72, 72 n.29, 83 Jacopo Piccinino 44, 46, 62, 68, 72 n.29, 99, 106, 134, 135, 136 Consiglio della Campana (precursor of the Consiglio Generale in Siena) 41; see also Siena: government departments, institutions, offices and officials Consiglio Generale (general council for political and administrative affairs) 18, 37, 60, 75, 96, 126, 126 n.26, 191, 191 n.1, 198, 215–17, 227, 228, 238, 239–40; see also Montalcino: Consiglio

267

Gener al Index 

Generale, and Siena: government departments, institutions, offices and officials Consiglio Generale e Camarlinghi 198; see also, Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials ‘contado’ (Siena’s surrounding rural area) 29, 37, 38, 41, 41 n.7, 57, 104, 238; see also Siena: territory and territorial interests Cortona 72, 83, 91 couriers, agents, messengers and informants 18, 21, 22, 46, 48, 52, 54, 59– 60, 69, 70–79, 81– 82, 84– 94, 95, 97, 100, 104– 5, 106, 107, 109, 135, 140, 218, 236, 239; see also Leonardo Benvoglienti Giovanni Lippi 74 Giuliano d’Agnolozzi (‘fante’ and agent of Giovanni Massi, podestà of San Quirico) 72, 91, 92, 104 Matteo Mariano Tommasi (Sienese musician and informer at the Este court) 71; see also Ferrara Michele di Bartolomeo 74 Orlando (‘amico of ‘podestà’ Alberto di Montaguto in Siena) 70 Ranieri di Arezzo (‘amico’ of ‘podestà’ Alberto di Montaguto in Siena) 70 Santi di Matteo 74 Courtois (Jacques Courtois) 104 Crucifixion (painted panel) 27 n.1, 28 Dijon (Musée des Beaux Arts) 27 n.1, 28 Diplomacy, diplomats, and the vocabulary of undercover agency 16, 17, 19, 21, 37–117 (70–76), 133, 134, 136, 146, 240, 242; see also Leonardo Benvoglienti: couriers, podestà, Siena: palaces: Palazzo di Sotto, spies and espionage, and undercover agency and operatives ‘amico’ (friend) 69, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 84, 95, 100, 105, 106, 107, 135 ‘balitor’ 73 ‘currerius’ 73 ‘explorator’ 73; see also ‘esploratore’ ‘famiglio’ 84, 89 ‘famiglio di soto in palazzo’ 75 ‘famulo’ 76, 89, 95, 107, 127 ‘fancello’ 70 ‘fanciullo’ 73, 100 ‘fante’ 70, 72, 73, 81, 85, 89, 90, 91, 92 ‘nuncius’ 73 ‘scudiero’ 73 ‘servitore’ 7, 70, 73, 75, 85, 86 ‘spia’ 70 n.22 Donna Giovanni (informant to Giovanni Ottieri): see Ottieri Enea Silvio Piccolomini: see Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini Ercole d’Este: see Ferrara ‘esploratore’ (surveyor): see surveyors and surveillance Eugenio IV: see Popes

Farnese 43 ‘fattore’ (bailiff, steward or manager) 62, 63, 67, 69, 107, 240 Felice (Cristofano): see Opera del Duomo: see also Leonardo Benvoglienti Ferrara and the Este court 71 Florence 42, 46, 49, 61, 61 n.4, 71, 72, 73, 77, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 104, 114 n.2, 115, 133, 134, 136, 206, 213, 215, 218, 226, 242 Venti di Balia 104 Francione and Domenico di Francesco 104 Fra Jeronimo (of Padua) 191, 191 n.1, 192, 193, 196; see also Trecerchi Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei arbitrator and scribe for the Trecerchi 191–198 Asciano 27, 38, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 55, 56, 74, 97, 106, 182, 211, 214, 218, 242, 243 association with government officials and government postings Balia : 44, 45, 46, 63, 102, 130, 133, 139, 140, 182, 193, 214, 215, 240 Biccherna 21, 107, 113, 115, 116 n.6, 117, 117, 118, 119, 119, 120, 122, 127–30 ‘capitano’ 18, 37, 44, 46 ‘castellano’ 18, 129, 130, 139, 140, 198 Concistoro 39, 40, 47, 47–48, 48 n.21, 51, 52–53 n.24, 60, 209, 216 n.17, 240 Consiglio Generale 18, 60, 126, 126 n.26, 198, 216, 217, 227, 238, 239, 240 customs officer 45, 139, 140, 182 ‘consigliere’ 198 Argentario 68, 102, 103, 105, 130, 133, 193, 232, 241 Batignano 141 Castelmuzio 44, 45, 46, 140, 182 Lucignano d’Asso 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49 n.23, 130, 206 n.24, 218, 242 Marche 23, 74, 197, 198, 205, 238, 239 Maremma 37, 40, 44, 68,105, 133, 139, 140, 182, 241 Montalcino 23, 60, 67, 209, 211, 212, 213, 214 Monte Orgiali 37, 44, 46, 194, 196, 197, 220, 239 Montepescali 40, 41 Orbetello 46, 68, 69, 102, 103, 104, 105, 130, 133, 193, 218, 231 Rapolano 47, 47, 50, 214 Rigomagno 17, 19, 46, 50, 52–57, 67, 86, 88, 95, 96, 97, 190, 210, 214, 218, 220, 221, 223, 234, 237, 239, 242 Torrenieri 217, 218 Vergelle 23, 209, 211, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 242 ‘vicario’ 17, 18, 29, 37, 38, 46, 50, 51, 51–54, 55, 56, 67, 95, 190, 193, 194, 209, 210, 211, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 234, 237, 239 Crucifixion (painted panel) 27 n.1, 28 family brother Leonardo di Bartolomeo 124, 124 n.18, 125, 126

