Shepard-The Medici Codex as a Gift

Constructing Identities in a Music Manuscript:The Medici Codex as a Gift*

by TIM SHEPHARD

The motet manuscript known as the Medici Codex is associated by modern scholarship with the1518 marriage of Lorenzo II de Medici and Madeleine de la Tour dAuvergne. It was oncethought that the manuscript was made in France and given to Lorenzo by Francis I, but now it isalmost unanimously agreed that it was made in Rome under the patronage of Pope Leo X. Sincethis revision, no one has put forward a detailed view of how the manuscript relates to thecircumstances under which it was given and to the individuals involved, or how it functions asa gift. This study places the manuscript in the context of other gifts associated with the marriage toarrive at such a view.

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N

I t has long been known that the Medici Codex, a large presentationmanuscript containing fifty-three motets, had something to do with the1518 marriage of Lorenzo II de Medici (14921519), nephew of PopeLeo X (14751521), to Madeleine de la Tour dAuvergne (ca. 14951519),a cousin of King Francis I (14941547).1 It is very likely that themanuscript was a gift, given to Lorenzo (or to the couple) by Leo X, andas such it sits among a number of other gifts prepared for the occasion, inparticular a series of paintings by Raphael (14831520). Under thecircumstances, the roles of a gift were various and subtle, ranging fromcommemoration to serving the symbolic and diplomatic ends of the donor,and to fulfilling the practical needs of the recipient. Such a gift might readily

*Please see the online version of this article for color illustrations.It is a pleasure to acknowledge with gratitude the kind help and suggestions of Bonnie

Blackburn, Anthony Cummings, James Munk, Philip Weller, and the Articles Editor and ananonymous reader for this journal in the preparation of the present study. My work on theMedici Codex more generally has been greatly assisted by the generous, often critical, advice

of Stanley Boorman, David Fallows, Joshua Rifkin, and Peter Wright, to whom I also extendmy thanks. Translations are the authors unless otherwise credited.

1On the Medici Codex, properly Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, MSAcquisti e Doni 666, see Lowinsky, 1957, 1968, 1977, and 1979; Perkins, 1969b;

Sparks, 1972 and 1973; Rifkin, 1973 and 1977; Crawford; Finscher; Lockwood, 1979,24146; Staehelin; Dean, 1984, 11029; Sherr, 1985. For convenience, a list of themanuscripts contents is given in the Appendix below, pp. 12223.

Renaissance Quarterly 63 (2010): 84127 [84]

serve to define a range of important identities in relation to one another:those of the donor, the recipient(s), the new union, and the dynasties andindividual agents involved in arranging it. Its role would also be contingentupon the circumstances of its presentation, a moment that could be used todraw a musical gifts potency into the realm of immediate experience.

This study aims to anatomize the Codex as a gift, and as a document ofcontingent identities. In particular, it will investigate the role of the Codexamong Leo Xs strategies of self-presentation and diplomatic efforts, and itsfunction in the construction of his nephew Lorenzo as a despotic ruler. Inpursuit of this aim, I will situate the Codex within the complex of gifts associatedwith the wedding, allowing interpretative approaches suggested by the historicaland art-historical contexts to offer new perspectives on the manuscript. Myconclusions will suggest that Leo X configured the manuscript as a strategicallyconstructed image of himself, and sent it as his own agent to meet Lorenzo andMadeleine in Florence, in the hope of both offering his legitimating supervisionof the match and reconfiguring Lorenzo in the image of a duke.2

2. T H E W E D D I N G A N D T H E C O D E X

The election of Cardinal Giovanni de Medici as Pope Leo X on 9 March 1513brought respite from the militaristic foreign policy pursued by his predecessor,Julius II (14431513).3 The new popes attentions were immediately devotedto ending the long-running conflict with France over the Duchy of Milan,concluding a peace with Louis XII (14621515) on 9 December. Thesuccession of Francis I to the French crown on 1 January 1515, however,brought with it a renewal of the war, culminating in the victory of French overpapal and Swiss forces at the Battle of Marignano on 15 September 1515. Ameeting between Francis I and Leo X was held in Bologna shortly after thebattle to agree to a lasting settlement, and throughout 1515 the pope took stepsto place his brother Giuliano de Medici (14791516) in close alliance with theFrench monarchy, arranging for him a marriage to Filiberta of Savoy(14981524) and the bestowal of the title of Duke of Nemours.

2Although Leo X was certainly involved in some way in making the Codex, the evidencewould not support a clear definition of the practicalities of his involvement. However, for

such a gift his involvement might range through conception, planning, and design, bothpersonally and via agents familiar with his intentions.

3On the events described in this paragraph, see Roscoe, 1:295334, 36190, 2:182,

186206; Lowinsky, 1968, 3:45, 1415; Seay; Stephens; Shearman, 1987a, 20911; Reiss.In this article I cite from the first volume of Lowinsky, 1968, which comprises volume 3 inthe series Monuments of Renaissance Music: all references cite this as volume 3 (as labeled

on the volume itself).

85THE MEDICI CODEX AS A GIFT

Thus freed of the French threat, Leo X, with the help of his sister-in-lawAlfonsina Orsini de Medici (14721520) and other family members, setabout consolidating the position in central Italy of the Medici, who had onlyreturned to Florence from exile in 1512, and who aspired to a moreunassailably noble status.4 The Duchy of Urbino, once the target ofAlexander VI as a seat for his nephew Cesare Borgia, became in 1516 thesubject of a new coup effected on behalf of Leo Xs nephew (Alfonsinas son)Lorenzo II de Medici.5 The popular incumbent Duke Francesco Maria dellaRovere was himself a military commander, and thus proved impossible tounseat permanently until he ran out of money to pay his mercenary troops.Lorenzo was securely ensconced as Duke of Urbino in September 1517.

Meanwhile, the death on 17 March 1516 of Giuliano de Medici leftLeo X short of a tangible connection to France. The last few months of 1517were dedicated to the negotiation of a new French alliance through themarriage of Duke Lorenzo to Madaleine de la Tour dAuvergne. Thearrangement was largely concluded by January 1518: Lorenzo left for Franceon 22 March and was married in Amboise on 2 May.

