[67] Chapter 3
Because of the fervor of their founder, Saint Filippo Neri, who desired that sacred images be painted by excellent artists, Barocci received the commission . . .1
Bellori, “Life of Barocci”
The two works that cemented Barocci’s reputation in Rome were the Visitation and Presentation of the Virgin, both in the Chiesa Nuova. For an ambitious young painter like Annibale Carracci, Michelangelo da Caravaggio, Giovanni Baglione, and others, these works represented not only the latest in an ineffable “new” style, they were also commissions taken from them by a mysterious forestiere.The Institution of the Eucharist, painted for the pontiff himself, was a kind of dagger in the heart due to its obscene price of (nearly) 1,500 scudi. Some artists painted more in the Eternal City but none painted so prestigiously. In the end, Barocci dominated Roman altarpiece painting for twenty-five years.
It is interesting to consider how Barocci first came to the attention of the Oratorians in light of his core commissions for the Chiesa Nuova, the Visitation and the Presentation of the Virgin, both still in situ. While there are many reasons that Barocci was intuited to be a good choice for Oratorian patronage, the Visitation had the effect of confirming via immediate recognition these intuitions. Its arrival at the church established, within Neri’s lifetime, the direction Oratorian patronage would take.
The arrival of the Visitation not only confirmed Oratorian patronage, but also set in motion other actors with similar interests, above all Federico Borromeo, who, through [68] his archbishop’s seat in Milan, motivated various commissions. The works that were consequently produced, in particular the Navitivy in the Ambrosiana, round out the widening acknowledgment of Barocci’s aesthetic and his confirmed popularity.
Political Alignments
The Oratorians had an aesthetic and an iconographic program that called out for devotional works of the highest order. Within two short years—1581 through 1583—the Oratorians had commissioned paintings by the top artists in Rome and, indeed, in Italy: Girolamo Muziano, Scipione Pulzone, and Federico Barocci. It is interesting that Barocci, an artist from Rome, was so highly favored in Rome, especially with Oratorian priests, but it is perhaps worthwhile to emphasize why tiny Urbino was even on people’s minds, for more than Barocci’s reputation was at work here.
Indeed, in these commissions and many throughout Italy, the level of involvement of the reigning duke, Francesco Maria II della Rovere, was unusual. Stuart Lingo has convincingly shown how it was at this time in the 1580s that Barocci and Francesco Maria II more or less struck a mutually beneficial bargain.2 Barocci was unwilling to travel and serve as a traditional court artist, as might be found at the papal court. Nor, however, was Urbino big enough for Barocci to attract work in the manner that Titian did in cosmopolitan Venice. Francesco Maria II couldn’t attract artists of the highest caliber and so by aligning his diplomacy to the desires of far-flung potentates, he became a kind of broker.
While this arrangement was relatively unique in Italy, it should not detract from what one might call Urbino’s geopolitical importance in Europe at the time. When the duke’s ambassador was contacted by the Oratorians, the dukes of Urbino—Guidobaldo II della Rovere and his son, Francesco Maria II della Rovere—had been Philip II’s commanders in Italy for twenty-five years.3 Duke Francesco Maria was extremely pious and his profile placed him into a philo-Spanish group that comprised most of the reforming church; in addition, his duchy and the nearby lands of the Romagna were the breadbasket for troops serving throughout the European continent.
Historians have long speculated on Filippo Neri’s canonization as an event that also saw four Spaniards raised to sainthood: Ignatius of Loyola, Francis Xavier, Teresa of Avila, and Isidore the Farmer. But Thomas Dandelet’s Spanish Rome has recently brought to light the interesting convergence of reforming cardinals and the Spanish crown.4 The turn to Spain followed on Paul IV’s failed French-supported adventure to expel the Spanish from Italy. [69] His successors—Pius IV, Pius V, Gregory XIII, and Sixtus V—all had important (if imperfect) alliances with the Spanish crown.
There is thus no surprise that in 1582, when the new Spanish ambassador to the Holy See, the Count of Olivares, Don Enrico Guzman, arrived in Rome, the pope’s nephew Giacomo Boncompagni offered him a gun salute as castellan of the Castel Sant’Angelo that aroused suspicion in the French community.5 There was even an engagement—mistaken by the Venetian ambassador Zane as a marriage—of Duke Francesco Maria II’s sister Lavinia to Giacomo.6 Of the cardinals, Alessandro Farnese (the uncle of the Duke of Urbino) and Girolamo della Rovere already were known to be in the Spanish party, but so were Cardinal Boncompagni, Cardinal Montalto (nephew of Sixtus V), and Cardinal Ippolito Aldobrandini (before his elevation to pope) and then Aldobrandini’s own nephews.7
Interestingly, we can locate our artists within this “Spanish” milieu. Pulzone, for example, in 1574 held the baptism of his son at the church of the XII. Apostoli with Giacomo Boncompagni and Francesca Colonna Orsini as witnesses.8 Muziano did several works for the Cesi family, and Pierdonato Cesi was principal benefactor of the Chiesa Nuova; of course, Muziano was court painter to Gregory XIII Boncompagni. As for Barocci, Spanish interests needed only travel across the palazzo to contact the painter through the duke’s minister, who lived in the same palace as the ambassador to the Spanish crown, both renting from the Duke of Urbino.9 In fact, in the very years that Barocci was working on his altarpiece, at San Lorenzo in Damaso Giacomo Boncompagni again stood as witness at the baptism of Federico Cesi (10–12 March 1585) along with Donna Maria Pimentel, wife of the Spanish ambassador, the Count of Olivares.10
Therefore, the subjects of the duchy of Urbino had special access to the papal court and their ancestral Franciscan identification and commitment to Marian themes was ready to find quick resonance in Rome. In any case, diplomatic avenues were extremely open and Federico Barocci, who was already by this time closely associated with the ducal della Rovere family, was himself already poised to enter into the symbolic marketplace of religious devotion in Rome.
First Contact
It is therefore quite easy to imagine the diplomatic channels by which Barocci came to the attention of the Oratory. But what of more substantial affinities relating to style and function? It is well known that Barocci’s Madonna del Popolo had a great effect upon its unveiling in Arezzo in 1579, earning Barocci a great deal of fame (and the attention of young [70] Tuscan artists). In the late 1570s and early 1580s, Barocci was also personally and collaboratively (with the master engraver Cornelis Cort) engaged in the popularization of many of his compositions in prints; Cort’s engravings ofThe Rest on the Return from Egypt (1577) and the Madonna del Gatto (1578) were extremely popular, as were Barocci’s etched engravings of the Perdono (ca. 1581) and the Madonna in the Clouds (ca.1582).11
However, there may be closer connections that preceded this public acclaim and self-promotion. Barocci was in Rome around 1555 and again from 1560 to 1563, when Filippo Neri was already well known in the city for his spiritual meetings and works for pilgrims. Both Neri and Barocci’s first patron, Cardinal Giulio Feltrio della Rovere (1533–78), were connected to the Accademia delle Notti Vaticane, organized by Carlo Borromeo.12 During Barocci’s second stay in Rome (1562), Cardinal Giulio’s doctor, Bartolomeo Eustachio, was called upon to aid an ailing Filippo Neri.13 Ironically, when Barocci became ill the next year, he may have been treated by the same doctor, for Bellori says “but even the cures ordered by Cardinal della Rovere from the best doctors were all in vain.”14
One can speculate on a small neck-watch made by Barocci’s uncle, Giovanni Maria Barocci, and signed 1563, that was almost certainly owned by Neri. A watch still in Neri’s rooms at the Chiesa Nuova matches one mentioned in Neri’s Processo for beatification and canonization, shaped like an egg with a raised movement to tell the time by touch.15 If it was delivered when Federico was still in Rome, he would have been the natural contact to assure it reached Neri’s hands.
One cannot rule out an Oratorian presence in the Marches, if not Urbino, that could have facilitated a connection. While it is true that the Oratory was not established in Fossombrone until 1608, for example, the Oratory had interests in San Saverino and Fermo rather early.16 Domenico Pinelli, the archbishop of Fermo, invited Oratorians to his jurisdiction in 1579; the establishment and ratification of oratories followed.17 The Duke of Urbino and Barocci’s oftentime patron, Francesco Maria II (1549–1631), even recommended the Urbinate architect Ludovico Carducci to them, a fact surely known to the painter.18 Furthermore, several Marchegians were members of the Oratory.19 Finally, it is interesting that Lavinia [71] della Rovere Orsini (1521–1601), a cousin of the dukes of Urbino (her grandmother was sister to Julius II), decided to gift large sums of money to the Congregation of the Oratory in 1583, also leaving them, at her death, her home next to the Chiesa Nuova.20
It was Edmund Pillsbury who first hypothesized that a couple of Barocci’s drawings might have been after Neri’s death mask.21 One—Windsor 5228—may be safely dismissed since it perfectly matches the Bologna Lamentation as an auxiliary cartoon.22 The other, sold at New York auction to the Museo de Bellas Artes in Caracas, is too generic to make a definitive connection.23 Another drawing, intermittently on the art market, shows striking suggestions of Neri’s angular features (plateIV).24 Drawn to the scale of Saint Joseph in Barocci’s Circumcision, it nevertheless could have been an homage to the holy man. Further, its laughing face—removed in the final painting—seems to provocatively name Neri.
That Barocci did or did not make such a drawing is not crucial. What is at issue is a formative influence upon Barocci, one reaching him when he was still young enough to shape his spirituality and indeed approach to making images. In light of so much circumstantial evidence—Cardinal della Rovere, his doctor Eustachio, the Urbino family ties to the Borromeo family—it seems most economical to suppose some connection between Giulio Feltrio della Rovere and Neri that brought the religious body and Barocci together. More particularly, the easy aristocratic religiosity held by Giulio Feltrio and displayed in the works by Barocci that he owned would have been communicated to the Oratorians. He wasa famous artist, but also one whose style was not a surprise.