268 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

daughter Camilla 220 father (Bartolomeo di Francesco ‘ligrittiere’) 125 father-in-law, Meo di Lorenzo 21, 113, 115, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 150 dowry 115, 123, 125 n.21, 126, 127 Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 46, 60, 63, 76, 77, 78, 113, 130, 140, 141, 159, 171, 173–185, 204, 205, 233, 238, 241 Leonardo Benvoglient, association with: (59–107) and 16, 21, 45, 59, 60, 60, 62, 63, 67, 69, 75, 113, 209, 234, 240 ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ 27, 27 n.2, 28, 37, 113, 117, 117 n.1, 118, 118 n.9, 120, 121, 122, 201 n.10 mapping work and painted panoramas 46, 68, 76, 102, 103, 133, 139, 140; see also maps and mapping Martinozzi: (199– 208) Mercanzia 32, 32 nn.13 and 14, 181 n.15, 197, 205 Opera del Duomo 59, 62, 63, 67, 69, 75, 113, 116, 209, 234, 240 Ottieri 17, 17, 21, 94, 139, 189, 207, 215, 218, 219, 240, 241, 242 personal papers, reports and tax declarations 7, 17, 18, 29, 60, 67, 68, 75, 114, 114 n.1, 115, 124, 125, 126, 128, 130, 139, 189, 206, 207, 209, 211, 214, 216 n.17, 219 Ponte d’Arbia project 225, 227, 228, 231, 232–36 Rome 7, 68, 94, 105, 189, 207, 215, 218, 219, 240, 242 Sano di Pietro 15, 22, 28, 114, 116, 118, 121, 122, 124, 128, 141, 153 n.1, 154, 171, 176, 177,192, 205, 213, 226, 227, 232 Saint Anthony Abbot at Mass (predella panel) 27 n.1 survey work and military engagements 18, 21, 22, 38, 46, 58, 68, 76, 134, 133, 135, 139, 140, 182, 206, 215, 218, 240, 242; see also maps and mapping, surveyors and surveillance, and Siena: territory and territorial interests Trecerchi: (191–98) workshop training, neighbourhood networking and independent career 21, 64, 76, 78, 79, 113, 114, 116, 117–119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 128, 140, 141, 154, 158, 177, 178, 237 Francesco di Bartolomeo di Francesco Guglielmi 200 Francigena 37, 46, 191, 195; see also Strada Romana and Siena: streets Franciscans and the Franciscan order 15, 16, 21, 22, 64, 66, 94, 113, 120, 122, 141, 145, 146, 148, 148 n.3, 153, 160, 161, 162, 166, 170, 175, 176, 180, 182, 185, 191, 199, 200, 202 Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 37, 46, 60, 63, 64, 76, 77, 78, 113, 114, 118, 120, 122, 130, 140, 141, 145–190, 191, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 225, 227, 231, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238; see also

Siena: churches: San Francesco: Compagnia di San Bernardino and Compagnia di San Francesco, and Siena: confraternities Aldobrandino di Galgano Tolomei 22, 66, 145, 148, 158, 159, 179, 256 Antonio di Francesco di Jacopo di Lapo 22, 66, 145, 148, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156– 59, 162, 165, 169, 171, 173, 184 Benedetto Spinelli (nineteenth-century historian) 174 Cappella della Compagnia (company chapel) 30, 31–33, 37, 46, 60, 63, 76, 77, 78, 130, 140, 141, 159, 171, 173–185, 238 Nanni di Vieri (spice merchant) 178 Tommaso Tucci 178 Cappella della Madonna 164 Cappella di Santa Maria degli Angeli 160, 164, 169, 178 Cappella di sotto (aka Cappella nuova, and cappellone) 182 hospitals 22, 66, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 169, 171 173, 179, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183 Ospedale delle Stimmate di San Francesco 22, 66, 145, 148, 149, 158, 159, 179 Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco 66, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 169, 171, 179, 180, 182 Lorenzo di Giusa (notary to the Mercanzia) 32, 173, 174, 180, 181, 183, 204, 205, 233 new altarpiece 22, 23, 64, 66, 118, 122, 145, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153–172, 153 n.1, 154 n.175, 162, 176, 177, 178, 184, 201, 225, 236 officials Bartolomeo di Mariano Allegretti (treasurer) 163, 165 Bartolomeo di Paolo (syndic) 156 Biagio di Francesco di Dino (syndic) 156 Domenico di Francesco Buzzicchello (treasurer) 184 Francesco di Meo (syndic) 236 Francesco di Ser Gardo (treasurer) 155, 158, 184 Lodovico di Domenico del Vecchio (syndic) 157 Niccolò di Salmone (prior) 165 Paolo della Testa (stoneworker) 149 Pietro dell’Abaco (mathematician and estimator) 149 Friars Minor (‘frati minori’) 15, 16, 22, 63, 64, 65, 66, 120, 122, 140, 145, 146, 160, 161, 166, 170, 178, 180, 184, 199, 202, 228, 235; see also San Francesco (Siena) Gabella (Montalcino): see Montalcino: offices Gabella (Siena) 63, 117, 117, 118, 119; see also, Siena: government departments, institutions, offices and officials)

