DOI issue:
Nr. 3-4
DOI article:Gilbert, Creighton: Pius II, the earliest publicist of the art of his native Siena
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48916#0215
Pius II, The Earliest Publicist of the Art of His Native Siena
July and 8th November 1433. Although Wolkan’s edition,
with its thorough evidence of the dating, is the sole source
cited by Strehlke (as in the preceding notę), and rightly so,
he tells us that the datę is 1439, offering no reason for this
change. It seems to be an error. How this arose may
perhaps be clarified by analogy with another mistake of
the writer’s shortly before (his p. 33) saying that
Ambrogio Lorenzetti „discovered and placed” an ancient
statuę on Siena’s Fonte Gaia. In fact that was done by
others, and Ambrogio later madę a drawing of it. This
blurring together of parts of two items might have
occurred again if the author had come to 1439 as the datę
of the Council of Florence, far morę familiar to art
historians than the earlier council actually involved. In
any case at both points the writer, as can so easily happen,
also felt confident enough not to check.
5 Cf. N. WHITMAN, „The First Papai Medal,” Burlington
Magazine, 133:1991, p. 820ff.
- 6. SALVINI 1938, as in notę 2, nn. 19, 20.
7. N. MACHIAVELLI, „Capitoli per una bizzarra
compagnia,” Opere complete, Firenze, 1831, p. 438.
8. PICCOLOMINI (as in notę 4), 3 Abteilung, 1450-4
(=Fontes, lxviii Band), pp. 100-1. The addressee is Niklas
von Ulm, Latinized as Wyle, as also cited by Salvini (as in
notę 2) n. 23, but reported by Strehlke as „Wyse.” The
death that gave rise to the letter was in 1452, as the editor
Wolkan notes, but Strehlke, again citing only Wolkan as
his source, who says it is of ca. 1447, describes as a „St.
Christopher” the painting of St. Michael mentioned, and
says that Niklas sent Piccolomini a portrait of the dead
friend, which should be his letters. On the concept of the
comparison of the two sister arts, see also J. O’MALLEY,
Praise and Blame in Renaissance Romę, Durham NC,
1979, p. 64.
9. L. GHIBERTI, I Commentari, ed. Morisani, Naples,
1947, p. 33.
10. For the text of Facio, see C. GILBERT, L’arte del
quattrocento nelle testimonianze coeve, Florence, 1988,
pp. 198-9, where also the similar references of Flavio
Biondo are noted; for two poems on Pisanello, see the
same work, pp. 196-7.
11. This was first published in the 18th century by G. GIGLI,
Diario senese, Lucca, 1723, vol. 1: p. 385, and without change
in the second edition, Siena, 1854, pp. 437-9. The book
follows the liturgical year, noting at each datę the most
remarkable happening on that day in the history of Siena.
For later bibliography of this passage, see notę 13 below.
12. GHIBERTI, as in notę 9, p. 38.
13. The passage was fully reprinted by SALVINI, as in notę 2,
1973, n. 4, and then noted by G. ERCOLI, „II trecento senese
nei commentari di Ghiberti,” [in] Lorenzo Ghiberti nel suo
tempo, Florence, 1980, vol. 2: pp. 317-341, with a fuli citation
to the page, p. 385, of its first publication by GIGLI.
STREHLKE, 59, follows his statement that Piccolomini
„never mentions” Simone Martini by saying that he himself
„unfortunately cannot tracę the comment cited by ERCOLI
(1980, p. 302) [ó7c] that Pius II equated Simone’s greatness
with that of Giotto, and it seems to be spurious.” To others,
however, one’s inability to tracę a reference might seem not
grounds to infer that the other scholar cited has offered false
data. GiglPs second edition was readily available to me at the
New York Public Library. The inability might perhaps
instead be seen in relation to other problems that arose in the
writer’s use of data noted above.
14. Pi i II Commentari..., ed. A. VAN HECK, Citta del
Vaticano, 1984, vol.l: p. 133; MUNTZ, p. 222, and
SALVINI, 1938, n. 29, had transcribed this passage.
15. Rivista di storia delta chiesa, 9:1955, p. 201.
16. op. cii. Pii II Commentari..., vol. l:p. 286; MUNTZ had
transcribed this passage in part on page 100 and in fuli on
page 224.