The Visitation (Chiesa Nuova)
The danger of focusing on the altarpieces Barocci sent off to Rome is the tendency to fall into a “great man” scheme whereby the artist brings about stylistic influence solely through his irresistible style. Fortunately, we do not have to fall into this error because in the period under discussion Sixtus V, a Marchegian, was commissioning works in the Roman style in [72]the Marches close to Barocci.25 These were not simple provincial works, but included decorations for one of the most revered relics of all Christianity, the Holy House in Loreto. Furthermore, Urbinate artists trained by or associated with Barocci (Antonio Viviani, Andrea Lilio) participated in the Roman projects. And Barocci’s friend Federico Zuccaro, the dean of Roman painting, spent time in the Marches (1582–83, 1603, 1608).26 Year by year, both Romans and Urbinates were made aware of contemporary developments.
Barocci’s first Roman altarpiece commission was for the Chapel of the Visitation of the Chiesa Nuova, obtained in 1582 when Francesco Pozzomiglio bought the rights to the chapel (plate I).27 As noted, the Oratorian fathers exerted strict control over the commission and gave the family two choices of painters to paint the Visitation, Girolamo Muziano and Federico Barocci.28 Barocci was chosen in spite of his reputation for slowness (which was already well known in Rome) and in spite of the fact that he had not set foot there for twenty years. The Oratorians approached the Duke of Urbino’s minister seeking a Barocci altarpiece.
The fee that was finally negotiated was quite high, 550 scudi, yet the fathers respected it (although this does not rule out some haggling). The payment is in fact consistent with the going rate Barocci was then receiving. The watershed picture was surely the Madonna del Popolo, a still “regional” work (Arezzo and Urbino are not too distant), a large painting for which Barocci received 300 scudi. For the Senigallia Entombment, the artist asked for 600 scudi and had to settle for 300.29 At around the same time, Barocci broke the 500-scudi mark for an altarpiece with his work for the Martyrdom of Saint Vitalis in Ravenna. There, he was offered 640 gold ducats, or about 580 scudi.30 Therefore, the Visitation—smaller and less complex than the Vitalis—is completely on Barocci’s present career trajectory.
The commission has not survived, only the price. Nevertheless, it is not out of hand to suggest that Barocci traveled to Rome to sign the contract. He had done so in 1575 for the altarpiece for the Church of Santa Maria della Pieve in Arezzo, and traveled with it in 1579 to see it properly installed in its church. Barocci likewise traveled to Ravenna to install his Martyrdom of Saint Vitalis. Given that he was still midcareer and this was his first big Roman commission, it seems reasonable that he would have complied with the custom of signing the contract personally. It is interesting to consider in this light his letter to his patron in [73]Perugia, Simonetto Anastagi, to whom he “wishes to God to go to Rome.”31 No doubt, Barocci was aware of the decorative projects being undertaken by Gregory XIII and knew it meant fame and wealth. When in Rome, struck by the smiling Filippo Neri, he may have captured the holy man’s visage in the drawing just mentioned.
Like Scipione Pulzone, Barocci was probably requested to supply a cartoon to be set in place in the chapel. The cartoon now in the Uffizi (inv. 1784) may have been borrowed from the painter by the Oratorian fathers. In keeping with Barocci’s working method, the overall design was determined from studies and then fixed in a model. Then the model was overlaid with a grid and enlarged into the cartoon. From then, however, Barocci went on to create individual color pastel and oil sketches of different scaled parts (see, for example, the sketch on the cover), and it is this later analytic step that took him so long. It is no surprise that two years after the commission, Cardinal Cesi complained about Barocci’s slowness.32 Despite the delay, everyone was happy with the delivered work. In fact, the duke’s minister, Grazioso Graziosi, reported that lines were backed up outside the church for three days after the unveiling of the painting.33
For the composition of theVisitation, Alessandro Zuccari has suggested that Barocci may have been influenced by the Rosary book of Alberto da Castello, owned by Filippo Neri and still in the Vallicelliana Library.34 The woodcut for the “Salutatione” within the Rosary book is indeed strikingly like Barocci’s final composition, and the supplying of a sample image is consistent with the iconographic control the fathers exerted on their painters. However, a series of very small quick ink sketches, or scarpigni, that record Barocci’s very earliest ideas of the composition show that he was interested in anumber of solutions to the traditional iconography.
Barocci begins with the viewer looking over the back of Saint Elizabeth toward the Virgin, whom she is embracing (fig. 3.1). Barocci then turns to a more lateral viewing of the scene, introducing a step as one woman walks up to another. Finally, he settles on a solution that is remarkably like the final painting, in which Elizabeth is clearly on the left, the Virgin on the right, and an on looking maid is on the right, as in the final painting. One way to temper Zuccari’s conclusion without abandoning it altogether is to say that the fathers wanted Barocci to capture the simplicity and directness of the woodcut, so successful for popular devotion, even if he did not have to copy it as a rigid model.
[74]Fig. 3.1: Four scarpigni at the same scale: Barocci, compositional studies, ca. 1582 (left to right: Statensmuseum for Kunst, Copenhagen; Fondation Custodia Collection Fritz Lugt, Paris; Institut Neerlandais, National museum, Paris; Stockholm; Stockholm [2]).
Stuart Lingo has shown how the final solution transformed the scene from a narrative istoria to a modernicon.35 In particular, freezing the action into an embrace and Mary’s turn to a pose in profile create an iconic quality. It is interesting how such a painting fulfills the Oratorian desire to create a “mystery,” both a narrative and allegory. The brilliance of Barocci’s solution is that he is able to suggest the anagogical qualities directly in the narrative, without external indications. The very iconic pose and otherworldly color are enough to allow the viewer to know that more is being suggested here than a chance meeting.
The only model we possess for the painting is in Edinburgh.36 The relationship of the painting to thismodello is clearly geometrical and can be fixed at 1:6 (fig. 3.2). Barocci regularly relied on a reduction compass to use regular scales so that he could transfer designs quickly and easily.37 Although the figures are of slightly different sizes, it is clear that the architectural background was traced through the various stages of execution and remained constant.
[75] Barocci proceeded immediately from this model to the cartoon, and his scene changed on its path to the final work. There is one drawing in Berlin that was made to be placed directly over the model, thereby correcting the pose of the maid on the right (Berlin 20522). There are also a number of drawings made at the very close ratio of 1:5 (Berlin 20527 and 20531). Judging them according to their function, it is clear that these drawings supplied another provisional model that is now lost. The final painting is too small for these to have contributed to a bozzetto. A compositional drawing one-fifth the size of the painting would be 57 cm, exactly in Barocci’s range of modelli.
Keeping this size in mind, it might be worthwhile to look more closely at a number of reduced copies of the painting that exist, which might reflect this lost compositional drawing, including ones in the Casa Natale di Raffaello (85 x 65cm) and the Oratorio della Visitazione (78 x 54 cm), both in Urbino.38 Examining these examples in person reveals workshop intervention, but what is more interesting is their approximately fifth-size scale and the possibility that their scale served the artist in preparing the work, if not themselves, perhaps painted over.
[76]Fig. 3.2: Federico Barocci, Visitation of the Virgin and Saint Elizabeth, ca. 1582, in the Chiesa Nuova, Rome (photo by author) reduced six times, compared to Edinburgh modello (National Galleries, Scotland) and Berlin 20522 (bpk, Berlin/Kupferstichkabinett, Staatliche Museum, Berlin/photo by Jörg P. Anders/ArtResource).
Consistent with taking the commission very seriously, Barocci has further drawings at an even larger scale. There are four drawings at 1:2 scale, including U11622r and U11622v (studies of Joseph’s hand and sack, respectively) and Berlin 20515 and 20533 (the arm and hands of Elizabeth and Mary). These drawings show details as they would appear in the final painting. While we need not hypothesize that Barocci attempted a formal bozzetto, it is interesting that these drawings match perfectly a work in the Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino, attributed to Barocci’s pupil Antonio Viviani. More likely, Barocci—perhaps with Viviani or another assistant—worked up a cartoon at this scale, which remained in the studio after the master’s death.
But the coloring—which would have been more easily appreciated before Borromini’s oratory next door blocked the windows—is typical of Barocci in brilliantly pairing a wispy,[77] monochrome background with bright, shimmering masses of drapery in the foreground. The Virgin is being embraced by Saint Elizabeth, but the iconicity of the image is interrupted as Zachariah looks out suddenly and Joseph stoops topick up his bag, while an ordinary woman on the right looks on. Barocci combines sweetness with realism. The faces of the women especially are idealized and the draperies are brightand somewhat regularized. At the same time, there are details like the onlooker’s chickens, her straw hat, the donkey on the left, and the brass pot on the ground that are all painted with skillful illusionism. In this way, the plausibility of the image is never lost.
It has already been noted that the scene of the Visitation, which relates to the “exaltation of the humble,” was primed to summarize Oratorian values. But the beautiful formal qualities that Barocci imparts to the subject—its soft, melting sfumato—must be supplemented with iconography. To layout the full iconographic significance of Barocci’s treatment of the subject, [78]we may rely on an insightful analysis by Ulrike Tarnow.39 Its gist is that although this painting is about the incarnation of God in man, Barocci has done everything he can to stress the absence and powerlessness of Christ in favor of the gentle humility of his mother, Mary, and John’s mother, Elizabeth.
In fact, accessto Mary’s womb is particularly downplayed and impossible to see, as this area is covered in drapery as Mary reaches to embrace Elizabeth. Instead, we are made to focus on the quiet act of recognition between the two pregnant women, so important for the salvation of the world, but at this point just two expectant mothers. Barocci draws attention to John obliquely, as the dusk sky suggests the setting of the old dispensation of the Mosaic law, while an ingenious visual pun of a metal clamp holding the steps together underfoot—mostly visible in Gijsbert van Veen’s engraving—references John’s role as“clamp” (fibula) between the Old and New Testaments.40 As proof that this scene is as humble as it gets, the only sentient being that takes in the scene and has the self-consciousness to direct its significance to the viewer is indeed the lowest of the low, the ass, the only figure meeting our gaze.