269

Gener al Index 

Gaeta 216 n.17 Galgano (Galgano Borghese) 68; see Leonardo Benvoglienti: Naples General Council: see Consiglio Generale Genoa 74 Gioncarico 98 Giovanni di Francesco Buzzicchello; see Siena, Santa Maria della Scala, officials) Giovanni Massi (‘podestà’) 72, 83, 90, 91, 92, 100; see San Quirico d’Orcia Giuliano d’Agnolozzi (‘fante’) 72, 91, 104; see couriers, messengers and informants; San Quirico: Giovanni Massi Gradoli 93; see also Donna Giovanna Grosseto 12, 22, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 64, 101, 113, 120, 121, 121, 122, 193, 220 Museo d’Arte sacra della diocesi di Grosseto 12 San Francesco 120, 121, 121, 121 n.21, 122 insignia 30, 210; see coats of arms and insignia Lappeggi (villa) 104; see Medici Leonardo Benvoglienti: see Benvoglienti Life of San Bernardino: see Bernardino Albizzeschi; see also Leonardo Benvoglienti and Capestrano Life of Joseph: see artists and artisans: Marco di Giovanni and Baldassare di Marco di Giovanni Lisi (Carlo Lisi) 121 n.14 Lorenzo di Giusa (notary to the Mercanzia) 32, 173, 174, 180, 181, 183, 204, 205, 233; see also Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagni di San Franceso, and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Lucia di Tana (wife of Lodovico Martinozzi): see Martinozzi: family Lucignano d’Asso 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 49 n.23, 58, 206 n.24, 130, 218, 242; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Madonna Paola della Colonna (mother-in-law of Rinaldo Orsini): see Orsini Madonna Caterina d’Appiano (wife of Rinaldo Orsini): see Orsini Manciano 98 Mantua 228 maps and mapping 18, 68, 76, 140, 213, 219, 233, 240; see also Siena: territory and territorial interests Marche 23, 74, 197, 198, 205, 238, 239; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Maremma 37, 40, 41, 42 n.8, 43, 44, 61, 68, 92, 105, 130, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 182, 241; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Martinozzi 23, 175 n.7, 198, 199–208 coat of arms 201 n.10, 202 n.11 chapel (San Francesco) 200–201; see also Siena: churches: San Francesco tomb (san Francesco) 201; see also Siena: churches: San Francesco

family Agnolia di Bartolomeo Luti (wife of Lodovico) 204 Agnolo di Giovanni 175, 200, 201 Beato Giovanni 200, 201 Giovanni d’Agnolo 203 Lodovico di Niccolò 175 n.7, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206 Niccolò d’Agnolo 175 n.7, 200, 201, 202, 203, 203 n.15, 205, 206 palaces 199, 200, 202, 204; see also Siena: palaces Saint Anthony Abbot Distributing His Wealth to the Poor (predella panel) 201 n.10 Massa 43 Matteo Mariano Tommasi (Sienese musician and informer): see Ferrara, and couriers, messengers and informants Medici 104, 234 n.27, 226; see also Ponte d’Arbia family Mattias 234 n.27 Grand Duchy 226 villa Lappeggi 104 Mensole 135; see also Jacopo Piccinino Meo di Lorenzo 21, 113, 115, 120, 122, 123, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 150; see Biccherna; see also, Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei: family: father-in-law Mercanzia (independent government body dealing with matters of trade and the economy) 32, 32 n.13, 33 n.15, 61, 181 n.15, 191, 199, 200, 202, 204 205; see also Siena Lorenzo di Giusa (notary) 32, 173, 174, 180, 181, 183, 204, 205, 233 Meo di Priamo (notary) 204 Milan 46, 72, 83, 90, 99, 110 military tactics and Siena’s war machine 17, 19, 21, 22, 59, 73, 79, 98, 99–100, 105, 133, 134, 135, 135 n.5, 137, 139, 141, 193, 214, 218, 227–28, 231, 241 Giberto da Correggio (turncoat captain general) 135, 135 n.5 ‘guastatori’ (sapper or saboteur) 99 Montagutolo 81 n.46 Montalcino 21, 23, 27, 41–42, 59–62, 67, 69, 72, 76–77, 92, 94–101, 104–5, 108, 110, 175, 191, 209–13, 215–16, 220; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei ‘bossolo’ (‘pisside’) 95–97 Consiglio Generale Arcangelo di Checco del maestro Antonio 96 Domenico di Pietro di Domenicuccio 96 Giovanni di Nicola del maestro Giovanni 96 Guglielmo di Pietro di Domenicuccio 96 Mariano di Giovanni di Checco 96 Matteo di Salvestro di Giovanni di Checco 96