17. E. CNKU,Il Duomo di Orvieto, Romę, 1953, p. 35; J. RIESS,
The Renaissance Antichrist, Princeton, 1995, pp. 9-10.
18. L. ALBERTI, Descrittione di tutta Italia, 1553 edition, 56r.
19. M. BAXANDALL, Giotto and the Orators, 1971.
20. op. cit. Pii II Commentari..., vol. 1: p. 286, footnote.
21. L. HEYDENREICH, „Pius II ais Bauherr von Pienza,”
Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte, 6:1937, pp. 109-110.
22. op. cit. Pii II Commentari..., as in notę 14, vol. 2: p. 552;
MUNTZ, pp.353-60, reprinted the whole description of
Pienza.
23. H. VAN OS, Sienese Altarpieces 1215-1460, vol.2:1990,
p. 195.
24. MUNTZ, as in notę vol. 1, pp.221-2.
25. The presentation of the text by G. MULAZZANI, „Gli
affreschi di Bramante,” Storia delTarte, 22:1974, p. 226,
should be used in preference to the inaccurate one of
E. MÓNCH, „Stefano da Verona,” Zeitschrift fur
Kunstgeschichte, 49:1986, p. 225.
26. STREHLKE (as in notę 3) notę 24, unfortunately following
Mónch’s inaccurate reading (cf. the preceding notę) „di Zoto
florentius”, which should be „de Zoto florentino.”
27. P. VITI, entry „Decembrio,” Dizionario biografico degli
italiani, 33:1987, p. 499.
28. Text transcribed by C. GILBERT, L’arte del
ąuattrocento ...,p. 186.
Postscript: Chance recently led me to a text in which C.
Strehlke happily reversed one of his doubtful statements
conceming Pius II; indeed, the most conspicuous one
claiming that Pius „never mentioned” Simone Martini, nor
showed any interest in Sienese art, and that the report that he
did so by A. Ercoli seemed to be „spurious”. A single senten-
ce in a venue that would not have been expected for this
purpose, a review of an exhibition of Francesco di Giorgio
(Burlington Magazine, July 1993, 499) ąuotes indirectly the
text Ercoli had used, evidentły taking it to be authentic.
193
July and 8th November 1433. Although Wolkan’s edition,
with its thorough evidence of the dating, is the sole source
cited by Strehlke (as in the preceding notę), and rightly so,
he tells us that the datę is 1439, offering no reason for this
change. It seems to be an error. How this arose may
perhaps be clarified by analogy with another mistake of
the writer’s shortly before (his p. 33) saying that
Ambrogio Lorenzetti „discovered and placed” an ancient
statuę on Siena’s Fonte Gaia. In fact that was done by
others, and Ambrogio later madę a drawing of it. This
blurring together of parts of two items might have
occurred again if the author had come to 1439 as the datę
of the Council of Florence, far morę familiar to art
historians than the earlier council actually involved. In
any case at both points the writer, as can so easily happen,
also felt confident enough not to check.
5 Cf. N. WHITMAN, „The First Papai Medal,” Burlington
Magazine, 133:1991, p. 820ff.
- 6. SALVINI 1938, as in notę 2, nn. 19, 20.
7. N. MACHIAVELLI, „Capitoli per una bizzarra
compagnia,” Opere complete, Firenze, 1831, p. 438.
8. PICCOLOMINI (as in notę 4), 3 Abteilung, 1450-4
(=Fontes, lxviii Band), pp. 100-1. The addressee is Niklas
von Ulm, Latinized as Wyle, as also cited by Salvini (as in
notę 2) n. 23, but reported by Strehlke as „Wyse.” The
death that gave rise to the letter was in 1452, as the editor
Wolkan notes, but Strehlke, again citing only Wolkan as
his source, who says it is of ca. 1447, describes as a „St.
Christopher” the painting of St. Michael mentioned, and
says that Niklas sent Piccolomini a portrait of the dead
friend, which should be his letters. On the concept of the
comparison of the two sister arts, see also J. O’MALLEY,
Praise and Blame in Renaissance Romę, Durham NC,
1979, p. 64.
9. L. GHIBERTI, I Commentari, ed. Morisani, Naples,
1947, p. 33.