It is easy enough to see the reflection of these events in the MediciCodex. The motets in the manuscript are listed in the tavola so as to form theacrostic VIVAT SEMPER INVICTVS LAVRENTIVS MEDICES DVXVRBINI May Lorenzo de Medici, undefeated Duke of Urbino, liveforever making an obvious reference to the difficulties experienced insecuring Lorenzos duchy (fig. 1). The acrostic is signposted on the facingpage in a large diamond-shaped inscription, which reads Canon: in the firstletters it is written of you.6 Medici heraldry and devices appear abundantlyin the first few folios of the manuscript, as well as elsewhere in the decorativescript of one of the manuscripts scribes. Decorating the bottom margins ofthe first opening of music are facing painted panels (fig. 2): that on the leftpresents the arms of Leo X accompanied by those of Cardinal Giulio deMedici (14781534) and Duke Lorenzo de Medici; that on the rightimpales the Medici palle with the arms of de la Tour dAuvergne beneatha ducal coronet.7 The senior members of the Medici family are thus placed in

4Stephens, 95, identifies two ambitions evidenced in Medici diplomacy and politics ofthis period: to secure for themselves the support of the strongest of the great powers ofnorthern Europe and to create or conquer lordships for themselves in Italy.

5On Alfonsinas advocacy at the papal court on behalf of her son Lorenzo, and herextremely important role in the events described, see Tomas, 7582, 8788; Reiss.

6Canon: In primis litteris scriptum est de te. Abbreviations have been spelled out.7These are the identifications arrived at in Lowinsky, 1968, 3:14.

RENAISSANCE QUARTERLY86

conjunction with a symbol of the alliance they have forged, and of the ducalidentity they have created.

In the first modern study of the manuscript, Edward Lowinsky gives aninsightful account of the Codex as a wedding gift, arguing that it was made inFrance on behalf of Francis I and given to Lorenzo at some point during hisvisit to France in 1518.8 His assessment is based on the observation that asignificant number of motets in the manuscript were composed by musicianswho were members of, or were otherwise connected to, the royal chapels ofFrance. These include a few occasional motets linked directly to events ofFrench significance, including one celebrating victory at the Battle ofMarignano and one mourning the death of Anne of Brittany (14771514).Since the publication of Lowinskys study, scholarly opinion has shiftedoverwhelmingly (and undoubtedly correctly) to the view that the manuscriptwas produced in Rome, and was given to Lorenzo by Leo X after Lorenzosreturn to Florence, to mark the occasion of his marriage.9

FIGURE 1. Medici Codex. Dedication, canon, and tavola. Florence, BibliotecaMedicea Laurenziana, Ms. Acq. e Doni 666, fols. iiv1r. Photo: GAP s.r.l., Rome.

8Ibid., 3:327.9See, in particular, Perkins, 1969b; Sherr, 1985.


The predominance of French music, taken by Lowinsky as the primaryevidence of French origin, is now to be explained by Leo Xs French musicaltastes, whose strength and parameters have been amply described withinmusicology.10 Most recently, Richard Sherr has suggested that the Codex

FIGURE 2. Medici Codex. Willaert, Virgo gloriosa Christi, Margareta, firstopening. Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ms. Acq. e Doni 666, fols.2v3r. Photo: GAP s.r.l., Rome.

10On Leo Xs enthusiastic patronage of music and his musical tastes, including

discussion of their French leaning, see Pirro; Frey; Lowinsky, 1968, 3:2841, 50, 6065,7274, 7980, 14142, 15455, 17071, 178, 207; Bragard; Lockwood, 1979; Sherr,1987; Blackburn, 1992; Cummings, 1992, esp. 1184. Composers in the Medici Codex

associated with the French royal chapels include Jean Mouton (Lockwood, 1979), AdrianWillaert (Lockwood, 1979), Josquin des Prez (Fallows), Pierre Moulu (Brobeck), AntoniusDivitis (Picker, 1977), Pierrequin de Therache (Freedman), Jean Richafort (Brobeck, esp.44059), Antoine Bruhier (Lockwood, 1979), Boyleau (Lowinsky, 1968, 3:125), Jean

Lheritier (Perkins, 1969b) and Antoine Brumel (Hudson). Striking in this connection is theabsence from the Medici Codex of Leo Xs highly favored maestro di cappella, Carpentras,as well as other members of his chapels. Also missing are the musicians of Florence, such

as Bernardo Pisano and, more significantly, Heinrich Isaac, a composer who enjoyedconsiderable Medici patronage; perhaps the explanation in the latter case is simply thatIsaac was thought of in Italy as German, not French, and therefore did not further the

manuscripts (or rather its patrons) diplomatic aims.


reflects Leo Xs taste so exactly that it cannot initially have been designed asa gift for his nephew. He finds support in Joshua Rifkins account of themanuscripts creation, which appears to rule out a political purpose.11 In whatfollows I will argue against these views. In light of the historical circumstancesoutlined above, it seems inescapable that Leo Xs Francophilia, whilepresumably genuine, was also a political strategy. I will later conclude thatit is in the extent to which it closely reflects Leo Xs taste that the Codex revealsmost clearly its role as a gift for his nephew.

Nonetheless, Sherrs brief analysis of the Codex offers key starting pointsfor the present study. Sherr has observed that an equivalence might be soughtbetween the Codex and Raphaels portrait of Leo X, and I shall devoteconsiderable time to extending and fleshing out that hypothesis. He furthernotes that the Codex appears to prompt, rather than to reflect, Lorenzoscourtly identity, a strategy that I will both quantify and contextualize.12

Finally, Sherr also argues that Madeleine was the primary owner of theCodex, and while I find this conclusion improbable, he is certainly right todraw attention to Madeleines important role alongside Lorenzo as themanuscripts audience: following this lead will help us to understand themotivations for the manuscripts gift from Leo Xs point of view.13

3. TH E C O D E X A M O N G T H E W E D D I N G G I F T S

The phenomenon of the gift and the gift economy is the subject of a largeand growing scholarly discourse, in which the locus classicus is the work ofMarcel Mauss.14 According to the standard formulation, the gift participates

11Sherr, 1985, 63133. Rifkins views on The Creation of the Medici Codex were putforward in a paper bearing that title at the 1983 meeting of the American MusicologicalSociety, a copy of which he has been kind enough to send me. His reconstruction would

appear to rule out a pervasively political interpretation of the manuscript, but it is not theonly reconstruction possible.