270 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

Meio di Checco di maestro Antonio 96 Nicola di Giovanni di Nicola del maestro Giovanni 96 Gabella (Tax and Duties Office) 67, 98 n.72, 209, 211 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei 98 n.72 Priorato Giovanni di Nicola del maestro Giovanni 96 Guglielmo di Pietro di Domenicuccio 96 Domenico di Giovanni di Checco 96 Santa Maria della Croce (hospital) 97, 98, 98 n.72 ‘Terzi’ San Salvatore 96 Sant’Angelo 96 Sant’Egidio 96 ‘Viarii’ Arcangelo di Checco del maestro Antonio 96 Bartolomeo di Menchino di Checco 96 Domenico di Bartolomeo 96 Montaperti 70, 109 Monte Amiata 93 Monte Orgiali 37, 38, 44, 46, 194, 196, 197, 220, 239; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Monteguidi 42, 42 Montelifrè 200, 202 Montepescali 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 210, 214 n.13; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Montepulciano 72, 91 Montorio 43, 215 Naples 59, 62, 66, 68, 81, 82, 83, 88, 91, 105, 106, 107 Fra Puccio, ambassador 83 King Alfonso of Aragon 66, 68 King Fernando 105 neighbourhood networking and networks 21, 113, 123, 124, 203, 204 Niccolò Severini 101; see also Orbetello : siege and liberation of Noveschi 202; see also Martinozzi Ombrone (River Ombrone) 139 Opera del Duomo (Cathedral works): see Siena: churches: Cathedral oratore (ambassador): see ambassadors and ambassadorial duties Oratory of San Bernardino: see Siena: churches: San Francesco; see also Siena: confraternities Orbetello 46, 68, 69, 101, 102, 103, 103, 104, 105, 130, 133, 193, 218, 231; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei siege and liberation of 101, 102, 102, 103, 103, 104, 105, 133, 231, 232, 241; see also artists and artisans: Matthäus Merian the Younger, Gottifredo Descaichi, and Circumsessio Orbetelli Orcia (Val d’Orcia) 139

Orsini 57, 62, 92, 105, 133, 136, 138, 139, 180, 241 family Aldobrandino (Count of Pitigliano) 92, 105, 136, 138, 241 Caterina d’Appiano (wife of Rinaldo) 136 Paola della Colonna (mother-in-law of Rinaldo Orsini) 136 Riccardo 136 Rinaldo 136 palace 252 Orvieto 93, 95 Ospedale delle Stimmate di San Francesco: see Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco: hospitals Ospedale di Gesù, Santa Maria degli Angeli e San Francesco: see Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco: hospitals Ospedale di Santa Maria della Croce: see Montalcino, hospitals Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala: see Siena: hospitals Ottieri 17, 21, 43, 43 n.11, 57, 92, 93, 94, 133, 134, 136, 137, 137, 138, 138, 139, 189, 207, 215, 218, 219, 240, 241–42 castello 17, 43, 92, 93, 94, 133, 136–39, 215, 241–42 family Bonifazio 94, 137–38 Giovanni 93, 94, 138–39 Sinolfo 17, 21, 94, 134, 189, 207, 215, 218, 219, 241–42 ambassador 17, 134, 189, 242 Bishop of Chiusi 189 Curia Romana 189 Paganico 220, 221 Palazzo Pubblico (Palazzo del Comune) 27 n.1, 30 n.9; 31, 75; see also Siena: palaces Palazzo di Sotto; see Siena: palaces panoramas and panoramic views 18, 68, 103, 104, 193, 213–214, 218, 231, 232; see also maps and mapping Papacy and papal retinue 61, 64, 68, 99, 105, 107, 134, 139, 146, 179–182, 212, 212 n.8, 213, 214, 241, 242 army 99, 105 Siena, visit to 179–182, 212 n.8; see also Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco Cardinal Bessarion 180 Cardinal Scarampo 180 Cardinal Orsini 180 Peace of Lodi 83 Perugia 49, 135 Petruccini (Pietro Petruccini): see artists and artisans Piccinino (Count Jacopo Piccinino); see ‘condottieri’ and mercenary soldiers Piccolomini 68, 105, 185, 194, 202, 207, 221, 236, 245, 257

271

Gener al Index 

Aeneas Silvius 68, 105, 185, 207, 221; see also Popes, and Papacy and papal retinue Cecco di Mino 236 Silvio 202 Pietro dell’Abaco (mathematician and estimator): see Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco) Piombino 136 Pietro Pettinaio (‘Blessed Peter’) 153, 161, 171, 199, 201 ‘pisside’ and ‘pisside nobilium’ 95–97, 203; see Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials’; see also Montalcino Pitigliano 43, 62, 92, 105, 133, 136, 138, 231, 241 Pius II: see Popes ‘podestà’ (mayor) 30 n.10, 52, 55, 61, 62, 70, 71, 72, 76, 83, 90, 91, 92, 95, 100, 106 n.86, 193, 219, 220, 221 n.27; see also Siena: government departments, institutions, offices and officials Poggibonsi 134 Ponte d’Arbia 23, 45, 221, 225 –36 (234 n.27) Petrino Burelli (Sienese merchant) 229 Bambo Puccini (tenant of the Arbia mill) 229 Luca di Bartolomeo (stone mason) 229 Urbano Puccini, son of Bambo 229 Popes: Callisto III 105 Eugenio IV 64, 66 Pius II 68, 105, 185, 207, 221 Sixtus IV 189 Radicofani 42, 42 Randon (Veronica Randon) 27 n.1 Rapolano 47, 47, 50, 214: see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Ravacciano 66 n.15 Ravenna 197, 238, 239 Rigomagno 17, 19, 37, 46, 49, 50, 51, 51–57, 67, 86, 88, 95, 96, 97, 190, 210, 214, 218, 220, 221, 223, 234, 237, 239, 242; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Giuliano di Giovanni di Cinigiano 52, 53 Mariano di Manni 53–54 River Arbia 23, 221, 25, 226, 227, 233, 234, 235, 238 River Ombrone 139 Rofeno (monastery of San Cristoforo) 117; see Archangel Michael Fighting the Dragon (‘tavoletta’) Rome 7, 11, 17, 18, 21, 59, 60, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 68, 77, 81 n.46, 92, 94, 105, 106, 107, 108, 134, 135, 139, 207, 215, 218, 219, 229, 230, 240, 241, 242; see also Leonardo Benvoglienti, and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Rosia 42 saints Ansano 234; see also Ponte d’Arbia Ambrose 27 Anthony Abbot 12, 27 n.1, 120, 121, 198, 201 n.10 Saint Anthony Abbot (painted panel) 120, 121, 121