As noted, the Visitation was reincorporated into the rebuilding of all the chapels (1598) overseen by Giovan Battista Guerra.41 The change is evident with a view of the interior of San Girolamo degli Schiavoni where the aisleless church’s nave meets the chapels (and altarpieces). The original back of the chapel would have terminated with the painting but this was extended into semicircular apses behind them. Barocci’s work underwent the same adaption and in fact Guerra was paid for refounding the wall behind the chapel.42
When Barocci’s work arrived, the Chiesa Nuova already housed works by Durante Alberti and Cesare Nebbia, but theVisitation set a new standard. Barocci’s altarpiece certainly had the opportunity to exert wide influence, as it was engraved by Gisjbert van Veen above in 1588 and again by Philippe Thomassin in 1594. But what is most important to point out is the way that Barocci provided a chromatic counterpart to the pietistic sentiment expressed by Pulzone and Muziano; they directed the counter-maniera toward the same ideal but could go nowhere near to reaching it as had Barocci.
TheVisitation came to the special attention of Filippo Neri himself, the leader of the Oratorians. Upon his death in 1595, when the processo for his sanctification was begun, witnesses [79] reported seeing him in the chapel, where he performed miracles or was seen in ecstasy.43 He was said to perform his own personal devotions before it, sometimes spending hours lost in rapture. It was Father Bacci who recorded Neri’s preference for the painting and his raptures there in later editions of his biography of 1622, recalling how “he would stay in the Chapel of the Visitation where he pleasurably and willingly contemplated the image of Barocci.”44 This story was repeated by Baglione and Bellori.45
These stories about Barocci and Filippo Neri are more or less unique in art history, and they cannot have been lost on followers of Neri like Federico Borromeo. To be sure, when Gregory XIII and other cardinals came to view Niccolò Circignani’s frescoes in the Jesuit novitiate church of Santo Spirito Rotondo, they were brought to tears.46 One might even remark that they influenced the work on the instruments of martyrdom, Trattato de gli instrumenti dimartirio (1591), by the Oratorian Gallonio. Already the two differ in the sense that Circignani’s works are directed to novitiates leaving Rome and Gallonio’s is for the spiritual devotion of those remaining in Rome: “the scenes of martyrdom painted by Circignani . . . were meant to nurture their zeal of evangelization, Gallonio’s treatise was probably meant to enliven the apostolic ardor of the young members of the Oratory.”47 But Circignani’s main aim was traditional in the Tridentinesense, to instruct and inspire to piety. He relied on mnemotechniques to bring the image before the mind’s eye for contemplation; in Leslie Korrick’s words, the weeping “was the response to the phantasms generated by the frescoes in the mind of the meditant.”48
Barocci’s images are different in being themselves visions. Barocci did not produce a “miraculous image” but he did produce—dueto his biography, style, and body of work—an appropriate locus of the miraculous.49 For example, Father Gallonio in his 1601 biography of Neri noted that the saint was once again before Barocci’s image when a demon appeared to him.50 The demon disguised himself as a boy and taunted Neri, who got up from his devotions and chased the demon away. Barocci’s image, and Neri’s own processo imbricated with it, [80] were subject to the same chaste skepticism of the Counter-Reformation mind-set. Yet within those confines, they worked together to spur a modern miracle, or series of miracles.
The remarkable mark of approval of a Counter-Reformation saint for an artist has fueled more than anything the myth of Barocci, painter of “Oratorian piety.” Without deciding on the issue as yet, we may say that the fact that Barocci was a favorite of Neri must have led to his next remarkable commissions four years later. In the meantime Barocci does not seem to have waited expectantly for further word from Rome, for he was busy with so many other projects. The year he completed the Visitation, Barocci agreed to treat a secular subject, The Flight of Aeneas from Troy, for Emporer Rudolf II. He did theMadonna del Rosario for the church of San Rocco, Senigallia, the port city of the duchy, and he did the Circumcision (now in the Louvre) for a confraternity in Pesaro. Senigallia and Pesaro were important stops for both papal and royal legations and there is every indication that Barocci regarded these as both religiously fulfilling and important (not to mention well-paying) commissions.
The Presentation of the Virgin (Chiesa Nuova) and the Proposed Santa Prassede (Milan)
Barocci’s success with the Visitation, and especially its favor with Filippo Neri, demonstrated to the Oratorians what they were actually after. This is an important methodological point. Religious patronage is a compromise of many contingent facts, the religious desires of the religious order being only one. Retrospectively, however, one can recognize a successful action and imitate it. Retrospective determinism is not the same thing as a group determined to act a certainway, without exception.
In 1590 Pope Sixtus V died. After the fifteen-day papacy of Urban VII Castagna (1590), a great friend of the Oratory was elected, Niccolò Sfondrato (Gregory XIV, 1590–91), who was the uncle of Neri’s pupil Paolo Emilio Sfondrato. If Gregory XIII had promoted the Oratory and Sixtus V had been relatively indifferent, Gregory XIV had legitimate sympathy and enthusiasm for Filippo Neri.51 Yet he died only after ten months. After another short papacy, that of Innocent IX (1591), Cardinal Ippolito Aldobrandini was elected Clement VIII in 1592 (d. 1605). He shared many of Sixtus’s ideas and continued his building and decoration programs.52 Remarkably, Clement too was born in the Marches, but at that time it was directly under della Rovere sovereignty.53 Clement was sympathetic to the Capuchins (his court preacher was one). His connections to the Oratory were particularly strong, and he was a close friend of the Oratorians Silvio Antoniano and Cesare Baronio, his confessor.
[81] In these years it is difficult to distinguish where Barocci’s fame ends and appreciation of his unique style begins. In any case, the Visitation set off a great deal of interest in the artist. The success of the painting may have led Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to request a work by Barocci for himself. But like many after him, Farnese would be discouraged from negotiating a commission and he seems instead to have turned to Girolamo Muziano, who began his Circumcision for the high altar in 1587.54
In the following years, Clement VIII would play an important role in patronizing Barocci. For now, we are interested in the immediate echoes of the arrival of the Visitation. We know that around that time, Gabriele Paleotti—whom we saw earlier giving the best theological justification of the effect of Barocci’s painting in his 1582 treatise—made overtures to obtain a painting for his chapel in the Bolognese church of San Pietro.55 Likewise, another devotee of Neri, Cardinal Sfondrato (who will be mentioned again in the context of another later Barocci commission) sought out a painting.56 Knowing that the cardinal would not likely get one directly from Barocci, the Duke of Urbino considered trading one of his own for one of Sfondrato’s Raphaels, including the Madonna of Loreto (Musée Condé, Chantilly).
Official Oratorian patronage kept apace too. Around 1591,the idea was promoted to have Barocci provide both a Presentation of the Virgin in the left transept and a Coronation of the Virgin for the right transept.57 It is interesting to note that at exactly this time invitations were made by the Duke of Urbino, Francesco Maria II della Rovere, to two Oratorians—Cesare Baronio and Tommaso Bozio—to become bishop of Senigallia and archbishop of Urbino, respectively, within the duchy of Urbino.58 There is no causal link with Barocci here, of course, but the sympathy between ducal house and enlightened cleric is evident. Equally worth pointing out is the great friendship between Archibishop of Turin Cardinal Girolamo della Rovere and Filippo Neri.59Although from the Vinovo branch of the family, Cardinal Girolamo della Rovere was treated as parente of the dukes of Urbino, and was regarded as an ally who waspapabile in the College of Cardinals, and in fact might have taken Clement VIII’s seat if he had not died in the conclave.
[82] As regards this new commission, it is important that two altarpieces were offered to Barocci. This pairing of two works is not unique: contemporaneously Barocci proposed to provide two companion paintings for the Sacramental Chapel of Urbino Cathedral, aLast Judgment(1599, in situ) and a Fall of Manna. However, it makes sense for aesthetic reasons to have the same artist paint flanking laterals in a chapel. The reason we may go on to support the idea that Barocci was seen to embody so effectively an Oratorianaesthetic is that he was offered two altarpieces in the large and prestigious transept chapels of the church. One need only recall how violently Caravaggio reacted to the award of one transept chapel to Baglione to see how prestigious the offer of two was.
As noted in chapter 2, the transept pairing would have taken on special significance as an “internal typology” linking different events of the Virgin’s life. The Coronation of the Virgin, as viewed from across the aisle from the Presentation of the Virgin, would be seen as the proper fulfillment of the earlier episode. More particularly, the earthly initiation into the Jewish religion and the worldof man would be fulfilled in Mary’s expanded role as queen of heaven. There, she receivesa holy initiation to the spiritual realm through her coronation by Christ.
The left transept chapel (containing the Presentation) belonged to Cardinal Pierdonato Cesi, the benefactor of the church. This further cemented its importance. The right transept chapel belonged to the Glorieri family. The fact that Barocci could be proposed, even provisionally, for two altars reminds us that for the previous commission of the Visitation, the Pozzomiglio family had to choose between Barocci and Muziano. In addition, further formal factors linked the two chapels together. They of course shared the same altar designs, but also the same polychrome marble, inspired by recent chapels of Santa Maria Maggiore and the Gesù. They even share vault frescoes by Paris Nogari and Paul Brill.60
But just as Barocci never finished the Fall of Manna to complement his Last Supper for Urbino Cathedral (it was given to his right-hand assistant Alessandro Vitali), it was decided that he would never be able to finish both the Presentation of the Virgin and the Coronation of the Virgin together, and it was concluded that the commission for the latter work would be handed over to Giuseppe Cesari, the Cavaliere d’Arpino. However, Cesari suffered the same delays and, although the chapel decoration was finished relatively quickly, the artist did not finish his contribution until 1615.61 Indeed, the paintingis not altogether distinguished and one can only wonder what Barocci might have done with such a commission.