12Sherr, 1985, 63133.13Ibid., 63132, argues that the impaled Medicide la Tour dAuvergne arms were

specifically those of Madeleine, rather than constituting an arrangement commemoratingthe union more loosely. The presence of a ducal coronet above and laurel branches(laurelLorenzo) below the escutcheon suggest that, on the contrary, both Madeleine andLorenzo are invoked. Sherr further suggests that these arms were not added at the same timeas the other decoration, and that they indicate only that Madeleine owned the manuscript atsome point between the wedding and her death in 1519. This conclusion is not supported by

any discontinuity of style or layout between the impaled arms and the other decorations quite the opposite, in fact.

14See Mauss. For a convenient overview of the discourse, see Firth, 36871, 385; Davis,

316.


in a mode of exchange in which no reciprocation is specified, although allparties involved understand that it is expected.15 A successful transactionrests on a system linking obligation with status: to give increases ones status,whereas to be in debt diminishes it.16

Genevieve Warwick offers a model that tailors Mausss ideas to the gift-exchange of art objects among early modern aristocrats. The veil of gifting,she argues, served to ennoble transactions that would otherwise be baldlycommercial, and thus preserved the decorum of status. To exchange by gift,as opposed to by purchase, was therefore in itself a marker of status. Whileno price was specified or demanded, it was tacitly understood that giftsoperated within a system of exchange, rather than one of disinterestedphilanthropy. Benefits received in return might be both tangible money,another gift and intangible prestige, power, honor, status.17

The moneyed classes of the High Renaissance in Italy participatedwholeheartedly in the mechanisms, semiologies, and ideologies of giftexchange. They gave one another and their favored retainers medals,antiquities, clothing, musical instruments, verse, even people; they gavetheir communities decorated churches, chapels, hospitals, and orphanages;they received as gifts paintings, drawings, books, and compositions. Asintangible gifts, they received service, loyalty, honor, and favor.18 It wasimmensely important, both to their noble status and to the social aspirationsof their suppliers, that the offering be configured as a gift; but the offeringwas never disinterested. The gift of a musical instrument or compositionmight be reciprocated with a gift of funds, or of board and lodging; the giftof service by the gift of a commercial privilege or ecclesiastical benefice; thegift of a medal by the gift of a verse.

A wedding was an obvious arena for the operations of a gift culture: inChristiane Klapisch-Zubers words, the wedding in Renaissance Italy was

15Mauss, 13.16Ibid., 11.17Warwick, 63032.18It would be superfluous, not to say ill advised, to attempt a bibliography of such

exchanges in the High Renaissance. A glance through the literature on any obvious

subject for instance, Isabella dEste (see recently S. Campbell) with an eye to the giftwould instantly confirm my assertions. The subject of musical gifts in particular has beenrecently broadly considered in Wegman. Examples of music manuscripts configured as gifts

include the Casanatense chansonnier, perhaps associated with Isabella dEstes betrothal orwedding (see Lockwood, 1984, 22426) and the Newberry partbooks, perhaps a gift of thelate 1520s from the Florentines to Henry VIII (see Slim, 1:1640, 10516). Other examples

are given in Wegman, 429, 43233; Blackburn, 1996.


a structure of exchanges founded on gift and countergift.19 Mostcharacteristically, such exchanges focused on the dowry and trousseau, ongifts made by friends and relatives to the affianced, and on gifts made by thegroom to his bride, particularly gifts of clothing and jewelry. While thesewere certainly involved in the 1518 match, we find also copiously attesteda further, less-paradigmatic exchange: Leo X and Lorenzo arranged for a largecargo of gifts to be sent to Francis I and other members of the French royalfamily.20 In the context of a marriage intended to cement foreign relations,such gifts are easily (and justifiably) passed off as diplomatic, but it is worthasking where they fit within the social mechanics of exchange, and why inparticular they were required. Leo X, one imagines, expected nothing tangiblein return, but it is unlikely that they were mere gestures of goodwill. In view ofthe considerable social gap between the Medici and the French monarchy, itmay well be that these collateral wedding gifts were intended to fulfill anobligation placed upon the pope by Francis Is gift of Madeleine herself.21

The gifts sent to France in connection with Lorenzos wedding establishan enlightening context for the Codex, and they are worth describing insome detail. Throughout 1518, the painter Raphael was kept busy in Romeon a catalogue of commissions from Leo X and Lorenzo destined for thecourt of France.22 In the correspondence between Duke Alfonso I of Ferrara(14761534), another client of Raphael, and his agents in Rome, the duke isfed a string of excuses for the lack of progress on his own commissions thatallows us to see, in part, the sequence of Raphaels work for France.23 Furtherevidence is supplied by the correspondence between Duke Lorenzos

19Klapisch-Zuber, 224. On marriage gifts in Renaissance Italy, see ibid., 21346; see

also Bestor; and (on sixteenth-century France) Davis, 4448.20On some of the gifts associated with the events of 1518, but intentionally overlooked

in the present study, see Stephens, 10506.21On the use of marriage to effect Medici social elevation, see ibid., 9598, 10507.22A summary of these commissions and their political context is in Shearman, 1987a,

20911. Further interesting comments on Lorenzos preparations for his marriage can be

found in Sherman, 2003, 1:31617.23The correspondence between Alfonso and his Roman agents in touch with Raphael in

this period is published in Shearman, 2003, 1:177 (document 1514/13), 19091 (1514/10),19596 (1514/1213), 28388 (1517/56, 910), 29697 (1517/1718), 304 (1517/23),

306 (1517/26), 30912 (1517/29, 3133), 31518 (1518/13), 32627 (1518/1415), 330(1518/19), 33233 (1518/24), 34344 (1518/40), 36162 (1518/58), 37180 (1518/6674,76), 38688 (1519/2, 4), 39297 (1519/912), 43843 (1519/1617, 19, 2122), 44649

(1519/2627, 29), 45253 (1519/3233), 46061 (1519/4243), 463 (1519/45), 47273(1519/4950), 47679 (1519/5254), 48184 (1519/5659), 55355 (1520/12), 56062(1520/79), 578 (1520/18), 58687 (1520/25), 58996 (1520/29, 3132, 3436, 3840),

