The Cathedral Builders Part 31

We have now traced Arnolfo's training through three or four of the chief lodges, and always under the best Masters. It is then no marvel that by 1294 his fame had risen so high that he was chosen as architect of the Duomo of Florence. He was well known to the Florentines, his master, Jacopo Tedesco, otherwise Lapo, having left Colle to settle in Florence, where he was engaged to build the Palace of the Podesta (Bargello). And this brings us to the vexed question of the parentage of Arnolfo.

Vasari says that Jacopo or Lapo, whom he calls "il Tedesco" (meaning Lombard architect), was the father of Arnolfo, and he gives this as a certain fact, understood to be the case by the world in general for two or three centuries past.

Milanesi, on the strength of the doc.u.ment quoted above, "Sec.u.m ducat Senas Arnolphum et Lapum suos discipulos," says that Lapo was only Arnolfo's contemporary and fellow-pupil.

[Ill.u.s.tration: MONUMENT TO CARDINAL DE BRAYE. BY MAGISTER ARNOLFO.

_See page 314._]

But neither Vasari nor Milanesi seem to reflect that there might have been two Lapi. Certainly, if two youths are fellow-disciples of one Master, it is not probable that the senior should be the son of the other. On the other hand, if "Jacopo il Tedesco," said to be Arnolfo's father, was elected head architect at a.s.sisi in 1228, how could he have been a young pupil of Niccol di Pisa in 1266?

Recognizing these difficulties, Milanesi sets out in search of a father for Arnolfo, in place of Lapo, his fellow-pupil. He comes across a doc.u.ment in the archives of the "Riformazione" of Florence, dated MCCC. Aprile 1, where the privileges of citizens.h.i.+p are accorded to "Magistrum Arnolphum de Colle, filium olim Cambij."[239] In quoting this, Gaye[240] says that in spite of it the Florentines will persist in calling Arnolfo the son of Lapo. Now cannot these conflicting facts be reconciled? It is a strange fact that in no other Florentine deed except this one privilege is any sign of parentage given to Arnolfo.

He is so enveloped in the greatness of being _caput magister_, and the greatest architect of his day, that his parentage seems to be lost sight of, though the universal custom of the day was to cite the father's name as well as the son's in a doc.u.ment. Therefore, though we have never before heard the surname of Jacopo il Tedesco, there is no reason in the world why it should not be Cambi. By the time Arnolfo was grown up, Jacopo Tedesco had lived many years in Florence; he therefore, having become a Florentine citizen, may have taken office and might have been connected with the Cambio, or Exchange there, taking his name from that office, as a large family of Cambi during the Republic seems to have done.

I incline, however, to another theory--that Cambij is a corruption of Campij, or Campione--for the following reason--As early as 1228 Jacopo Tedesco was already a _Magister_, and of such fame that he was chosen as master architect of the grand church of S. Francesco at a.s.sisi, in conjunction with Fra Philippus de Campello. In spite of Fergusson's opinion that the architect of these large buildings was generally a mere builder, working under some ecclesiastic who drew the plan, the evidence goes to prove, in this case, that Jacopo the layman was _capo maestro_, and Fra Philippus the ecclesiastic only _aiutante_ (a.s.sistant). Campello was a corruption of Campiglione or Campione, which name, first taken from a place near Como, became afterwards the distinctive t.i.tle of the Parma school of Comacine Masters. We find it spelt in different doc.u.ments: Campillio, Campellio, Campilionum, Campione, often shortened into Campi?o or Camp?i. All the older writers say that Jacopo Tedesco was a Comacine or Lombard, and if so, he was one of the Campionesi. His name occurs in a stipulation made at Modena on Nov. 30, 1240, where he and Alberto are qualified as uncles of Magister Enrico, one of the contracting parties.[241] This may well have been the father of Arnolfo, especially as Baldinucci[242] a.s.serts that Jacopo Tedesco lived at Colle in Val d'Elsa, where Arnolfo was born, while his father was building the castle there. With these lights Milanesi's doc.u.mental "Arnolphus de Cambii" may be accounted for. If the members of the Campione school in the north took that as their name, why should not Jacopo also have signed himself Campione?

It is more than probable he shortened it according to custom into Campi?o, and may not have been very particular to distinguish between the kins-letters p and b, a very common fault in the sketchy spelling of old MSS., and especially likely to occur if, while Lombardy was a German province, he should have imbibed a German accent. This would reconcile all the dispute. Arnolfo was evidently closely connected with the elder Lapo, his style being so similar.