Thus, Barocci simply proceeded in 1592 to provide the Presentation of the Virgin for the Cesi Chapel, now for Angelo Cesi, bishop of Todi and brother of the deceased Pierdonato (see plate II).62 The contract for this work is lost, but record of one early payment survives, [83]of 300 scudi.63 In chapter 1, it was speculated that this very large work must have been commissioned for at least 750 scudi if the previous Visitation fetched 550. Indeed, that is the fee that Cavalier d’Arpino received for the Coronation of the Virgin. Contracts differ from commission to commission, but the 300 scudi could easily be one of two equal payments, with a final payment of perhaps 100 to 200 scudi upon completion. Given that Barocci was at that time negotiating even higher prices, the price may have been even higher, so 750 scudi actually becomes a conservative guess. Either way, this payment further underscores the lengths the fathers would go to in order to secure awork from Barocci.
It is important to note that in the same year, the Fabbrica del Duomo of Milan approached Barocci about an altarpiece for their altar of Santa Prassede (21 May 1592).64 The very first inquiries came from the Urbino expatriate Giovanni Battista Clarici directly to the painter.65As a follow-up, another Milanese expatriate from Urbino, Guidobaldo Vincenzi, wrote on 27 January 1592 that the Fabbrica would send the money “even tomorrow” if the painter was amenable to the project.
Clarici had gone so far as to send information about the chapel and its lighting in his first communication. However, Barocci made excuses in a lost letter to Pietro Antonio Lonato, which was quoted by Guidobaldo Vincenzi: the light in the chapel was not appropriate and he had doubts the result would give the deputies satisfaction.66 As the archivist (Fert Sangiorgi) who compiled these documents notes, these are thin excuses that mask the fact that Barocci was overextended. By July he had withdrawn the commission.
Thus, the Santa Prassede commission came to naught and the contract passed on to Ambrogio Figino.67 This would simply be an inquiry to a busy painter, except for the possibility that the transaction was most likely initiated by Neri’s acolyte Federico Borromeo himself. This suggestion is made more plausible by the fact that Santa Prassede had been the titular church of his illustrious cousin Carlo Borromeo. As a close follower of Neri, Borromeo’s sensibilities aligned both with Oratorian spirituality and Barocci’s style. This expanded Oratorian orbit and its resulting demand for paintings outside of Rome explains ironically why Barocci could have done even more than the impressive number of two altarpieces for the Chiesa Nuova.
The lack of success must be owed to Barocci’s numerous commissions, including that for the Chiesa Nuova. While Borromeo was headquartered in Rome since 1586 (and until mid-1601) he did not encourage the commission from Rome. He spent the summer and autumn of 1592 in Milan and was in Pesaro in January 1593, and may then have made a [84]special trip to Urbino to meet the master (if they did not actually negotiate the commission).68 This is the first possible case of contact between Barocci and Borromeo.
In spite of the importance of his second Chiesa Nuova commission, Barocci did not proceed with greater speed, but began his usual exhaustive process of composing studies for the work. It would only be finished ten years later, in 1603, when the painting was finally delivered to Rome from Urbino. No model or cartoon exists for the painting, but the existence of the cartoon is indicated in the inventory of Barocci’s study taken at his death in 1612. A cartoon is clearly indicated for the Presentation in the Chiesa Nuova, as big as the work and in black and white on water tinted with watercolor.69 This addition of color in the cartoon is extremely interesting and suggests some kind of experimentation on Barocci’s part. The minuta also mentions that it was not very finished. As with the Visitation (and Pulzone’s Crucifixion), the fathers of the Chiesa Nuova could have demanded this or a model.
What made matters worse was the fact that the 1590s were probably the peak of Barocci’s artistic activity. In addition to agreeing to work on the Chiesa Nuova and Urbino Cathedral paintings, Barocci was extremely busy with one commission in particular, Crucifixion with Three Saints, first negotiated with great patience by the Genoese nobleman Matteo Senarega in 1585 and placed in Genoa Cathedral in 1596.70 This great work earned Barocci the remarkable fee of 1,000 scudi, and was admired by both Rubens and VanDyck in their stays in Liguria. Nevertheless, the Presentation of the Virgin received even greater acclaim, in accordance with its greater size and more prestigious placement in the transept. The Oratorians wrote immediately to Angelo Cesi in Todi of the “incredibile applauso et sadisfattione non solo nostra ma di tutta Roma.”71A rare letter records Barocci’s thanks.72
Fewer early sketches survive for the Presentation than for the Visitation, making it harder to trace Barocci’s progress. But Uffizi 11434 (shown with a copy of Barocci’s modello in the Woodner Collections of the National Gallery, Washington; fig. 3.3) demonstrates that he quickly chose a more centralized presentation of the subject, perhaps as more fitting for the larger space. Barocci strongly submerged the traditional sense of the story, in which the [85] young Virgin Mary rushes up the stairs of the temple to the priest to serve God.73 Instead, Mary is compliant, underscoring the image of humility already seen in the Visitation. Like the previous Visitation, this painting has a neutral, architectonic background against which the bright figures are staged. Unlike the former work’s off-center perspective, however, the Presentation has a central vanishing point and the lines converge on the young Virgin’s head. Although the carved smooth columns on the altar tabernacle do not match Barocci’s fictive fluted columns, there is a perspectivally correct spatial gradient of diminution, creating a satisfying illusion of depth. The Presentation can be considered a more complex elaboration of the Visitation; the figures are smaller and more numerous. The same high-key colors are repeated and again we find the animals: birds, a ram, a calf.
The iconography of the Presentation of the Virgin was strongly connected to various apocryphal lives of the Virgin, including the Golden Legend, and it shared a kinship with the Nativity of the Virgin, even to the degree of the structure of the office. The Franciscans advanced the cult of the Presentation of the Virgin and indeed, Sixtus IV had the feast placed into the Roman breviary. As efforts in the sixteenth century began to remove apocryphal elements from the missal and breviary, the feast was increasingly marginalized until finally removed by the Dominican Pius V, only to be reintroduced by the Franciscan Sixtus V.74 This subject’s inclusion in the Chiesa Nuova indicates the slightly partisan immaculist quality of the church’s decoration already discussed in chapter 2.
The idea of iconographic control arises again and the idea that Barocci had to literally follow Alberto da Castello’s Rosary is weakened when the image of the Presentation is compared to Barocci’s painting. There the scene is strictly lateral, with the priest on the left and the Virgin and her family on the right. Barocci instead chose to maintain Mary’s iconicity, however, through its strict symmetry. Figures have their backs turned to the viewer, however, so Barocci has them turn back to talk, and in bowing down to receive the priest’s blessing, the Virgin Mary reveals her face to us.
If the Visitation exalted the humble by highlighting the way in which Mary and Elizabeth were modest hand maidens to Christ’s awesome revelation, the Presentation of the Virgin emphasizes the young Virgin Mary’s close observance of her faith’s rituals, her ready compliance. The Jewish attendants and animals brought in for sacrifice all point to the Mosaic dispensation, and the fact that Mary is but a girl seems to exaggerate the unlikelihood of her contributionto the redemption of mankind and, thereby, her heroism. In this way, Neri’s attention to the Virgin Mary as inverted Christ-type, emphasizing all those unexpected qualities required for Christ’s own mission, is maintained.
[86] Fig. 3.3: Federico Barocci, Presentation of the Virgin, ca. 1593, in the Chiesa Nuova, Rome (center, photo by Bradley Cavallo) reduced seven times, compared to (left) Barocci, sketch, Uffizi 11434 (Suprintendenza Speciala per il Patrimonio Storico, Artistico et Etnoantropologico e per il Polo Museala della città di Firenze) and (right) after Barocci, Presentation of the Virgin, ca. 1610, drawing 2006.11.4 (Woodner Collection, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC).
When the Presentation of the Virgin was finally finished in 1603, a lot of time had passed since the painting was commissioned. Neri had died in 1595 and the Gesù and the Chiesa Nuova had both been filled with a number of works, including paintings by Federico Zuccaro and the favorite of Rudolf II, Hans van Aachen. The younger painters Giovanni Baglione and Michelangelo da Caravaggio were also finishing some of their first big commissions. But now with the delivery of the Presentation of the Virgin, Barocci’s reputation was now indelibly stamped in the seventeenth century. Whatever painters may have thought of him, with this painting Barocci issued a monumental challenge to contemporaries with his sweet, effortless style, which was not lost on patrons. More importantly, his latest work in the Chiesa Nuova firmly established a successful aesthetic of emulation; if the first painting may have been an anomaly, now there was no question of what a “perfect” Oratorian work looked like.
The Milanese Scene: The Nativity
At this point, it is worthwhile to look beyond the Chiesa Nuova proper in order to appreciate the full significance of Barocci’s efforts in the late sixteenth century. In addition to interest from the Chiesa Nuova and the Fabbrica del Duomo, other Catholic patrons in the [87]Oratorian circle were also seeking out work from Barocci. Foremost among these was Cardinal Federico Borromeo, archbishop of Milan, who was working in “Spanish” Milan, from where the Duke of Urbino was despatching troops to fight in the religious wars in France and the Netherlands.75
In 1595 Federico Borromeo took over the archbishropric of Milan and remained there from July 1595 to March 1597 to establish his position. In the late 1590s there was a sense that Barocci had to be nearing completion of the Presentation of the Virgin and the Milanese were prepared to occupy him next; little did they know that he would not finish the altarpiece until 1603. On 17 March of 1597, sometime around Borromeo’s return to Rome, the Council of Deputies ordered a Nativity from Barocci.76 Like the Santa Prassede of a few years earlier, this was an attempt to occasion an altarpiece from Barocci for the Duomo of Milan.77
The Vincenzi correspondence gives a particularly clear picture of what happened. The Council of Deputies again strongly wanted an altarpiece, but this time they resorted to sending an emissary as well as coordinating their efforts with Archbishop Borromeo himself. As Guidobaldo, in Milan, explained to his brother Ludovico in Urbino, one of the deputies, Guido Mazenta, was planning to make a pilgrimage to Loreto at Easter of that year (1597) and wanted to bring money and engage Barocci directly.78 Guidobaldo reasoned that if the archbishop of Milan, Borromeo, worked directly with the Duke of Urbino, Francesco Maria II, they together could “command” (commandare) the painter to execute the work. What is important about this turn of events is that it coupled coordinated action of the archbishop and direct intervention by an emissary.