599 (1520/43), 608 (1520/50), 61314 (1520/5556), 67172 (1521/5).


secretary Goro Gheri and his contacts at the papal court in Rome, throughwhich we get some idea of the planning involved, masterminded by the popehimself.24 On 27 January 1518, Alfonsos agent in Rome informed him thatDuke Lorenzo was in the city to order the drapes and presents to make toMadame the bride, and to organize transport to France for various materialgifts.25 According to the report of Cardinal Giulio, Duke Lorenzo was inRome again from 27 February to 5 March to solicit and resolve manythings with [Leo X], pertaining to his journey [to France].26

In fulfillment of matrimonial tradition, Raphaels first task was to painta portrait of Lorenzo de Medici to be sent to Madeleine; the portrait wasin progress in late January (when Alfonsos agent reported in code onpreparations for the marriage), and sent on 13 February, having first beeninspected by both Cardinal Giulio and Leo X.27 A portrait in a privatecollection is identified by some scholars with this painting, and it is significantthat in it Lorenzo is dressed in contemporary French style. The format of thisportrait has itself been traced to French precedents; presumably such tacticswere adopted (admittedly, by the already-Francophile Medici) to make sureLorenzos image made the best impression possible at the French court.28

By 1 March, when he again made excuses to Alfonso, Raphael hadseveral new portraits and other projects in progress for the pope and this

24Shearman, 1987a, 22729 (documents 1723); Shearman, 2003, 1:31923(documents 1518/5, 810), 3378 (1518/31), 345 (1518/42), 3623 (1518/59) (here arealso to be found further letters not included in Shearmans earlier study).

25Shearman, 1987a, 227 (document 16); Shearman, 2003, 1:318 (1518/3): BeltrandoCostabili in Rome writes to Alfonso dEste that Duke Lorenzo is in Rome principalmenteper ordinare le cose sue, et la famiglia per landata de Francia, et per ordinare li drapi et

presenti da fare a Madama la sposa: Perche, per essere mandato il man.to, lo anello, et cio chefa bisogno, et ancho el ritrato, se tene pur el matrimonio habij a seguire, et per qual offertase voglia incontrario, non se habij ad impedire. Costabilis information was out of date, as

Lorenzo had left Rome for Florence on 20 January: Shearman, 1987a, n7.26Shearman, 1987a, 210, 220n9 (Cardinal Giulio de Medici to Amboise, 28 February

1518): Lorenzo e` venuto per sollicitare et resolvere molte cose con N.S., che occorrono per

la partita sua.27Ibid., 210. The relevant letter to Alfonso, from Costabili and dated 22 January 1518,

is published in Shearman, 2003, 1:31617 (document 1518/2). Letters between Mediciagents reporting the inspection of the picture and its actual departure are published in

Shearman, 1987a, 22728 (documents 1720); with extra documentation in Shearman,2003, 1:31923 (documents 1518/510).

28On the portrait, its attribution to Raphael, and its French style, see Oberhuber,

1971b, esp. 44043. Ibid. provides a color reproduction of the portrait, as well as severaldetails. On the inescapably political subtext to the espousal of national fashions in the HighRenaissance, see Newton, 43, 13244. For another sixteenth-century example of the

diplomatic use of national dress in a portrait, see L. Campbell, 205.


Duke [Lorenzo], linked by John Shearman with the conference of Leo X,Lorenzo, and Cardinal Giulio begun on 27 February in Rome. Chief amongthese new distractions was a Saint Michael, life-sized, to be given to theMost Christian King [i.e., of France], a painting still known today (fig. 3);but Shearman also connects the Holy Family (fig. 4) and the Saint Margaret(fig. 5) with this phase of activity.29 Francis I was the head of the Order ofSaint Michael, instituted in 1469 by Louis XI the orders badge shows thesaint in a pose closely resembling that adopted by Raphael. The Holy Familymay have been intended specifically for Queen Claude, and the SaintMargaret for Margaret of Valois, Francis Is sister.30

Lorenzo left for France on 22 March. Presumably by that time the othergifts for whose transport arrangements had been made in January werealready on their way, and later played a ceremonial role in the marriagecelebrations. Raphaels consignment of pictures lagged behind, andunderstandably: we learn from Goro Gheris correspondence that on 7May Raphael was ready to send these pictures and that they will make tenor more crates.31 Presumably among the gifts were the Saint Michael, HolyFamily, and Saint Margaret, but these would not have filled ten crates,and several more paintings or other objects of which nothing is nowknown must have been sent. In May the plan was to send them by sea tomeet Lorenzo in France, but, in the interests of safety and after a delay, theywere eventually dispatched by land on 2 June in seven or nine crates.32

Lorenzo and Madeleine remained in France for about three months aftertheir wedding, which took place on 2 May, and presumably the hope was forLorenzo to present the gifts to Francis I in person, as part of the ongoingfestivities. The couple were in Lyons on 28 July, and must have left Franceshortly afterwards, as they arrived at Florence on 25 August; but the

29Shearman, 1987a, 210; Shearman, 2003, 1:32627 (document 1518/14) (from

Costabili to Alfonso, dated 1 March 1518): S. Michaele grande come el naturalle perdonare al Chr.mo Re. Vasari, 4:365, confirms that this picture, among others, was made tobe sent to France: He made to be sent to France many pictures; and particularly for the

king, Saint Michael, who combats the devil; held to be a marvellous thing.30On these three paintings, see Oberhuber, 1999, 20304, 206, 21860 (esp. 21821);

Goffen, 274. Shearman, 2003, 1:34344 (1518/40), appears to confirm that the Holy Familywas meant for the queen.

31Shearman, 1987a, 210, 228 (document 21); Shearman, 2003, 1:33738 (document1518/31) (from Baldassare Turini to Goro Gheri, 7 May 1518): Raphaello da Urbino midice hara presto expedito quelle picture et che saranno x. some o meglio.