Compare the Palazzo Vecchio and Bargello with Lapo's castle of Poppi, and the relation is evident. His connection with the younger Lapo is equally clear. In the list of qualified masters in painting at Florence, quoted by Migliore in _Firenze ill.u.s.trata_, p. 414, is Niccol Pisano's pupil, who is called Lapo di Cambio. This would suggest that Arnolfo and his fellow-pupil Lapo were brothers as well as fellow-pupils, so that when Lapo the younger finished Jacopo Tedesco's (Lapo the elder's) work at Colle, he was only following out the usual rules of the guild, in which the son succeeded the father.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PALAZZO VECCHIO, FLORENCE. DESIGNED BY ARNOLFO.

_See pages 257 and 317._]

The thirteenth century was a time of immense development in art; what Niccol and Giovanni di Pisa did for sculpture, Jacopo Tedesco and Arnolfo did for architecture. Jacopo was the first to introduce the pointed arch into Central Italy, at a.s.sisi; Arnolfo further developed it in his cathedral at Florence, where the arches of the nave are round, and the windows pointed. After this era we have no more Romanesque--the reign of Italian Gothic has begun.

The Basilican form, too, has vanished; we have now the nave and transepts of the Latin cross. No longer the small double-arched window, but long pointed arches filled with beautiful tracery. The old symbolic animals linger on, but in the subordinate form of grotesques in ornamentation.

That distinctive mark of the guild, the lion of Judah, takes a new position in the Italian Gothic. It is no longer between the pillar and the arch, but beneath the column, as Niccol and Guido da Como first placed it in their pulpits. You see it under the pillars of the north door of the Florentine Duomo, where the transition into Renaissance is indicated by a particularly cla.s.sic figure of a child standing by the lion; and under the central column of the windows of the Spanish chapel in the cloister of S. Maria Novella, where it serves to mark the fact that the architects Fra Sisto and Fra Ristoro (who in the doc.u.ments of the time are styled Magister Fra Sisto and Magister Fra Ristoro) were members of the Masonic Guild.

Jacopo, the inaugurator of Italian Gothic, spent all his later years in Florence, having left Colle many years before, when he had finished the castle there. Jacopo's work in Florence consisted of the building of the Bargello, which is a perfect specimen of the late Comacine style, built in _modo gallico_ with large smoothly-hewn stones. The connection of the Masters of the guild with the south of Italy is shown here as well as at Pisa, for it is said that King Manfred commissioned Jacopo Tedesco to design the sepulchre of the Emperor Frederic in the abbey church of Monreale in Sicily. (Manfred died in 1266.)

Jacopo also introduced a reform into Florence. In the time when Messer Rubaconte of Como was Podesta of Florence (1236, 1237), his compatriot, Jacopo Tedesco of Campione, near Como, proposed to him that the streets should be paved with stones instead of bricks, to which Messer Rubaconte agreed, and the same method of paving still continues in Florence.

The second Lapo, Arnolfo's fellow-pupil, and perhaps brother, was the author of several buildings in the end of the thirteenth century, which Vasari falsely attributes to Jacopo the elder. He also continued Jacopo Tedesco's fortifications at Colle.[243]

Whether we look on Arnolfo as the son of Jacopo Tedesco, or only as the pupil of Niccol Pisano, he was, either way, one of the guild; and more, a follower of Jacopo rather than of Niccol, his bent being rather architectural than sculptural. We can, then, place Arnolfo as the first head of the _laborerium_ of Florence; and in tracing the formation of this branch of the guild, we shall throw a light on all the former branches, which, from want of systematic doc.u.ments, have remained as formless organizations of _schola_, _laborerium_, and _Opera_. After trying in vain to find something more explicit about these organizations at the National Library and State Archives, I consulted the director of the Opera del Duomo, who kindly saved me the work of long puzzling over old MSS., by lending me a copy of Cesare Guasti's valuable collection of abstracts from the books of the _Opera_, from the earliest days of Arnolfo to the completion of the cathedral.

Here the whole organization stands revealed. Here are the meetings of the lodge, and the subjects discussed; the names of the _Magistri_ and Council of Administration from year to year; the payments to architects, artists, and men; the legal contracts and business reports.

It is clearly seen how the _Opera_ is connected with the _laborerium_, and how the meetings are always composed of some civic members from the Council of Administration, and some from the working Masters of the lodge.

One, dated October 15, 1436, reports a meeting in the Opera del Duomo, at which the attendant _Operai_ or councillors were Ugo Alessandri, Donato Velluti, Nicolo Caroli de Macignis, and Benedict _Cicciaporci_ (pig's flesh); here's a nickname! They deliberated on the advisability of sending for a certain Francesco Livii de Gamba.s.so, _Comitatus Florentiae_, who was at Lubeck in Germany, to make the painted windows and mosaics. Francesco, when he came back to the city which he had known in his boyhood, and where he had learnt his art, bound himself to work in the _laborerium_ of the _Opera_, "et in dicta civitate Florentiae in Laboreriis dictae Operae toto tempore suae vitae eidem continuum, ac firmum inviamentum exhiberent, ita, et taliter, quod ipse una c.u.m sua familia victum, et vest.i.tum in praefata Civitate erogare posset."[244] This one doc.u.ment gives valuable proof on several points.