[88] It is precisely at this time that the Duke of Urbino ordered his own “presepio”; not an altarpiece, however, but a small devotional work. While Barocci set to work on this for his duke, the painter was haggling with the Milanese about the price of their “presepio.” On 19 June 1597 he stated that he couldn’t say when he would be done with his other commitments. In August 1598, the Milanese were getting impatient and asked that he either send back the money he had taken or accept the commission. He replied, lamely, that he had been thinking of how to approach the commission but it was clearly not a high priority for him.79
Against this indecision, it should be pointed out that there was also correspondence about individual devotional works. The dual vassal of Spain and Urbino Pietro Antonio Lonati, for example, was seeking a work from Barocci. It is my conjecture that Archbishop Borromeo increasingly saw how difficult it was to negotiate a work with Barocci and, using the tactics that had developed in relation to an altarpiece for the Duomo, began to investigate his own work.
It is in the context of renewed interest in Barocci that we have to place two nearly identical paintings, one belonging to Archbishop Borromeo and the other Philip III of Spain. Because these are not so well documented and there is controversy about the respective intervention of Barocci, they should be examined in some depth. Contrary to how these two paintings are typically discussed, the two should be separated. The duke paid Barocci the fee for the archbishop’s painting, typically ascribed (with some doubts) to Barocci’s pupil Alessandro Vitali, but the archbishop’s painting is Barocci’s original; the work in Spain is the supervised copy.
One of the paradoxes about these two paintings, clearly laid out by Pamela Jones, is that Borromeo was very clear and well-informed about the copies in his collection.80 Yet the Ambrosiana painting is habitually ascribed to Vitali against Borromeo’s own records. In order to answer this, we need to underscore just how intimately involved Borromeo actually was in the production of the painting. A series of letters in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana written between 1597 and 1600 seems to relate to this commission, although the subject of the painting is not actually ever mentioned.
These letters share one very important fact: all were written by Borromeo from Rome in full understanding of the workings of the Roman Oratory.81 Furthermore, Borromeo was in both Senigallia and Pesaro in May 1598 accompanying Pope Clement VIII on his way to take possession of the duchy of Ferrara, and may have been in Urbino in December 1598 on the[89] way back, when he no doubt discussed the work with Barocci.82 The tangible result of this discussion was Borromeo’s further appreciation of Barocci and his issuance of two prints of the Senigallia Entombment, which he may have seen in person, one by Raffaello Guidi and one by the Flemish engraver Egidius Sadeler.83 Analysis has shown that Barocci most likely directly supplied a drawing to Sadeler—probably Louvre 2852—from which he created the print.84
The letters are extraordinary because they indicate that Borromeo sent a Capuchin friar, Fra Damiano, to Urbino for the summer of 1599 to oversee one of Barocci’s works and actually to transport it back to Milan when Barocci was done. The painting was finished by August 1599 and in September 1599 Barocci wrote to Borromeo returning the thanks and promising to continue serving the cardinal as best he could.85 The documents are not equivocal and it is not possible to be certain which extant painting the two men are discussing, but the best hypothesis seems to be that they are discussing the Nativity in the Ambrosiana in Milan (plate V).86
This Nativity is most often presumed to be a copy by Barocci’s pupil Alessandro Vitali of Barocci’s own Nativity for King Philip III and his wife, Margaret of Austria (now in the Prado).87 The closeness in date to the actual Prado Nativity, however, raises the issue of which came first, for the payments are more or less contemporary. If we examine the actual payments, we see that both payments from the Duke of Urbino—for the Nativity and its copy—took [90] place before the arrival of Fra Damiano, in 1597 and 1598, respectively. This means that any attempt to assign paintings to either payment is problematic. There is no natural progression. In addition, we know that a new painting was made under Fra Damiano’s nose. Therefore, it makes sense to think that a supervised copy was made in 1599 by Barocci and that Vitali’s copy does not necessarily have anything to do with either the Prado or Ambrosiana paintings. Another possibility exists as well, which is to say that although the Duke of Urbino had paid for a painting in 1597, it was not done when Fra Damiano arrived for the summer of 1599. When the painting was completed, the duke, as was his custom, made it a gift to the powerful prelate Borromeo.
It might seem likely, then, that Barocci oversaw both, not unlike the multiple versions of the Rest on the Return from Egypt of twenty years previous, until one considers the poorer visual quality of the Prado picture. That painting simply does not stand up to the Ambrosian aversion, and when coupled with the extremely high payments made to Barocci and the fact that the conservation reports for the Ambrosiana version attest to its high quality, it is clear that the interventions of Federico Borromeo and the Duke of Urbino on behalf of Barocci ensured an autograph work.88 Perhaps then Barocci’s work for the duke simply became a gift for the well-respected Borromeo.
If anything, the Prado version might be the Vitali-supervised copy, especially since it was not sent to Spain until several years later, when the Duke of Urbino must have searched about for a suitable gift to celebrate Philip III’s wedding.89 Examining the Prado version, one sees the poor, formless treatment of the hands of Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary, which are typical of Alessandro Vitali’s work (for example, the portraits of Prince Federico Ubaldo della Rovere). Because of Bellori’s authority and the fancy provenance of the painting at the Spanish court, historians have tended to take its status for granted. In a documentary context, however, it is more reasonable that the Ambrosiana painting is the autograph version, given Federico Borromeo’s direct involvement and the duke’s more tangible need to impress him.
The Nativity exemplifies Lingo’s analysis of Barocci’s compositions as proceeding from history to mystery. The usual narrative emphasis upon the discovery of the nativity by the shepherds is firmly subordinated to the act of Mary’s recognition of Christ’s divinity. Although Mary has just given birth to Christ, he is no longer a part of her and he clearly—although his newborn visage does not reveal it—becomes the object of veneration. Using light as a symbol of Christ’s divinity, the Virgin basks in the glow of her Lord. It is interesting to compare this message to the other Marian works, in which, as we say, Mary’s humility became a focus of devotion. This painting fits this pattern because it simultaneously places clear emphasis upon Christ and indirectly elevates Mary through herselfless devotion to the Lord.
And indeed a closer study of the correspondence reveals that Borromeo looked at the [91] work very closely. First, in June 1599, he mentioned that he was sending Father Damiano90 to help Barocci finish the painting, but more likely to serve as a visual reminder that Barocci should tend to his obligation.91 At the end of August when the painting was finally delivered, Borromeo wrote to Father Damiano that the painting “was entirely to my taste”92 and then wrote to Barocci that the work was “beautiful, and for which it is held the first citizens of this city who have seen it, for which I hold it most dear and remain highly obligated.”93 Later in the year, Borromeo added that he would “value it as one of the most valuable things that he has.”94
With the completion of the Nativity, Barocci had completed two major altarpieces painted for the Chiesa Nuova and Filippo Neri and a small picture, after an initial failure, obtained by his acolyte Federico Borromeo. While the Presentation was not delivered until 1603, drawings, discussions, and other already completed works filled the minds of Oratorians and gave flesh to greater things to come from the author of theVisitation. At this point, plans became much more tangible in Milan, where thee xperience with the Nativity led to a strongly orchestrated program for two new altarpieces to adorn the Duomo.
The Milanese Scene: Saint Ambrose’s Pardon of Theodosius and the Lamentation of Christ for Milan Cathedral
The smallish Nativity, successfully obtained even while the Presentation had not been yet delivered, must have given the Milanese hope for bigger things from Barocci. On 24 February 1600, [92] the Milanese ordered two altarpieces for the Duomo, one for the Chapel of San Giovanni Buono (Lamentation of Christ), and the other for the Chapel of San Ambrogio (Saint Ambrose’s Pardon of Theodosius).95 Here we recognize a familiar story, where Barocci enters optimistically into a commission for two altarpieces, as he had for Urbino Cathedral and also (almost) for the Chiesa Nuova.
The payments followed rapidly for both (22 April 1600; 22 September 1600; 23 November 1600; 24 June1601; 20 December 1601), and Barocci gave priority to the Saint Ambrose’s Pardon of Theodosius (plate VI) that was to be painted with the help of his assistant Alessandro Vitali.96 The painting was finished by 14 July 1603 and was delivered just three months after the Presentation was sent to Rome. Although this painting was dependent on the Presentation as its visual model and was therefore considered derivative, the quality of the Saint Ambrose’s Pardon of Theodosius has recently been positively reconsidered. As he did with most of his workshop pictures, Barocci took care to ensure that the picture was touched up and equal to his name.
[93]Fig. 3.4: Federico Barocci, Lamentation of Christ, ca. 1612, oil on canvas, Biblioteca Comunale dell’Archiginnasio, Bologna (Soprintendenza per il patrimonio storico,artistico et demoetnoantropoligico, Bologna).
Based on these details, it is possible to describe exactly Barocci’s role in its completion. The fact that the subject was a pardoning immediately suggests that the painting’s composition was based on the Presentation. Barocci had been used to using his cartoons to build the basis of other works for which he could not devote his entire attention.97 One such example is the Saint Agatha in Prison (Museo Diocesano, Urbino) contracted to Barocci and Vitali, for which Barocci revised his cartoon for his Immaculate Conception (Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino). Similarly, Barocci provided the public act of pardoning upon an altar on the similar structure of the Presentation. Indeed, Barocci took advantage of the smaller scale of Saint Ambrose’s Pardon by changing the Virgin Mary into Theodosius, which is confirmed by the fact that the two works match up. By using the cartoon, Barocci literally built the formula of success for his Presentation into the Saint Ambrose’s Pardon of Theodosius.98 However, there is no doubt that its speed of execution was aided by Vitali’s intervention.99 The use of this shortcut allowed for Barocci to spend some time putting the finishing touches on the painting, which explains its quality.
[94] Barocci’s overextension was evident when on 2 October 1601 he reported to Urbino Cathedral that he could not complete the Fall of Manna because of lack of time. At the same moment, the Milanese were avidly watching Barocci’s progress on the Presentation commission; thus on 17 December of the same year the Urbinate Ludovico Vincenzi wrote to his expatriate brother, Guidobaldo, in Milan that “Il quadro per Roma è in buon termine.”100 Nevertheless, the Lamentation of Christ (fig. 3.4) was never finished, although Federico Borromeo eventually set it up in its unfinished state.