32Shearman, 1987a, 210, 228 (document 22); Shearman, 2003, 1:345 (document1518/42 (Turini to Gheri, 1 June 1518): Li quadri che ha facti Raphaello da Urbino si sonoassettati bene et per mano di Raphaello di Vitale si rimeranno domane che saranno some da

vij in viiij.


paintings did not reach the French court until around 10 August, and sowere instead presented to the king by the papal legate Bernardo Bibbiena.33

The distribution thus effected of Roman gifts among the Frenchdynasty was overly profuse, indeed, suspiciously so. In other instances ofnuptial over-giving, usually documented on the part of the groom, themotivation appears to be a kind of social paranoia brought on by a sense thatthe brides family is doing him a favor, in terms of social status.34 ApparentlyLeo X harbored a similar paranoia with respect to Madeleine and Francis I,

FIGURE 3. Raphael Sanzio. Saint Michael, 1518. Paris, Louvre. Photo: Giraudon /The Bridgeman Art Library.

33Bibbiena reported the event on 10 August: see Shearman, 1987a, 210, 228 (document23); Shearman, 2003, 1:36263 (document 1518/59). Another painting was given to

Francis I by Bibbiena as his own personal gift: Shearman, 1987a, 210.34See Bestor, 67; Klapisch-Zuber, 24146. Competition is also an established function

of gift exchange, with the winner the most generous enjoying an enhancement of

status: see Davis, 4; Mauss, 18, 25, 28.


FIGURE 4. Raphael Sanzio. Holy Family, 1518. Paris, Louvre. Photo: TheBridgeman Art Library.


FIGURE 5. Raphael Sanzio and Giulio Romano. Saint Margaret, 1518. Paris,Louvre. Photo: RMN / Droits reserves.


and found it necessary to exercise his ennobling liberalitas as much asa means of closing the social gap as to pay off his debt.35

The Medici Codex shares several aspects with these gifts. The paintingsSaint Michael, Holy Family, and Saint Margaret treat potentially liturgicalsubjects, but as it seems (at least in the case of the Saint Michael ) that theywere destined from the start to be gifts for secular rulers, there is no reason tosuppose that Raphael and the pope had a specific liturgical setting in mind.When the painting is mentioned in the Rome-Ferrara correspondence and byVasari, it is as a Saint Michael for Francis I, not as an altarpiece, and no altaris connected with it. Presumably their value as gifts was still religious, but theycarried their religion as secular objects of beauty, evidencing and servicinga religious sensibility that had more to do with the symbolic, totemic, andintercessory power of saints than with liturgical observance.

In this respect, I suggest, they make a direct parallel, both in terms ofsymbolic potential and of eventual function, with the motets of the MediciCodex, many of which set texts that are compounds or developments ofstandard liturgical and biblical texts. The Codex was prepared as a gift fora secular prince from a pope who was certainly familiar with the use ofmotets as secular objects of beauty and as vehicles for rhetoric. Though thereis plenty of evidence for the discretionary use of motets as an adjunct tothe liturgy in the Renaissance some of the motets in the Codex wouldhave lent themselves to such employment I think it is a fair guessthat Lorenzos daily mass, when heard at court, would have taken placeon a scale too small to require or admit them.36 His chapel at court inFlorence, where he lived even as Duke of Urbino, may well have beentoo small to comfortably accommodate a choir, and an elaborate servicewould probably have been neither necessary nor desirable on a daily basis.37

The repertoire of the Medici Codex could have found a use at theFlorentine religious institutions that fell under Medici control, but this

35Firth, 38485: In the stimulus to provide a counter-gift, two main themes may beinvolved . . . the theme of recoupment, of compensating the original donor for his loss . . . thetheme of re-assertion, of establishing the original recipient once more on a level of equality.

Both have material expression, but the latter can more easily assume a symbolic significance,and as such neglect equivalence in favour of over-compensation.

36A consideration of the evidence for the liturgical, secular, and paraliturgical use of

motets in sixteenth-century Rome can be found in Cummings, 1981.37By way of comparison, Ercole I dEstes habit of hearing a lengthy sung Mass every

day was considered unusual, and tried the patience of his courtiers, disrupting the normal

schedule of meals: see Lockwood, 1984, 13536.


would not explain the manuscripts significance as a personal gift.38 Itseems likely, therefore, that, irrespective of their original purpose, whenoffered to Lorenzo as a gift the motets of the Medici Codex were largelyintended to serve purposes that were in part devotional and in part forentertainment.39 While it may be that even a wealthy commoner wouldhave lacked the necessary musical resources and instruction to use complexpolyphony in this way, Lorenzo was both a Medici and a duke, and it wastherefore in some sense his duty to do so.40

Besides motets that are manifestly political in their significance, severalof the texts present in the Codex can be understood in terms of colloquialreligious devotion as or more readily than in terms of specific liturgicalcontexts. What we might call portrait-motets such as Jean de La Fages(fl. 151830) Elisabeth Zachariae (no. 13), describing the role of SaintJohn the Baptist, and Adrian Willaerts (ca. 14901562) Beatus Joannes(no. 24), giving a summary biography of Saint John the Evangelist areobvious examples.41 The cult of Mary was strong enough in the Renaissanceto support enormous private interest, as evidenced by her powerful presencein Books of Hours, and for this the Medici Codex, in common with othermusic sources, supplies considerable ammunition, involving texts some ofwhich can only be called paraliturgical.42 Several motets in the Codex setBible passages that self-evidently had a life outside of the liturgy, and that insome cases participated in the popular religious practices of the age. For

38On Medici influence at the Duomo and Baptistry of Florence, as well as specificevidence on the use of polyphonic music at those institutions, see DAccone. On thepossibility that the motets preserved in the Medici Codex found their way into the repertoire

of the large Florentine institutions, see Cummings, 1983, 275, 28182, and the inventory ofthe manuscript Florence BN II. I. 232 at 30627.

39Wexler gives a generally contrary view of the motets, linking them to contemporary

Roman liturgical practice.40Nonetheless, it is difficult to envisage specific situations in which this might have

taken place. On Lorenzos music patronage, for which specific information survives only for

the years 151517, see Sherr, 1985, 630. On the duty of a Medici to patronize musicmagnificently, see the exchange of letters between Cardinal Giulio and Lorenzo published inSherr, 1985, 628, 634n8, 634n11, 635n12.