It proves that whether or not Italy got her architects from Germany, Italian Masters were employed in Germany.

It proves that there was a guild in Florence, "Comitatus Florentiae,"

to which Francesco Livii belonged, and that there was a _laborerium_ in Florence, in which Francesco, when a boy, had learned his art, and risen to the rank of Master. It proves, moreover, that the _laborerium_ was connected with the _Opera_.

Another meeting of the same _Opera_ on November 26, 1435, held to consider all the designs for the choir of the Duomo, marks this connection still more plainly.

"n.o.biles viri Johannes Sylvestri de Popoleschis, Johannes Tedicis de Albizzis, Johannes ser Falconis Falconi, Jacobus Johannis de Giugnis, et Hieronymus Francisci dello Scarfa, Operarii dictae Operae, existentes collegialiter congregati in loco eorum residentiae pro factis dictae Opera utiliter peragendis, absque aliis eorum Collegis, et servatis servandis:

"Attendentes ad quandam Commissionem factam per eorum Offitium de ordinatione Altaris majoris dictae Ecclesiae, et Chori ipsius Ecclesiae infrascriptis Civibus, et Religiosis Sacrae Theologiae, Magistro Jacobo Graegorii del Badia Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, Magistro Sandro de Covonibus Converso Hospitalis Sanctae Mariae Novae de Florentia, Francisco alterius Francisci Pierotii della Luna Nerio Gini de Capponibus egregio Medicinae Doctori, Magistro Paulo M. Dominici, et Juliano Thomasii Gucci, omnibus Civibus Civitatis Florentiae, et ad quemdam rapportum per eos factum coram eorum Offitio infrascriptae continentiae."[245]

Here follow the criticisms of this council on three designs for the choir: one by Filippo Brunelleschi; one by Nencio di Bartoluccio; a third by Magister Agnolo da Arezzo.

Observe that we have as master architects of the guild, a monk and a hospital warden, called on the Commission with the _Operai_, who were influential citizens, but not qualified Masters. This seems to throw a light on the word _colligantes_, "Magister comacinus c.u.m colligantes suos," in the old laws of Rotharis. Would not the _colligantes_ mean the Consuls and _Operai_, members of the _Opera_ or administrative body in these great works of church-building, whom the _Magistri_ of the guild elected from the influential men of the city in which they were?

Here are a few translations of his quaint statements of the orders the _Provveditore_ received from the _Operai_--

"_June 1353._--Operai: Lotto, Lapo, Piero di Cienni, Simone di Michele Ristori. They tell me to make haste and obtain the payments from the 'Camera' (council), and the 'Gabelle' (octroi). I must manage that by St. John's Day; the 'covelle' of the Campanile must be finished. And to do that, I must get two of the _Magistri_ from Or San Michele. And the scaffolding must be taken down from S. Giovanni (the Baptistery), so that the work may be seen."

This entry shows how many buildings the guild were engaged on, and how the architects of them all were under the command of the _Opera_, or centre of administration for all.

"_August 14, 1353._--Piero, Lotto, and Simone." (Every entry begins by naming the _Operai_ in council.) "To order designs for a tabernacle.... Get it made. To order the design for the campanile, and in what kind. Have it done in wood. To order marble, for the work at the summit. To tell Francesco[246] there is work for a year. About the rations of Neri Fieravanti. Give him the money to pay all the master's claims, and you, Filippo, shall be the pay-master, and we will provide the means." ("Dalle danari per pagare tutti i maestri loro, e tu Filippo sia loro camarlingo, e noi ti faremo provedere.")[247]

The way in which the _Provveditore_, Filippo Marsili, talks of himself, and puts down his orders from the _Operai_ just in their own words, is nave in the extreme. His memoranda are certainly delightful.

Here is another very busy day--

"_September 26, 1353._--Operai: Simone, Migliorozzo, Francescho, Piero." (This time the head architect, Francesco Talenti, was in council.) "To elect a salaried lawyer. About a notary for citations.

About the nine hundred and fifty lire which the Commune has of ours.

To pay by the piece, rather than by the day. To send to Carrara (for marble). Put it off till All Saints' Day. Of the many doc.u.ments we need.... To reason with the Regolatori.[248] To speak with the captains of the Misericordia about our many legacies.... Tell them to let us know when they meet. About the Wills. To discuss it with Ser Francescho Federigi (a notary). To find means to get ready money. Try and get a discount on the tax on a.s.signments. About the wine for the Masters. Take it away entirely. About Francesco and the window ... to pay the Master who had the commission ... and when the work is done, have it valued, and the surplus, or the deficit, will be entered to Francesco" (head architect).