Saint Anthony Abbot at Mass 27 n.1 Saint Anthony Abbot Distributing his Wealth to the Poor (predella panel) 201 n.10 Archangel Michael 116, 117, 118, 119, 128 Bartholomew 27 n.1 Bernardino 22, 30, 31, 59, 61 nn.3 and 4, 63, 64, 65, 65, 66, 66 n.15, 67, 69, 108, 109, 145, 147, 148, 161, 164, 166, 171, 172, 179, 183, 184, 201, 208, 212, 214, 234, 235; see also Ponte d’Arbia feast of, 212, 214 funeral 64, 69 Life of San Bernardino 61 nn.3 and 4, 63, 64, 65, 66, 66 n.15 Oratory of San Bernardino 22, 147, 148, 164, 166, 171, 172, 179, 183, 208; see also Siena: churches: San Francesco, and Siena: confraternities reliquary urn 69 Biagio (Blaise) 201 Callisto 69 Christopher 234, 235; see also Ponte d’Arbia Crescenzio 234; see also Ponte d’Arbia Francis 15, 146, 160, 162; see also Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco: new altarpiece Jerome 120, 121, 122 Saint Jerome (painted panel) 121, 121, 122 John the Baptist 160, 162, 234; see also Ponte d’Arbia John the Evangelist 27 n.1 Louis of Anjou (Lodovico) 160, 161, 208 Peter (Apostle) 160, 161, 162 Peter (‘Blessed Peter’) 161, 162; see also Pietro Pettinaio Sano 234; see also Ponte d’Arbia Vettorio 234; see also Ponte d’Arbia Sale e Paschi (customs office concerning salt and pasturing) 62; see also Siena, government departments, institutions, offices and officials San Francesco (Grosseto): see Grosseto San Francesco (Siena): see Siena: churches San Quirico d’Orcia 72, 83, 90–92, 100, 211, 221, 242; see also Giovanni Massi ‘podestà’ 72, 83, 90, 91, 92, 100 ‘fante’ Giuliano d’Agnolozzi 72, 91, 104 Santa Fiora 43 Sant’Angelo in Colle 92, 110, 216 n.18, 261 Santa Maria della Scala (Ospedale di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena): see Siena: hospitals Seggiano 193 n.4; see Mino di Trecerchi Sesta 74; see also couriers, messengers and informants Severini (Niccolò Severini) 101; see Orbetello: liberation of Sforza 57, 83, 135 n.4, 141, 248, 253 Francesco 135 n.4, 141, 253 Siena 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27, 27 n.1, 28, 29, 30, 30 n.9, 31, 32 n.13, 33, 33 n.15, 34, 37, 38, 38, 38 n.3, 39, 40, 41, 42, 42, 43, 44, 44 n.13, 45, 46, 46 n.20,