If the Visitation resonated personally with Filippo Neri, it created a kind of model or clarified the brief that the Oratorians were after with their sacred works. The Presentation of the Virgin, although delivered after Neri’s death, continued to confirm it, as did a number of other works for Federico Borromeo—both personal and for bodies under his pastoral guidance. This ends the “official” story of Federico Barocci at the Chiesa Nuova, but there remains an unexamined chapter in this saga: the high altarpiece that Barocci almost painted. Considered together with the Institution of the Eucharist, a sublimated Oratorian work for Clement VIII, the devotee of Neri, the Nativity of the Virgin for the high altarpiece will give a complete account of Barocci’s congruence with Oratorian taste.
Notes
1. Bellori,“Life of Federico Barocci,” ed. Pillsbury and Richards, 20; and Bellori, “Vita di FedericoBarocci,” ed. Borea, 190: “per lo zelo che aveva San Filippo Neri loro istitutore che lesacre imagini si dipingessero da mani eccellenti, fu dato a fare al Barocci il quadrodell’altare . . .”
2. See Lingo, “Francesco Maria II della Rovereand Federico Barocci.”
3. It is true that Francesco Maria II didnot actually confirm his command until 8 November 1582, shortly before Barocci’scommission. This leaves a gap of eight years from his father’s death. The duke, however,had been petitioning Philip II constantly for the condotta and hisfortunes—through his sisters’ marriage alliances, for example—were strongly tied to theSpanish.
4. Dandelet, SpanishRome.
5. Ibid., 76.
6. Zane,“Relazione del Signor Lazaro Mocenigo.”
7. Dandelet, SpanishRome, 138–39.
8. Donò, “Scipione Pulzone (1545–1598),”12.
9. This is the Palazzo della Rovere in via Lata, the ancestorof the present Palazzo Doria-Pamphilj.
10. Narducci, “Documentiriguardanti Federico Cesi,” 781.
11. We must not overlook anentrepreneurial motivation on Barocci’s part. As Louis Richards (Pillsbury and Richards,Graphic Art of Federico Barocci) points out, each had a ten-year copyright attachedto it, the second at the outset in the anticipation of great popularity. I do not listBarocci’s Annunciation for it was done after he had won the Romancommission.
12. For Cardinal della Rovere, see my “Cardinal GiulioFeltrio della Rovere: Reform and Renewed Ambition,” in Verstegen, Patronage andDynasty, 89–108.
13. Gallonio, Vita di San FilippoNeri, 135.
14. Bellori, “Life of Federico Barocci,” ed.Pillsbury and Richards, 15; and Bellori, “Vita di Federico Barocci,” ed. Borea, 184:“furono vane tutte le cure che il cardinale della Rovere fece usare per la sua salute da’medici li piú esperti.”
15. On the watch, see Morpurgo,“L’orologio di S. Filippo Neri”; and Panicali, Orologi e Orologiai. Panicali onlywishes to concede that the watch was owned by the congregation, but Morpurgo cites thetestimony of Giovanni Battista Zazzara (27 July 1596, the year after Neri’s death), notingNeri’s watch “toccondola con il dito, cognosceva che horaera.”
16. Lingo, Capuchins and the Art of History, 248;with further reference to Carloni, “Luoghi filippini nelleMarche.”
17. On Pinelli and Fermo, see Barbieri, Barchiesi, andFerrara, Santa Maria in Vallicella, 79. Cf. Cistellini, San Filippo Neri,1:269–73, 307, 420–28, 672. The communities were established and ratified (inparenthesis) in the following years: San Severino, 1579 (1585); Fermo, 1582 (1597);Camerino (1591); Fano, 1598 (1608). Cf. Mariano, Le chiese filippine nelleMarche.
18. On Francesco Maria II and the architect, seeCistellini, San Filippo Neri, 1:424n59.
19. Both TommasoBozio (1548–1610) from Gubbio and Flaminio Ricci (1545–1610) from Fermo entered theCongregation in 1571.
20. Lavinia della Rovere was the daughter ofNiccolo Franciotti della Rovere (son of Julius II’s sister Luchina) and Laura Orsini.Lavinia was married to Paolo Orsini (d. 1581), who fought alongside Guidobaldo dellaRovere II for Venice and the Papal States. For Lavinia, see Frettoni, “Lavinia dellaRovere,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 37 (1989); and Cistellini, SanFilippo Neri, 1:489.
21. Pillsbury and Richards, GraphicArt of Federico Barocci. For the death mask, see Melasecchi, “Nascita e sviluppo,” 34,fig. 21.
22. As will be outlined in my monograph in progress,coauthored with John Marciari, “Federico Barocci and the Science of Drawing in EarlyModern Italy.”
23. Head of an Old Man, 28 x 19.4 cm, Museode Bellas Artes, Caracas, Venezuela. Cf. Master Drawings and Prints, no.13.
24. Head of Saint Joseph, 23.5 x w: 17.7 cm, red andwhite chalk with charcoal on faded blue paper; currently Galerie Hans, Hamburg (formerlyArnoldi-Livie); Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:259. This drawing has been connectedto the collection of Antonio Tronsarelli, which if true, is especially enticing in thatTronsarelli lived in the Parione district near the Chiesa Nuova; Lafranconi, “AntonioTronsarelli.” Tronsarelli had a son, Pierfrancesco, who was vicar of the Oratorians’Neapolitan house; Cistellini, San Filippo Neri, 3:1762.
25.The most important sites were the Holy House (Santa Casa) at Loreto (where Baroccicontributed the Annunciation now in the Vatican) and the Sanctuary of Saint Mary ofthe Virgins (Santuario di Santa Maria delle Vergini) at Macerata. On these monuments seeDal Poggetto, Le arti nelle Marche.
26. Santi di Tito wasin Urbino around 1595 on his return trip from Loreto; Bury, “Senarega Chapel in SanLorenzo, Genoa,” 351n57.
27. Visitation of the Virgin and SaintElizabeth, 285 x 187 cm; see Olsen, Federico Barocci, 179; Emiliani,Federico Barocci, 2:217–29; Emiliani, Federico Barocci [2008], 2:37–57;Barbieri, Barchiesi, and Ferrara, Santa Maria in Vallicella, 126–31; and Mann,Bohn with Plazzotta, Federico Barocci, 197–211.
28. See 7June 1582, ACO, C.I.2, fol. 21, quoted in Barbieri, Barchiesi, and Ferrara, Santa Mariain Vallicella: “Che il quadro della cappella di m[aestro] Francesco Pozzomiglio siprocessi di farlo fare da m[aestro] Federico Barocci da Urbino overo del Mutiano conm[aestro] Federico la opera il mezzo di m[aestro] Antonio daFaenza.”
29. Olsen, Federico Barocci,169.
30. Ibid., 172–73.
31. FedericoBarocci to Simonetto Anastagi, 2 October 1573, in Bottari and Ticozzi, Raccolta dilettere, 3:84.
32. There is further correspondence betweenCardinal Cesi and Duke Francesco Maria II; cf. BO 1608, fasc. 1, Cesi to Duke of Urbino, 9March 1585.
33. Grazioso Graziosi to Duke Francesco Maria II, inGronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, 157: “La tavola . . . piace tantogeneralmente ad ogni uno, dico ancora a quelli della professione, che non occorre farvi supensiero alcuno. Se gli è fatta per tre giorni continui la processione avederla.”
34. Alberto da Castello, Rosario della gloriosaVergine Maria appeared in Venice first in 1521 and thereafter in several editions(1534, 1566, 1567). Castellano (d. 1522) was a Dominican friar from Venice. OnCastellano’s influence on Barocci, see Zuccari, “Cultura e predicazione nelle immaginidell’Oratorio,” 345.
35. Lingo, Federico Barocci,84–89.
36. Edinburgh, inv. 216, 463 x 316 mm; Emiliani,Federico Barocci, 2:2; Emiliani, Federico Barocci [2008],2:56.
37. Marciari and Verstegen “Grande quanto l’opera”;and our forthcoming “Federico Barocci and the Science of Drawing in Early ModernItaly.”
38. For Zuccari’s painting in the the Oratorio dellaVisitazione, see Museo di Palazzo Venezia, La Regola e la Fama, 526, no. 84. Forthe Casa di Raffaelle painting, see Cucco, Casa Natale di Raffaello, 89. Otherexamples can be found in the Museo Albani, Urbino, and the National Gallery of Scotland(inv. 767).
39. Tarnow, ArteficeCristiano.
40. As noted by Tarnow, the fifth-century churchfather Petrus Chrysologus had referred to John as “Legis et gratiae fibula.” It isworth pointing out here that van Veen’s print matches Barocci’s modello almostperfectly, suggesting that Barocci must have had some direct connection with van Veen’sworkshop in order to have it engraved and distributed.
41. Asnoted in chapter 2, the old church was demolished in 1575 and later rebuilt. In 1582Martino Longhi began rebuilding the church (choir and cupola in 1590–91, barrel vaultover nave in 1592–93, and façade in 1604–6). Patrons saw to the decoration of theirindividual chapels until 1582. However, in 1594 it was decided to enlarge the church andmake the old private chapels part of the aisles. As Alessandro Nova has shown (“Il‘modello’ di Martino Longhi il Vecchio”), Longhi’s original design was used for SanGirolamo degli Schiavoni, a single-entrance work. The new design required two sideentrances for the aisles. The new chapels were built from then until as late as 1617 (withthe exception of the Chapel of the Pietà—which Caravaggio would eventually decorate—thathad special indulgences), and the transept in 1588. The Chapel of the Visitation was notaltered until after Neri’s death because of his affection for Barocci’s work, discussedbelow.
42. He was paid “nel refondare et alzare la parte di murodreto la cappella della Visitatione” in 1598; Barbieri, Barchiesi, and Ferrara, SantaMaria in Vallicella, 128.