41See the Appendix below for a numbered list of motets in the Medici Codex. In this

article, I refer to motets by name, followed by a number in parentheses that corresponds tothe numbering in the Appendix. This numbering follows the order in which the motetsappear in the manuscript, which is not the same as the order in which they appear in the

manuscripts tavola.42A study of the Marian cult in relation to music focused on the Te Matrem, a setting

of which can be found in the Medici Codex can be found in Blackburn, 1967. The

subject is further developed in Blackburn, 1997 and 1999.


instance, included is a setting of the preface of the Gospel of John by Boyleau(no. 2), the text of which also served in the Renaissance as a talisman, hungby some around the neck to ward off misfortune.43

This equivalence offers us a starting point in describing the Codexaccording to the anthropological mechanics of the gift. Warwick notes that forseventeenth-century art collectors the ennobling power of an art gift wasimproved if the object was severed from its conventional functionality: its lossof economic and practical value was balanced by a consequent gain insemiotic power.44 For all their colloquial spiritual resonances, it is difficult tosee the altarpieces sent by Leo X to secular patrons in France in any other thanthese terms. The gift-value of the paraliturgical (sometimes even aliturgical)motets of the Codex lay partly in a similar re-allegorization: their religioussignificances were turned to, and intertwined with, secular symbolic ends.

4. T H E C O D E X A S A P O R T R A I T ? R A P H A E L S L E O XA N D T H E G I V I N G O F T H E G I F T

The Codex offered by Leo X to Lorenzo is easily configured in terms ofstatus and exchange, quite apart from its obvious commemorative value. Itconferred dignity and status upon its donor by the bare fact of its donation;it conferred dignity and status upon its recipient because of its richness andbecause of the status of the giver. However, its mechanisms in this respect areconsiderably more subtle than this bald summary would suggest, and bearmore detailed investigation.

One further painting-gift ordered by Leo X from Raphael is closelyassociated with the marriage, but, unlike the others, it never left Italy. Thepainting in question is the portrait of Leo X with Cardinals Giulio de Mediciand Luigi de Rossi (fig. 6), in which the pope appears with two cardinal-relatives, both close collaborators in his rule.45 Giulio de Medici was Leo Xscousin and Archbishop of Florence and Narbonne; Luigi de Rossi (1471/741519) was his nephew, and a familiar close enough to reside in the papalapartment.46 Setting this portrait closely alongside the Codex will help usin two respects: in understanding the relationship between the gift and its

43Minnich, 1025.44Warwick, 633.45A concise bibliography of this much-discussed painting includes Oberhuber, 1971a;

Beck; Jones and Penny; Sherr, 1983; Cox-Rearick; Davidson; Jungic; Shearman, 1992; DelSerra et al.; di Teodoro; Nesselrath; Reiss; Minnich; Woods-Marsden. For a fuller list, seeMinnich, 100510, who gives a very good summary of previous literature and arguments.

46Minnich, 101518, who gives further bibliography.


donor, Leo X; and in contextualizing the moment of donation, itself animportant performance.

Surprisingly good evidence survives that details the role of Raphaelsportrait in the circumstances surrounding the wedding. At the beginningof September 1518 we find an agent in Rome organizing for the transport

FIGURE 6. Raphael Sanzio. Leo X with Cardinals Giulio de Medici and Luigi deRossi, 151718. Florence, Uffizi. Photo: The Bridgeman Art Library.


of a portrait of Leo X presumably that by Raphael to Florence; hewas working on behalf of Goro Gheri, who in turn was acting forLorenzo.47 A letter of 1 September reports that the painting will be sentthe following morning, but that it was not possible to send it by horse andwould take at least four days.48 Another letter, dated 2 September, was sentwith the couriers of the painting, detailing the payments that the recipientshould make to the bearers: it is noted that the price is a high one, but theagent explains that he wanted to ensure the painting arrived on time.49

The attendant circumstances suggest a likely occasion.As soon as news arrived on 18 August that Lorenzo and Madeleine had

reached Lombardy on their journey home, the dukes mother AlfonsinaOrsini de Medici began making plans with the city government forfestivities to mark their entry into Florence.50 News reached Rome, andseveral members of the papal court, including Cardinal Luigi de Rossi but not Leo X left to attend the celebrations.51 On 25 August thenewlyweds arrived at the Medici country villa of Cafaggiolo, to the north ofFlorence, where Madeleine stayed receiving visitors while Lorenzo proceededto the city, presumably to supervise the preparation of the festivities. On 4September the plans were nearing completion, and Madeleine moved to theMedici villa of Poggio a Caiano, which was decorated like a paradise.52 On

47These letters are published in Sherr, 1983; Shearman, 2003, 1:36466 (documents1518/6162).

48Sherr, 1983, 3132; Shearman, 2003, 1:36465 (document 1518/61) (Benedetto

Buondelmonti in Rome to Goro Gheri in Florence, 1 September 1518): Concerning thepainting, tomorrow morning it will be on the road and will arrive as quickly as possible,although it will take no less than four days, but there was no other way [to transport it], as

Your Lordship will see when you see it in the flesh, as to send it by horse in the manner YourLordship specified was not possible.

49Sherr, 1983, 31; Shearman, 2003, 1:366 (document 1518/62) (Buondelmonti to

Gheri, 2 September 1518): The carrier of the present [letter] will be Luigi, boy of Raffaellodi Vitale, by whom I send the painting wherein is portrayed Our Lordship. To this Luigi youshould ensure that twelve large gold ducats are given. . . . I have perhaps been too generous,

but . . . it didnt seem to me helpful to quibble over four ducats since it will be on time andthat is what is desired.

50A detailed account of this festive episode in the life of Florence, on which my briefsynopsis is based, is given in Cummings, 1992, 99114.

51Ibid., 10102.52Ibid., 102, n6, translating part of a report of these events written by the chronicler

Cerretani in MS Florence, BNC, II.IV. 19, fol. 50v: adornamente come dun paradiso. The

villa at Poggio a Caiano was the subject of a rebuilding campaign led by Alfonsina, begun in1515/16. The project stalled in 1517, but was revived in 1518 with funds from the pope whileLorenzo was in France, presumably with a view to preparing it for Madeleines arrival; it had

been suggested that Lorenzo give the villa to Madeleine as a present. See Reiss, 13537.