272 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

47, 47, 48, 49, 49 n.23, 50, 51, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 60, 61, 61 n.3, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 66 n.15, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 72 n.29, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 81 n.46, 82, 83, 83 n.48, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 95 n.65, 96, 97, 98, 98 n.72, 99, 100, 101, 103,104, 105, 106, 106 n.86, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118 n.10, 119, 119, 120, 121, 121 n.14, 122, 124 n.19, 125, 127, 129, 130, 131, 133, 134, 135, 135 n.4, 136, 137, 138, 138, 139, 140, 141, 145, 146, 148, 148 n.3, 151, 152, 157, 160, 161, 161 n.14, 168, 171, 172, 174 n.4, 179, 180, 181 n.15, 184, 185, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 194 n.7, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 200 n.2, 201, 201 n.9, 202, 202 n.11, 203, 204, 204 nn.18 and 19, 205 n.23, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 212 n.8, 213, 214, 215, 216, 216 n.18, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 221 n.27, 222, 225, 226, 227, 228, 228 n.5, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, n.27, 235, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242 churches 15, 16, 18, 22, 33, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 65, 66, 113, 120, 121, 122, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 158, 160, 161, 162, 162 n.17, 163, 164, 165, 166, 166 n.26, 170, 171, 172, 174, 174 n.4, 175 n.7, 176, 177, 180, 180 n.10, 183, 184, 199, 200, 200 n.4, 201, 202, 202 n.13, 207, 208, 228, 235, 238 Cathedral (Opera del Duomo) 59, 60, 60, 62, 62 n.9, 63, 67, 69, 75, 107, 113, 116, 209, 234, 240 San Francesco 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 31, 32, 33, 37, 46, 59, 60, 63, 64, 65, 65, 66, 76, 77, 78, 113, 114, 120, 121, 122, 140, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 162 n.17, 163, 164, 165, 166, 166 n.26, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 174 n.4, 175, 175 n.7, 176, 177, 178, 180, 180 n.10, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 191, 199, 200, 200 n.4, 201, 202, 202 n.13, 203, 204, 205, 207, 208, 225, 227, 228, 231, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238 altars and altarpieces 15, 166, 167, 170 Beato Pietro Pettinaio’ (Blessed Peter of Siena) 153, 161, 162, 199, 201 chapels 200–201 Martinozzi 200–201 Compagnia di San Bernardino 15, 16, 32, 154, 162, 166, 174, 175, 176 Compagnia di San Francesco 31, 66, 146, 153, 153 n.1, 154, 158, 177 conventual complex 15, 16, 22, 113, 145, 146, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 175, 176, 177, 178, 200, 201, 203 Cardinals Bessarion, Scarampo and Orsini, accommodated there 180 Oratory of San Bernardino 22, 147, 148, 164, 166, 171, 172, 179, 183, 208, 256; see also Siena: confraternities Inquisition 148 tombs 161, 201, 202 n.13 Beato Pietro Pettinaio 161, 201 Martinozzi 201 Piccolomini 202 n.13

coats of arms and insignia 30, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 48, 50, 76, 189, 201, 210, 212, 214, 215, 229, 240, 243 confraternities 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 31, 32, 33, 37, 46, 60, 63, 64, 66, 76, 77, 78, 113, 114, 118, 120, 130, 140, 141, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 153 n.1, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 191, 198, 200, 201, 203, 204, 205, 208, 225, 227, 231, 233, 235, 236, 237, 238 government departments, institutions, offices and officials 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31 n.9, 32, 33, 33 n.15, 37, 38, 39, 40, 40, 41, 42, 44, 44 n.16, 45, 46, 47, 48, 48 n.21, 49, 50, 51, 52–53, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61 n.3, 62, 62 n.9, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 81 n.46, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 106 n.86, 107, 107 n.87, 113, 115, 117, 117, 118, 119, 119, 122, 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 182, 190, 191, 193, 193 n.4, 194, 197, 198, 199, 203, 206 n.24, 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, 214 n.13, 215, 216, 216 n.17, 217, 218, 220, 228, 230, 231, 232, 233, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243; see also Balia, Biccherna, ‘bossolo’, ‘capitano’ ‘capitano del popolo’, ‘castellano’,‘commissario’, Concistoro, Consiglio della Campana, Consiglio Generale, Consiglio Generale e Camarlinghi, Gabella, ‘Signoria’, ‘Monte’, ‘pisside’, ‘podestà’, Sale e Paschi, ‘Ufficio dell’Ornato’, ‘vicario’ hospitals 22, 66, 108, 116, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 169, 171, 172, 173, 178, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 191 n.1, 219, 219 n.21, 221; see also Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco Santa Maria della Scala 66, 108, 116, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 161, 172, 173, 184, 185, 191 n.1, 219, 219 n.21, 221 Giovanni di Francesco Buzzicchello (rector) 184 Mercanzia 32, 32 nn.13 and 14, 33 n.15, 61, 181 n.15, 191, 199, 200, 202, 204, 205 ‘Monte’ dei Nove 101 n.77 dei Paschi di Siena 121 n.14 del Popolo 101 n.77 dei Riformatori 101 n.77 palaces 27 n.1, 30 n.9, 31, 75, 194, 195, 195 n.14, 199, 200, 202, 204 Martinozzi family seat, Croce del Travaglio 199, 200, 202, 204 Martinozzi Stasi 202 Palazzo Pubblico 27 n.1, 30 n.9, 31, 75 Palazzo di sotto 75 Piccolomini 194 Trecerchi