43. Incisa della Rochetta and Vian,Il Primo Processo per San Filippo Neri, 1:273, 330, 337, 340, 2:113, 125. FedericoBorromeo also contributed his testimony (3:420–25) although he does not mention theanecdote.
44. Bacci, Vita di San Filippo Neri, 221:“stava . . . nella Cappella della Visitazione dove si tratteneva volentieri piacendogliassai quell’immagine del Barocci.” As noted, the story does not appear in the first,unillustrated, life of Neri by Gallonio, Vita di San FilippoNeri.
45. Baglione, Le vite de’ pittori scultori etarchitetti, 134: “egli staua in quella cappella a far le sue orationi.” Bellori, “Lifeof Federico Barocci,” ed. Pillsbury and Richards, 18; Bellori, “Vita di Federico Barocci,”ed. Borea, 190: “Dicesi che San Filippo si compiaceva molto di questa imagine, e spesso siritirava nella cappella alle sue divote contemplazioni.”
46. Thisis recorded by the rector, Michele Lauretano, in his diary. For documentation, seeKorrick, “On the Meaning of Style.”
47. Leone, Saints andSigns, 214.
48. Korrick, “On the Meaning of Style,”177.
49. On the rare occasion of a modern work attaining thestatus of “miraculous,” and then only in the early years of the sixteenth century, see vanKessel, “How to Make an Image Work.”
50. Gallonio, Vita di SanFilippo Neri, ed. Russo, 211. The research of Maria Bonadonna Russo (who editedGallonio’s Vita of Neri) has shown through other evidence that the episode musthave happened in 1589. In Gallonio’s life, the event is listed under the year 1584 (beforethe installation of Barocci’s altarpiece), and the illustration in Bacci’s life coversnumerous episodes (in 1555, 1584, 1593) and shows Neri before acrucifix.
51. Ponnelle and Bordet, St. Philip Neri and theRoman Society of His Times, 515.
52. On Clement’s patronage ofthe arts, see Abromson, Painting in Rome during the Papacy of Clement VIII;Macioce, Undique splendent; and Freiberg, Lateran in1600.
53. Clement’s father, Silvestro, had worked there inexile from the Medici and Clement himself was born in Fano. His sister Giulia married andcontined to live in Senigallia. Her son, Cinzio, was a cardinal whose titulary church(like Giulio della Rovere and the della Rovere popes, Sixtus IV and Julius II) was SanPietro in Vincoli.
54. Gronau, Documenti artisticiurbinati, 188–89.
55. For Paleotti’s attempted commission,see Bianchi, La politica delle immagini. The year before, when he was received intothe Order of the Golden Fleece, Duke Francesco Maria II was hosted in Cardinal Paleotti’shome; Signorotto, “Urbino nell’età di Filippo II.”
56. See theletter from Duke Francesco Maria della Rovere to his mother, Vittoria Farnese, 1 November1596, ASF, filza 294, fol. 279, in Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, letterCCLXXVI, 193. John Shearman has made reference to further documents in the CorsiniArchive, Florence; see Brown, Genius of Rome.
57. G. Fedelito Talpa, 6 December 1591, ACN.XI.1.174, cited in Ponnelle and Bordet, St. Philip Neriand the Roman Society of His Times, 414; Strong, La Chiesa Nuova; Emiliani,Federico Barocci, 2:347–59; Cistellini, San Filippo Neri, 1:757; Barbieri,Barchiesi, and Ferrara, Santa Maria in Vallicella, 190n395; and Verstegen,“Federico Barocci, Federico Borromeo and the Oratorian Orbit.” A copy of this letter wasprovided to me by Father Giovanni Ferrara of the Congregazione dell’Oratorio di SanFilippo Neri, for which I am extremely grateful.
58. For Baronio,see Capecelatro, La vita di S. Filippo Neri, 2:603; Calenzio, La vita e gliscritti del cardinale Cesare Baronio, 265. For Bozio, see Piero Craveri, “Bozio,Tommaso,” in Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani13:568–71.
59. Ponnelle and Bordet, St. Philip Neri and theRoman Society of His Times, 485, 488–89.
60. Barbieri,Barchiesi, and Ferrara, Santa Maria in Vallicella, 89,117.
61. The chapel was dedicated 1593, and Paris Nogari frescoedthe chapel in the same year. Cesari was commissioned 11 December 1592. See Röttgen, IlCavaliere d’Arpino, 125–26.
62. Presentation of the Virginin the Temple, 383 x 247 cm; Olsen, Federico Barocci, 190–91 (written beforethe cleaning revealed the date); and Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:347–59;Emiliani, Federico Barocci [2008], 2:249–67; Barbieri, Barchiesi, and Ferrara,Santa Maria in Vallicella, 116–21.
63. Emiliani,Federico Barocci [2008], 2:72: “Confesso io Federigo Bonaventura d’avere ricevutoschudi tre cento di Paoli a dieci paoli p. Schudo a buon conto del opera che o preso afare per il sudetto Mons.re de Todi.”
64. ASFD, OrdinazioniCapitolari; cited in Bonomelli, “Federico Barocci e la committenza milanese,”21.
65. Guidobaldo Vincenzi to Ludovico Vincenzi, 27 January 1593,BUU, busta 37, fasc. IV, fol. 379, in Sangiorgi, Committenze milanesi a FedericoBarocci, letter I, 15.
66. Guidobaldo Vincenzi to LudovicoVincenzi, 2 July 1593, BUU, busta 37, fasc. IV, fol. 381, in Sangiorgi, Committenzemilanesi a Federico Barocci, letter II, 17: “non vi ha quell lume ch’egli desidera,onde dubita di non dare soddisfattione.”
67. 10 September 1595,Annali della fabbrica del duomo di Milano, 5:303; 5 December 1597, 5:322; 29November 1598, “per l’anchona di S. Prassede,” 5:330–31; Sangiorgi, Committenzemilanesi a Federico Barocci, 31.
68. On the Milan trip, seeGabrieli, “Federico Borromeo a Roma,” 170. Emiliani mentions an Urbino trip; FedericoBarocci, 2:320. But he and many other authors seem to extrapolate from the diary ofFrancesco Maria II, who clearly indicated that Borromeo visited Pesaro on January19, 1593; della Rovere, Diario, ed. Sangiorgi, 63. However, this is not confirmedin Rivola, Vita di Federico Borromeao.
69. “Minuta dellostudio del S.or Baroccio,” in Calzini, Studi e notizie, 78: “Cartone dellapresentazione della Madonna che è in Roma nella chiesa nuova, grande quanto l’opera dichiaro oscuro, in carta tinta d’acquerella, non molto finito.”
70.Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:307–15.
71. Flaminio Riccito Angelo Cesi, 30 March 1603, ACO, B.IV.19, fol. 60–61, cited in Bonadonna Russo, “ICesi e la Congregazione dell’Oratorio,” 151.
72. Federico Baroccito Flaminio Ricci, 20 June 1603, ACO, B.IV.9, fol. 723: “Al ritorno del mio giovane horicevuto la gentilissima lettera della quale ho in teso molto gusto e piacere, che sonorestate sodisfatti de l’opera mia, che ne ringratio infinitamente che m’habbia fattaquesta gratio et di nous lo prego che p[er] sua bonta mi doni forte e me de le loroferventi horationi, di poterli servire, come io desidero p[er] obbligo mio et p[er] moltimeriti e bonta loro alli quali con ogni efetto di core, me li offero et racomando ingratia.”
73. Lafontaine-Dosogne, Iconographie de l’enfance dela Vierge.
74. For the fortunes of the breviary and missals,see Kwatera, “Marian Feasts in the Roman, Troyes and Paris Missals andBreviaries.”
75. For Francesco Maria II’s military campaigns, seeUgolini, Storia dei conti e duchi d’Urbino, 2:396; and della Rovere, Diario,ed. Sangiorgi, 19–20, 69, 78–79.
76. ASFD, OrdinazioniCapitolari, quoted in Bonomelli, “Federico Barocci e la committenza milanese,” 21:“Incarico affidato a Federico Barocci di dipingere una tavola rappresentante il Presepio.”See also Sangiorgi, Committenza milanesi a Federico Barocci, 19–20: “credo chesarà un Presepio”; 22–23: “opera sua d’un Presepio.”
77. Thisreverses what I had argued in “Federico Barocci, Federico Borromeo and the OratorianOrbit.” I therefore accept the criticism found in Redín, “Algunos apuntes sobre laNatividad de Federico Barocci”; however, I do not believe the Prado picture is theoriginal.
78. Guidobaldo Vincenzi to Ludovico Vincenzi, 12 March1597, BUU, busta 37, fasc. IV, fol. 401, in Sangiorgi, Committenza milanesi a FedericoBarocci, 19. Mazenta is interesting because he was known to possess certain ofLeonardo da Vinci’s manuscripts.
79. Nanno Vincenzi to GuidobaldoVincenzi, 9 September 1598, BUU, busta 38, fasc. VI, fol. 819, in Sangiorgi,Committenza milanesi a Federico Barocci, letter XI, 26–27: “di già va pensandoal’opra.”
80. Jones, FedericoBorromeo.
81. Jones (ibid.) cited four letters withoutdisclosing their contents; they are from BA, G. 261, which is a series of drafts ofletters written by Borromeo between 1597 and 1600. The letters are Borromeo to Fra Damiano(fol. 364r, letter #1176), Borromeo to Barocci (fol. 364v, letter #1177), Borromeo to FraDamiano (fol. 391r, letter #1301), and Borromeo to Barocci (fol. 391v, letter #1302). Inaddition there are two others: Borromeo to Barocci (fol. 302) and Borromeo to Barocci(fol. 354). I fully cite them in the following notes.