7 September she made her grand entrance into the city of Florence,instigating five days of celebrations of which several records survive.53

One account of the events of 8 September, a letter written by Alfonsinato Lorenzos chancellor Giovanni da Poppi, offers a rather striking detail:And at sunset, they went inside [the Palazzo Medici] to rest a bit and at onehalf-hour past sunset began the performance of a comedy. . . . The comedyhaving been finished and they having rested a bit inside, all the youngwomen from this morning went to dinner and the duchess with them andafter dinner we didnt wish to dance. I have to tell you that the duke had theportrait of his Holiness and the Most Reverend Monsignori de Medici andRossi placed above the middle of the table where the duchess and othergentlemen and ladies were eating, and it truly brightened everything up.54

Given that, as we have seen, urgent arrangements were made for theportraits transport seven days earlier by Lorenzos secretary (at a time whenLorenzo himself was in Florence supervising preparations) and that Lorenzois himself credited with ordering the display of the portrait, it seems likelythat this was his intention from the outset.

A few months earlier, Lorenzo, Cardinal Giulio, and Leo X had putconsiderable thought into the planning of the journey to France and theircontribution to celebrations there. It seems reasonable to assume that, overthe period 25 August to 4 September, Lorenzo, Alfonsina, and theircollaborators put similar thought into planning the entry into Florence asa symbolic act.55 In the earlier phase, as one would expect, the mastermindwas apparently the pope, and it seems highly likely that he also had someinput into the design of the Tuscan festivities. The letters concerning thetransport of his portrait carry the implication that it was completed ina hurry, and its genesis may date, like the preparations of Alfonsina and thecity government in Florence, from the news that Lorenzo and Madeleine

53These records are synthesized in Cummings, 1992, 99114.54Ibid., 103; ibid., n10: Et alle XXIIII se ne entrorono nelle camere a riposarsi un poco, et

a una meza hora di nocte se comincio` la comedia . . . Finita la comedia et riposatesi alquanto incamera andorono a tavola tucte le fanciulle di questa mactina, et la Duchessa con loro et dopo cena

non habbiamo voluto che si balli. . . . Hovvi a dire che la Picture di N. S. et Monsignorreverendissimo de Medici, et Rossi, el Duca la fece mectere sopra la tavola, dove mangiava laDuchessa et li altri signori, in mezo, che veramente rallegrava ogni cosa. For another sixteenth--

century example of a portrait exhibited at a festival, see L. Campbell, 183. For several furtherRenaissance examples of portraits standing in for their sitters, including at dinner, see ibid., 22025.

55Reiss, 137, very plausibly suggests that Alfonsina was involved in the commissioning

of the portrait.


were in Lombardy. Perhaps the use to which it was eventually put was in thepopes mind from the outset, and in displaying it at dinner Lorenzo wasmerely following his instructions. As Richard Sherr has suggested, knowingthat he would not be present in person, Leo X may have wished instead topopulate the event with his symbolic presence.56 Certainly the arrangementwould have served to prompt and perhaps even oppress the revellers withthe knowledge that Leo X was the architect of their happiness and success.

Though the letters concerning the portraits transport appear to implythat it had been only just finished, it is not generally accepted that thepainting was begun specifically for the feast.57 However, it has been suggestedthat the portraits of the two cardinals, which lack underdrawing, were addedto the portrait as an afterthought.58 In light of the implication of the lettersthat the painting was only just finished on 1 September 1518, NelsonMinnich proposes a two-stage solution: a portrait of Leo X made somemonths earlier, directly equivalent to Raphaels earlier Julius II andSebastiano del Piombos later Clement VII, was altered in the last weeks ofAugust to include the two cardinals, and then immediately sent to Florence.59

In other words, the addition of the cardinals was designed specifically toprepare the painting for its function at the feast.

While it is known that Leo X and Cardinal Giulio were absent from theFlorentine festivities, Cardinal Luigi de Rossi was present. Luigi left Romefor Florence only on 4 September, but the impending arrival of Lorenzo andMadeleine was known in Florence by 18 August, and the post betweenFlorence and Rome was very quick; Luigis role in the festivities was verylikely planned in advance. News could easily have reached the papal court

56Sherr, 1983, 32. See the famous assertion by Alberti, 61, that through portraiture the

absent [are made] present; and, anticipating the argument that is to follow, AngeloDecembrio describing a portrait of a beautiful maiden in Baxandall, 32526: nothing, itseems, is lacking in it but her voice.

57For example, Woods-Marsden, 132, argues that it was painted in winter 151718because Leo Xs clothing is appropriate to winter. This point is also made in Minnich, 1014,with further bibliography.

58Opinion on the representation of the cardinals, resulting from a recent technical

examination of the painting, is summarized by Minnich, 1014, 1014n30, with furtherreferences. Ibid., 101112, also mentions the possibility that the monumental architecturalbackdrop that frames the two cardinals was added only when they were. The interpretation

of the technical examination is contentious: Woods-Marsden, 132, rejects the idea that theportrait was planned without the cardinals on the grounds that there is too much space in thepicture without them.

59Minnich, 102930.


in time to make the changes to the painting before sending it north.60 DuringMadeleines entrata on 7 September, she was flanked in procession byCardinal Luigi and Cardinal Innocenzo Cibo, Leo Xs nephew, anarrangement that seems loosely to mirror that of the portrait.61 Alfonsinasletter carries the implication that at the feast Leo X was displayed directlyabove Madeleine; thus, if the arrangement for the procession was preserved atthe feast, Cardinal Luigis real and symbolic presences would have beenbrought into alignment. This concordance was perhaps intended to invokea continuum between the Medici group portrait of Madeleine, Lorenzo,Luigi, and Innocenzo, visible in the procession and at the feast, and thatof Leo X, Giulio, and Luigi, visible in the painting, thereby effecting atheatrical blurring of presence and absence to afford the present, flesh-and-blood Medici symbolic power and the absent, painted Medici totemic reality.62

Raphaels portrait shares much with the Medici Codex both in characterand in detail, in particular with respect to the symbolic relationship itunfolds with its subject, Leo X, and his dynasty. It has been observed byLowinsky and subsequent writers on the Codex that the choice of motetstherein closely matches Leo Xs own, relatively well-documented, musicaltaste.63 The Codex has several motets in common with manuscripts preparedat the Cappella Sistina and the Cappella Giulia during Leo Xs reign, andalso with the first two motet books printed by Andrea Antico, who certainlyworked under some form of papal patronage.64 Five of the composers