273

Gener al Index 

Banchi di Sotto 194, 195 ‘casa Trecerchi in su la strada romana’ 195 Trecerchi Monaldi, Via di Città 2–8 194 Trecerchi palace in Via di Pantaneto 63–67: 194 Trecerchi palace in Via Pantaneto 100 195 n.14 Via di Pantaneto, opposite the Palazzo Piccolomini 194 Republic of 16–18, 21–23, 27, 30, 33, 37–39, 41–45, 50, 53–55, 59, 61–63, 71–77, 91, 99, 101, 113, 120, 133–140, 145, 153, 173, 191, 199, 206, 209, 211, 214–20, 226–29, 233, 236–43 squares (‘Piazze’) Campo 31, 75, 202 San Francesco (‘sacrato’) 15, 22, 64, 147, 148 Streets (‘Vie’): Banchi di Sotto 194–95, 202 Città 191, 194, 196 Croce del Travaglio 199, 200, 202, 203, 204 Pantaneto 191, 194, 195, 196, 198 Roma (Francigena) 346, 191, 195 taxation, tax returns and customs dues 7, 17, 18, 29, 60, 67, 68, 75, 114, 114 nn.1 and 2, 115, 123, 124 n.18, 125, 126, 128, 130, 138, 189, 195, 196, 204 n.17, 206, 207, 209, 211, 214, 214, 216 n.17, 219, 140 territory and territorial interests 18, 21, 29, 37, 38, 41, 41 n.7, 44, 57, 68, 76, 92, 98, 104, 105, 133–35, 137, 139, 140, 141, 148, 206, 214, 219, 227, 229, 231, 237, 238, 241; see also ‘contado’ ‘Terzi’, ‘Compagnie’ and ‘Popoli’ 16, 114, 115, 123, 124, 125, 194, 195, 196, 200, 203, 203 n.15, 204, 204 n.17, 207, 216, 216 n.18, 221 Camollia 203 Città 61, 203 n.15 San Martino 114, 115, 123, 124, 125, 195, 196, 200, 203, 204, 207, 216, 216 n.18, 221 Compagnia Rialto e Cartagine 115, 123, 124, 125, 195, 196, 200, 203, 204, 207, 216 n.18 Compagnia di San Pietro alle Scale 204 n.17 Popolo Porrione 123 Popolo di San Vigilio 125, 196 ‘Signoria’ (overall government body) 29, 40, 46–52, 54–55, 74, 78–79, 83–85, 89–92, 97, 105, 107, 129, 134, 139, 197, 209, 217–19, 239, 242–43; see also government departments, institutions, offices and officials Sinalunga 206, 213, 218 Sorano 43, 58, 231 Sovana 43, 58, 82 spies and espionage 17, 22, 40, 56, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 106, 107, 240 Niccolò di Marciano Cecchi di Marcio (Balia official in charge of spies and expeditions) 73; see also Balia

Spinelli (Benedetto Spinelli): see Fraternita di Santa Maria degli Angeli e Compagnia di San Francesco Staggia 134 Strada Romana (Via Francigena) 37, 46, 191, 195, 226; see also Siena: streets surveyors and surveillance 17, 18, 21, 37, 44, 46, 56, 58, 71, 72, 74, 75, 77, 98, 100, 101, 109, 133, 134, 135, 207 ‘esploratori’ 17, 22, 76, 100, 101, 104, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 182, 206, 207, 215, 218, 240, 242 territorial mapping 68, 76, 219; see also maps and mapping, and Siena: territory and territorial interests Tolomei 22, 66, 108, 110, 145, 148, 158, 159, 179 Aldobrandino di Galgano 22, 66, 145, 148, 149, 156, 157, 158, 159, 179, 184 Bernardo 108, 110 Torrenieri 217, 218; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei Torrita (Torrita di Siena) 52, 55, 72, 104, 219; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei: Rigomagno Toti (Paolo Toti) 203 n.15 Trecerchi 23, 181, 190, 191, 191 n.1, 192, 193, 193 n.4, 194, 195, 195 n.14, 196, 197, 198, 199 Giorgio di Francesco di Mino 195, 198 Giovanni 191, 195 Mino di Niccolò 191, 193, 193 n.4, 194, 195, 196 Pietro di Giovanni 181, 192, 193, 194, 195, 195 n.14, 196 Fra Jeronimo (procurator to Pietro Trecerchi) 191, 191 n.1, 192, 193, 196 Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei, association with 191–98 Montalcino, association with 191 n.1 palaces and the ‘palazeto’ 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199 Banchi di Sotto 194, 195 ‘casa Trecerchi in su la strada romana’ 195 Trecerchi Monaldi, Via di Città 2–8: 194 Via di Pantaneto 63–67: 194 Via Pantaneto 100: 195 n.14 Via di Pantaneto, opposite the Palazzo Piccolomini 194 ‘Ufficio dell’Ornato’ 195, 196 Trequanda 46 Turchi Leonardo 231; see also Agostino delle Bombarde Pietro 101, 101 n.77, 231; see Orbetello: siege and liberation; see also Agostino delle Bombarde Turks and Turkish threat 80, 81, 83 ‘Ufficio dell’Ornato’ 195, 196; see Trecerchi: palaces; see also Siena government departments, institutions, offices and officials undercover agency and operatives 21, 30, 59, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 94, 97, 100, 113, 129,

274 

The Art and Government Service of Fr ancesco di Bartolomeo Alfei (c. 1421– c. 1495)

219; see also, Diplomacy, diplomats and the vocabulary of undercover agency, and surveyors and surveillance Urbino 228 Val d’Arbia 226 n.2; see also Ponte d’Arbia Val di Chiana 10, 23, 37, 47, 49, 58, 61, 133, 134, 139, 206, 209, 213, 218, 219, 242 Val d’Orcia 46 Venice 18, 21, 59, 61, 62, 70 n.21, 76–94, 106, 107, 128, 129 Vergelle 23, 209, 211, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 242; see also Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei ‘vicario’ (deputy head government official) 17, 18, 29, 30, 30 n.9, 37, 38, 46, 47, 47, 48 n.21, 49, 50, 51, 51–54, 55, 56, 67, 76, 95, 97, 130, 190, 193, 193 n.4, 194, 209, 210, 211, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 234, 237, 239, 240; see also Siena: government

departments, institutions, offices and officials, and Francesco di Bartolomeo Alfei: government service and postings Viterbo 94 Volterra 103–04 Washington (Kress Collection) 58, 201 n.10 Saint Anthony Abbot Distributing His Wealth to the Poor (predella panel) 201 n.10; see also ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’, and Martinozzi, and artists and artisans: ‘Maestro dell’Osservanza’ workshop associations, organization and practice 21, 28, 64, 76, 78, 79, 113, 114 n.2, 115, 116, 117, 118 n.10, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 128, 140, 141, 154, 158, 177, 178, 216 n.18, 232; see also artists and artisans: Giovanni di Paolo: workshop, and Sano di Pietro: workshop