82. Again,the Urbino trip is mentioned by Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:320. Again, however,it is not confirmed in Rivola, Vita di Federico Borromeao. Sangiorgi criticizesEmiliani, noting that the Duke of Urbino’s diary notes that Cardinal Borromeo passedoutside of Pesaro on December 1598, without addressing him (“Passo per di fu.ori dellacitta il cardinal Borromeo, senza dire niente,” 15 December 1598; della Rovere,Diario, ed. Sangiorgio, 102). But of course Barocci was in Urbino and the duke inPesaro. However, he does not note that Borromeo certainly was one of the sixteen cardinalswho accompanied the pope in May 1598 (“Arrivo in Sinigaglia il Papa con 16 cardinali et iol’incontrai alli confini: smonto a hore 23 ½,” 1 May 1598; ibid., 97). Given that thearrival in Ferrara was very ceremonial, if Borromeo indeed visited Barocci in 1598 itwould most likely be in December when he apparently was travelingalone.
83. Schmarsow, Federigo Barocci, 165. The dedicationof the Sadeler print reads, “Federico Borromeo Cardinali ampliss.mo Tit. S. Mariae deAngelis Archiepiscopo Mediolanensi in devoti animitestimonium.”
84. For the claim that Barocci directly supplieddrawings for this print, see Marciari and Verstegen, “Grande quanto l’opera.”Bonita Cleri has uncovered documents that show that Barocci gave an unspecified drawing toa Flemish merchant, with the hope of having the Entombment engraved by GiovanniStradano (Jan van der Straet) but the drawing apparently passed to Sadeler withoutreimbursement to Barocci; Cleri, “Sulle tracce di un cartone preparatorio di FedericoBarocci.”
85. Borromeo’s assurance is partially cited by Bandera,“Nuova ragguagli sui rapporti fra F. Borromeo e F. Barocci”; Barocci to Borromeo, 2September 1599 (BA, G. 185 inf., #82). I publish here the full letter: “L’obbligotutto dov’essere dalla parte mia che V.S. Ill.ma et Rev.ma si sia così degnata di gradireil quadro mandatoli, qual seben conoscevo non esser degno di comparire in cotosta cittànelle mani di tanto Principe confidai nondimeno dall’altra parte, che dovesse (come spero)ogni sua imperfettione ricoprissi sotto il purpurro Manto dell’Autorità sua, Il Disideriocerto e stato prontiss.mo (di cio se sia più che sicura) et ella con la gentiliss.manatura sua so non mancherà di suplire in quella parte, ove avrò (per non potere, e saperpiù) mancato io. La ringrazio infinitam.te dei singolari favori, et offerto fattemi,ech’ella di suo pugno non si sia sdegnata d’honorarmi tanto, et insieme andro’ di continuoconservando quel vivo desiderio, ch’arde nel mio core di servirla, me l’inchino, e baciocon ogni humilità la sacra veste il s.r. la conservi, et essalti. d’Urbino il diz. diS.bre 1599. Di VS. ll.ma et Rev.ma, Humiliss.mo serv.re, Federico Barocci.” Of curiousinterest is the notice (G. 261 inf., fol. 302v): (undated copies of letters from 1597 to1600); Borromeo to Barocci: “Federico Barocci. M. Mag.co Sig.re . . . manderà il quadro daFossombrone.” Fossombrone was the hometown of Damiano.
86.Nativity, 134 x 106 cm, Pinacoteca Ambrosiana, Milan; Olsen, FedericoBarocci, 198, Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:320; Emiliani, Federico Barocci[2008], 2:206–8; and Jones, Federico Borromeo, 227–28. As Jones (FedericoBorromeo) notes, the painting is first recorded in Borromeo’s codicil of1607.
87. Nativity, 134 x 105 cm, Prado, Madrid; Olsen,Federico Barocci, 196–98; Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:318–29; Emiliani,Federico Barocci [2008], 2:188–201; and, most recently, Turner, “A Nativity byBarocci.”
88. I am happy to acknowledge an anticipation of thisargument of which I was not aware in 2003 (“Federico Barocci, Federico Borromeo and theOratorian Orbit”): Mojana, “Tre lettere per un dipinto.”
89. Thework was only sent in 1605 as a wedding present for Philip III and Margaret of Austria(Gronau, Documenti artistici urbinati, 172–76). Duke Francesco Maria II’s paymentsare almost concurrent with those from Milan (19 August 1597: 272.44 scudi paid to Baroccifor “un quadro della natività di N. S.”). Olsen, Federico Barocci, 197, writes that“the Milan replica may be by Barocci.”
90. Borromeo to FraDamiano, 5 June 1599 (BA, G. 261 inf., #1176, fol. 364r): “P. Fr. Damiano cap.no, Molto R.Pre. mio car.mo sarà dato l’ubbidenza alla P. V. di trattenersi a Urbino tutta l’estatte ecosi havrei voluto poter operare che Fr. Mario da S. Angelo dovesse venir a Roma apredicar questo anno s.to [i.e. 1600] ma essendo egli in concetto ai superiori di non esersaggito buono per Roma bisognerà haver patienza Io no fò fretta al quadro per che nonmanchi il s.r Fedrico d’Urbino di ridurlo ad ogni perfetione come a lui med.o me scrivo etalla P. V. d’cuore mi offero.”
91. Borromeo to Barocci, 5 June1599 (BA, G. 261 inf., #1177, fol. 364v): “S.r Federico Barocci, Molto Mag.co. S.re. Hoimpetrata l’ubbidienza per il P[adre] Fr[a] Damiano da i suoi superiori per tutta questaestate, si che egli potrà alcuna volta veder faticar V.S. intorno al quadro, se bene nonvoglio già che egli la solleciti ma che ella con tutta la comodità sua attenda pureridurlo in ogni perfetione e si ricordi intanto di prevalersi di me ne tutto quel che ioposso voler per suo servitio.”
92. Borromeo to Damiano, 28 August1599 (BA, G. 261 inf., #1301, fol. 391r): “P. Fr. Damiano. Ho sentito contento che la P.V. sia restata consolata di esser richiamata a Urbino, dove di che havrà anco contento IlS.r. Barocci al quale scrivo ringratiandolo vivam.te ch’l quadro ha ricevuto che è statointieramente a gusto mio, et io vole resto particolarm.te obligato come fù alla P. V. chesia stata mezzana di farmelo havere et con restar sempre pronto ad ogni piacer suo e dellaP. V. prego Il S.r. Iddio.”
93. Federico Borromeo to FedericoBarocci, 28 August 1599 (BA, G. 261 inf., #1302, fol. 391v): “S.r Federico Barocci. Horicevuto il quadro mandatomi da V.S. il quale com’è bellissimo, e per tale è tenuto davalent’ huomini di questa città che l’hano veduto, così l’havro io molto caro, e ne restacon molta obligatione a V.S. che tanto prontam.te si è disposta a lei a compiacermenevoglio che basta essermi offerto una volta per accioche ella sappia quanto havrò carofarli servitio in ogni sua occorrenza, piaciarle pur dunque darmene occasione liberam.teche io per fine.”
94. Federico Borromeo to Federico Barocci, 11December 1599 (BA, G. 261 inf., #1134, fol. 354v): “S.r Fedrico Barozzi. MoltoMag[nifi]co.Sig[no]re Foresto con obligatione molto stretta all’amorevolezza di V.S. e delP[adre] Fra Damiano, per il quale ella s’è disposta a compiacermi del quadro ch’io stimeròper una delle più care cose che io mi habba si per esser opera della sue mani, come peresser stato ove pero di con cose v. più de parre di haver che resto contentisso. Nonvoglio già che ella si persuada in alcun modo che io lo debba ricevere in dona; se benveggo q[ua]nto prontamente nel offeriste ma vorre pure che ella non per pagamento ma misegno di recognitione riceva quei denari che havrò sempre di giovarli in ogni suaoccorrenza. Non mancherò di operare che il P[adre] Fra Damiano non sia rimosso da Urbinoper questa state e li farò sempre piacere conforme al merito suo che sarà il fine conpregar a V.S. dal Iddio quanto ella desidera.”
95. Later (23 April1600) Barocci wrote a letter thanking the deputy of the Fabbrica del Duomo. On 22 April1600 Barocci received 200 ducatoni from the Opera del Duomo of Milan for theLamentation; on 22 September he received another 300 lire for Saint Ambrose’sPardon of Theodosius; on 23 November his assistant Vitali accepted “quaranta scudi didieci pauli l’uno, et diciotto grossi, e un reale e mezzo a buon conto del quadro chefaccio per il Domo di Milano.” On 24 June 1601 Vitali received “ducatoni sette e pauliventi che’egli mi ha pagato per ordine del Sig. Flaminio Ferrari”; on 20 December Vitalireceived “lire 300 imp” and Barocci received “di scudi 100 d’oro (lire 600 imp.).” Lettersof 24 February 1600 (ASFD, Ordinazioni Capitolari), 23 April 1600 (ASFD, Mandati dipagamento), 22 September 1600, 23 November 1600, 24 June 1601, and 20 December 1601 (ASFD,Ordinazioni Capitolari); all of these letters are discussed in Bonomelli, “FedericoBarocci e la committenza milanese,” 21–22.
Bonomelli (ibid., 21) cites adocument that immediately followed a payment, and again shows Barocci’s intimacy withBorromeo. And see 23 April 1600, ASFD Ordinazioni Capitolari: “soddisfare (com’ è miodebito) tutti codesti Sig.ri suoi colleghi e la città insieme per l’opera promessa da meper il Domo di Milano. Si degnino pure (a lor cortesia) pregare il Signore che mi dia vitae santità che possa mandare ed effetto quanto ho promesso e quanto ho in animo difare.”
96. The painting measures 182 x 326 cm; Olsen, FedericoBarocci, 228; Emiliani, Federico Barocci, 2:392.
97.Verstegen, “Barocci, Cartoons, and the Workshop.”
98. For thevisual juxtaposition at the same scale, see ibid., 111, figs.4a–b.
99. Bandera, “Nuovo ragguaglio sui rapporti fra F. Borromeoe F. Barocci.”
100. Ludovico Vincenzi to Guidobaldo Vincenzi, 27December 1601, BUU, busta 38, fasc. IV, fol. 578, in Sangiorgi, Committenza milanesi aFederico Barocci, letter XXI, 36.