10. For the text of Facio, see C. GILBERT, L’arte del
quattrocento nelle testimonianze coeve, Florence, 1988,
pp. 198-9, where also the similar references of Flavio
Biondo are noted; for two poems on Pisanello, see the
same work, pp. 196-7.
11. This was first published in the 18th century by G. GIGLI,
Diario senese, Lucca, 1723, vol. 1: p. 385, and without change
in the second edition, Siena, 1854, pp. 437-9. The book
follows the liturgical year, noting at each datę the most
remarkable happening on that day in the history of Siena.
For later bibliography of this passage, see notę 13 below.
12. GHIBERTI, as in notę 9, p. 38.
13. The passage was fully reprinted by SALVINI, as in notę 2,
1973, n. 4, and then noted by G. ERCOLI, „II trecento senese
nei commentari di Ghiberti,” [in] Lorenzo Ghiberti nel suo
tempo, Florence, 1980, vol. 2: pp. 317-341, with a fuli citation
to the page, p. 385, of its first publication by GIGLI.
STREHLKE, 59, follows his statement that Piccolomini
„never mentions” Simone Martini by saying that he himself
„unfortunately cannot tracę the comment cited by ERCOLI
(1980, p. 302) [ó7c] that Pius II equated Simone’s greatness
with that of Giotto, and it seems to be spurious.” To others,
however, one’s inability to tracę a reference might seem not
grounds to infer that the other scholar cited has offered false
data. GiglPs second edition was readily available to me at the
New York Public Library. The inability might perhaps
instead be seen in relation to other problems that arose in the
writer’s use of data noted above.
14. Pi i II Commentari..., ed. A. VAN HECK, Citta del
Vaticano, 1984, vol.l: p. 133; MUNTZ, p. 222, and
SALVINI, 1938, n. 29, had transcribed this passage.
15. Rivista di storia delta chiesa, 9:1955, p. 201.
16. op. cii. Pii II Commentari..., vol. l:p. 286; MUNTZ had
transcribed this passage in part on page 100 and in fuli on
page 224.
17. E. CNKU,Il Duomo di Orvieto, Romę, 1953, p. 35; J. RIESS,
The Renaissance Antichrist, Princeton, 1995, pp. 9-10.
18. L. ALBERTI, Descrittione di tutta Italia, 1553 edition, 56r.
19. M. BAXANDALL, Giotto and the Orators, 1971.
20. op. cit. Pii II Commentari..., vol. 1: p. 286, footnote.
21. L. HEYDENREICH, „Pius II ais Bauherr von Pienza,”
Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte, 6:1937, pp. 109-110.
22. op. cit. Pii II Commentari..., as in notę 14, vol. 2: p. 552;
MUNTZ, pp.353-60, reprinted the whole description of
Pienza.
23. H. VAN OS, Sienese Altarpieces 1215-1460, vol.2:1990,
p. 195.
24. MUNTZ, as in notę vol. 1, pp.221-2.
25. The presentation of the text by G. MULAZZANI, „Gli
affreschi di Bramante,” Storia delTarte, 22:1974, p. 226,
should be used in preference to the inaccurate one of
E. MÓNCH, „Stefano da Verona,” Zeitschrift fur
Kunstgeschichte, 49:1986, p. 225.
26. STREHLKE (as in notę 3) notę 24, unfortunately following
Mónch’s inaccurate reading (cf. the preceding notę) „di Zoto
florentius”, which should be „de Zoto florentino.”
27. P. VITI, entry „Decembrio,” Dizionario biografico degli
italiani, 33:1987, p. 499.
28. Text transcribed by C. GILBERT, L’arte del
ąuattrocento ...,p. 186.
Postscript: Chance recently led me to a text in which C.
Strehlke happily reversed one of his doubtful statements
conceming Pius II; indeed, the most conspicuous one
claiming that Pius „never mentioned” Simone Martini, nor
showed any interest in Sienese art, and that the report that he
did so by A. Ercoli seemed to be „spurious”. A single senten-
ce in a venue that would not have been expected for this
purpose, a review of an exhibition of Francesco di Giorgio
(Burlington Magazine, July 1993, 499) ąuotes indirectly the
text Ercoli had used, evidentły taking it to be authentic.
193