Truly it was no sinecure to be _Provveditore_ for the guild of architects in those days. He must have had his hands full indeed! When the Masters were not satisfied with their pay, and a work had to be appraised, like this window, a special council was called, consisting of the Consuls of the Arte della Lana, who were the Presidents of the _Opera_, the members of the _Opera_, and all the _Magistri_ of the _laborerium_. The Masters were then called on one by one to give an estimate of the work, and discuss its merits; a ratio was taken, and the medium price fixed.

The same kind of council was called to consider any designs.

Generally, several of the _Magistri_ sent in their designs, or models made of wood. These were discussed in council, and votes taken before the final commission was given. The report of one of these meetings, where each Master navely voted for his own design, is very amusing.

The Masters were strictly bound by contract to the _laborerium_. In some cases they were paid by the day. We find, on May 29, 1355, that the salaries of Masters were lessened by two soldi a day, and workmen by one soldo. Sometimes the Commune found them wine and rations; at others they were paid by the piece, by contract. On June 7, 1456, the _Provveditore_ writes--"It is desired that on no account shall any Master go to work outside the Opera, without the deliberation and consent of all four Operai. If any absent himself without this permission, he shall be considered as discharged."

The schools attached to the _laborerium_ must have been very complete.

They trained pupils in the three sister arts--architecture, sculpture, and painting. One sees the remains of them in the Belle Arti at Florence, Siena, and other towns, and the Academy of St. Luke at Rome.

Not all the _Magistri_ were teachers, but there were certain of them who held office as Professors. Niccol di Pisa was certainly one of these, and so were Cimabue and _Magister_ Giotto.

This full art-education accounts for the artist of the Renaissance being such an all-round man. One finds a painter like Giotto, or a sculptor like Niccol Pisano, building grand architectural works.

Sometimes they graduated in all three arts, as did Landi, Giotto, and Leon Battista Alberti.

When they graduated in the schools, they became _Magistri_ of the guild, and could then undertake commissions. Besides the _Magistri fratelli_, there were the undergraduates as it were; in old Latin doc.u.ments they are written as _fratres_; below these were the novices or pupils. The workmen employed by them were quite unconnected with the guild, and were paid daily wages as manual labourers.

The light thus thrown on the organization of the Masonic Guild by the valuable collection of doc.u.ments made by Cesare Guasti, seems to me to explain much that was puzzling in the Florentine city guilds. For instance, why, among all the _Arti_, is there none which includes architects, sculptors, or painters? It would have been supposed that in the early days of the republic, when the Commune spent its wealth and enthusiasm on erecting great and n.o.ble buildings, architecture would certainly have ranked among the greater _Arti_, even in compet.i.tion with the wool-combers and silk-weavers. But there was no such civic guild. There was a minor one for masons and stone-cutters, but it was established later for workmen and mere house-builders, and had nothing to do with great architects or master sculptors; while painters who wished to be members of the Commune and have any hand in the government, had to enroll themselves in the Goldsmith Guild, or the "Arte degli speziali" (doctors and apothecaries). The existence of this Freemasonic Guild would explain this hiatus in the greater arts.

While such a powerful and self-governing body existed, which had evidently the monopoly for Italy in the art of church-building, a mere city guild would never have been able to compete with it, and would have been superfluous.

That it really held the monopoly is more than probable. We have traced the Comacines through each gradation, have seen the successive schools and branches started by them in each place where they had great works in hand. The Buoni family at Modena going on to the south of Italy and then to Pistoja, founded that school. The Campione branch at Verona and Parma hence pa.s.sed to a.s.sisi and Florence. The Lucca school of Lombard Masters spread to Pisa and gathered into it native talent.

The later gathering of Lombards and Pisans at Siena thence moved to Orvieto, and sent a branch to Florence in the persons of Jacopo Tedesco and Arnolfo. There taking root it grew into the goodly flower of the Renaissance. And after efflorescence,--decay; the old organization, by degrees, dissolved in the greater freedom of art.

Each Master aimed to stand alone on his own merits, and was no longer necessarily enrolled as one in a guild.

A great many things besides are revealed to us by Guasti's collection of doc.u.ments. We find that Arnolfo died in 1310; Vasari read it wrongly as 1300, so that Arnolfo would only have worked a year or two at his Duomo. The correct entry in the archives is--"IIII idus (martii) Quiescit magister Arnolfus de l'opera di Santa Reparata MCCCX."[249]

It is a strange coincidence that the death registered before Arnolfo in the Necrology should be a man named Cambio, a locksmith, but he seems to have no connection with Arnolfo, whose parentage as usual is not indicated.