Author Index

Adams 149, 152 Alessi 27, 29, 32–33, 44, 57, 59, 64, 69, 98, 101, 107, 108, 113 –18, 120, 122–25, 128, 130–31, 134, 141, 153, 154, 171, 176–77, 181, 185, 189, 190, 196–98, 201, 205–207, 211–12, 221 Almagià 233, 236 Angelis (Padre Luigi De Angelis) 161, 171, 246 Ascheri 29–30, 33, 95, 108, 202, 204, 216, 221 Azzolini (Monica) 16, 19, 62, 108 Azzolini (Urgurgieri) 61, 110 Bacci 116, 131, 153–54, 157, 158, 171, 247 Banchi 7, 29, 33, 44, 46, 57, 67, 72, 84, 107–108, 135, 141, 207, 209, 210, 211–12, 214, 219, 221 Barlucchi 41, 57 Bartolomei Romagnoli 17, 19, 65, 107 Bellosi 118, 131 Benvenuti 19, 205, 207 Bertagna 148, 152 Bichi Borghesi 209, 211–12, 214, 219, 221 Biondi 43, 57 Borgia 119, 131 Bowsky 42, 53, 57 Brandi (Don Antonio) 108 Brandi (Cesare) 109 Bratchel 30, 33, 38, 57 Bruscalupi 43, 57, 92, 108 Burrini 216, 221 Cammorosano 44, 57 Canali 98, 100, 108, 249, 250 Carli (Enzo) 118–19, 131, 162, 169, 171, 217 Carli (Nello) 217, 221, 234, 236 Cattana 108, 110 Causarano 62, 108 Ceppari Ridolfi 204–5, 208 Chiantini 32–34 Cirier 70, 73, 108, 109 Corridori 42, 58 Della Valle 219 Doyno 161, 171 Elam 104, 109, 255 Falcone 27, 34, 107, 113, 117–18, 120, 131 Faluschi 174, 185 Farinelli 42, 58, 253 Ferente 44, 58, 72, 109, 130–31, 135, 141 Frigo 17, 19, 77, 109 Fumi 135, 141 Gaillard 154, 169, 171 Gallavotti Cavallero 184–85 Garollo 27, 34 Gatti 200–201, 204, 208 Germogli 43, 58 Gramatica 118, 131 Graziani 118, 131 Giorgi 62, 109 Interguglielmi 161, 171

Hoepli 27, 34 Kent 104, 109 Koeper 154, 171, 173–74, 176, 185 Lamberini 104, 109 Lazzarinli 16, 19–20, 62, 71–72, 77, 108–109 Leoncini 194–95, 198 Liberati (Alfredo) 41, 58, 146, 152 Lucatti 41, 58 Lusini 175, 185 Macchi 11, 174, 175 Mariotti 229, 234, 236 Marrara 42, 58 Martini 130–31, 229, 236 Mattingly 17, 20, 77, 84, 109 Mavarelli 130–31 Milanesi 29, 30, 32–34, 37, 40–42, 44–45, 48, 58–60, 62, 97, 105, 107–109, 114, 134, 141, 174, 185, 189–92, 194, 196–200, 205–209, 211–214, 218, 221, 239, 243 Morelli 43, 58 Morandi 75, 109, 119, 131 Mormando 66, 109 Moscadelli 62, 109 Nardi 249 Nevola 180 n.10, 185, 195 n.13, 198, 212–13, 213 n.10 Norman 63–64, 109, 160–61, 171 Oliveti 42, 58, 208, 210 Ortroy 61, 64–65, 109 Pecci 61 Pellegrini (Ettore) 42, 49, 58, 102, 109–110 Pellegrini (Michele Pellegrini) 66, 110 Pertici 29, 33, 195, 202 Piccinni 156, 172 Preto 70, 110 Prunai 45, 58, 61, 68, 92, 110 Quast 194–95, 198, 202, 208 Richter 203, 208 Romagnoli 48, 58, 206, 208, 209, 211–216, 219–220, 222, 234, 236, 243 Rombai 104, 110 Scapecchi 197, 198; see also Alessi Sembranti 226, 236 Settia 70–71, 73–75, 110 Smith 61, 109–110 Thomas (Anabel) 15, 27, 37, 48, 59, 93, 100, 104, 110, 113–115, 121, 123, 131, 133, 145, 153, 155, 172–73, 191, 199, 209, 225, 227, 236–37 Tomei 38, 58 Torriti (Elio) 44, 57 Torriti (Paolo) 162, 172, 200, 208 Torriti (Piero) 16, 20 Trübner 154, 172 Ugurgieri-Azzolini 61, 110 Viola 96, 98, 110 Johannes Viterbiensis 71 Zoi 49, 58