60The images of the two cardinals are far simpler in design than those of Leo X and his

attributes. By way of comparison, we hear on 22 January that Lorenzo has ordered hissumptuous portrait from Raphael Shearman, 2003, 1:31617 (document 1518/2) thenews was probably just a few days old; we are informed that it was certainly finished by

3 February: ibid., 1:31920 (document 1518/5). Ibid., 1:317, suggests that GianfrancescoPenni executed Lorenzos portrait to Raphaels design; the efficient workshop practicesestablished by Raphael to help him keep on top of his many commissions are frequently

noted: see, in brief, Hall, 4, 89; Talvacchia, 2005.61On Luigis departure from Rome and role in the procession, see Cummings, 1992,

10102, and n5.62This interpretation was suggested to me by Anthony Cummings, to whom thanks are

due for permission to use and develop it.63Lowinsky, 1968, 3:33; Perkins, 1969b, 263; Sparks, 1972, 327; Lockwood, 1979,

24344; Staehelin, 57879; Sherr, 1985, 633.64The manuscripts Cappella Sistina 26, Cappella Sistina 46, and Cappella Giulia XII/2

have in total seven concordances with the Medici Codex. On them, see Dean, 1984. AnticosMotetti libro primo (Rome, 15 May 1518) and Motetti novi libro secondo (Venice, 30November 1520) share between them thirteen concordances with the Medici Codex. Onthese publications, see Picker, 1977 and 1987. It should also be noted that the hands of thescribes that copied the Codex have been identified in manuscripts copied for the Cappella

Sistina: see Rifkin, 1973, 30609; Dean, 1984, 11051.


represented worked at some point directly for Leo X, and several othersprobably came into contact with him.65 For these reasons, it might be usefulto configure the Codex as another portrait of Leo X.

Further similarities inhabit the marginal details. The real and paintedMedici group portraits brought into surprising coordination at that feast of8 September find an interesting counterpart in the group of hierarchizedheraldic escutcheons shown at the foot of the first opening of music in theCodex, representing Leo X, Cardinal Giulio, Duke Lorenzo, and Madeleine-Lorenzo. This communal, or perhaps rather dynastic, aspect of the paintedportrait is even partly reflected in the contents of the Codex, which sharesseveral motets with a set of manuscript partbooks prepared for Cardinal Giulioaround the same time.66 Medici devices are also shared between the decorationof the opening motet and the bell on the table before the pope in his paintedportrait; the Bible from which Leo X has been reading has his coat of arms ina decorative panel at the lower border, like the first motet in the Codex.

The most potent connection, however, is veiled by the Codexs finalarrangement. The first motet in the manuscript appears in its own single-sheet gathering, the musical staves of which have been specially ruled toallow space for extra-large initials at the beginning of the work. Theseinitials were supplied by an artist, probably Attavante degli Attavanti, whowas not otherwise involved in the manuscripts production.67 However, thesecond motet of the collection, which appears at the beginning of a four-sheet gathering, also has space left at the beginning for extra-large initials,which has been filled by one of the main scribes of the manuscript withmismatched and ungainly ink letters (fig. 7). Sherr has suggested veryplausibly that this second motet was once meant to begin the Codex.68 It has

65The composers who worked for Leo X are Andreas de Silva (Lowinsky, 1968, 3:39,53, 61, 6566, 76, 7980, 10406, 11415, 123, 14142, 167, 17071, 17576, 20513,

21719, 232; Sherr, 1987), Bruhier (Lockwood, 1979), Jacotin (Nugent), Costanzo Festa(Lowinsky, 1968, 3:28, 39, 4143, 46, 5254, 59, 6163, 66, 78, 80, 11415, 118, 120,123, 13541, 167, 22829, 23132; Crawford; Lowinsky, 1977), La Fage (Lockwood,

1979, esp. 22224), and possibly Lheritier (Perkins, 1969a). Composers who might havecome into contact with Leo X are Willaert and Mouton, for whom see Lockwood, 1979; andJohannes Brunet, for whom see Dean, 1993.

66On the music manuscript for Cardinal Giulio, Rome, Pal. Lat. 198081, see

Lowinsky, 1968, 3:6165; Cummings, 1991, 7579. On the basis of the lists of concordantsources in Lowinsky, 1968, 3:123236, five motets are held in common between the MediciCodex and Pal. Lat. 198081; by way of comparison, eight motets are held in common

between the Codex and contemporary Sistine sources, CS 16, 26, 42, 46: on these, see Dean,1984.

67Lowinsky, 1968, 3:1516.68Sherr, 1985, 63233.


a characteristic that would have made it an obvious choice for that position: itsets the first sixteen verses of the Gospel of John, beginning with In principioerat verbum and reflecting the (suggested) position of the work at thebeginning of the collection.69 In the painted portrait, Leo X has been readingfrom a Bible open at precisely this text, the prelude to Johns Gospel.

In this passage, written by one Saint John, mention is made of the birthand prophecy of another, Saint John the Baptist. Scholars have noted thesymbolic power of an association with these two important saints for Leo X,whose birth name was Giovanni, and for Florence, whose patron saintwas John the Baptist.70 Minnich lists evidence for a particular connection ofLeo X with John the Baptist even before he became pope, and mentions thatthe prologue to Johns Gospel was a part of the liturgy for Christmas Dayas practiced at the papal court in the early sixteenth century, during which

FIGURE 7. Medici Codex. Boyleau, In principio erat Verbum, first opening.Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Ms. Acq. e Doni 666, fols. 4v5r.Photo: GAP s.r.l., Rome.

69A work setting this text is also used to begin the nearly contemporary manuscript

London RC2037.70Davidson, 1213; Sherr, 1985, 63233; Cummings, 1992, 67; Shearman, 1992,

12829; Del Serra et al., 199; di Teodoro, 64; Nesselrath, 442; Minnich, 1008, 102226;

Tacconi, 349, 351.


it was sung by the pope himself.71 Contemporary accounts of Leo XsFlorentine entrata of 1515 show the earlier festive use of these connections:on Leo Xs route, at the junction of Via Tornabuoni and Via Porta Rossa,a temporary stucture (one of many) claimed in an inscription that Florencelay under the protection of two Lions the marzocco and Leo X and twoJohns John the Baptist and Giovanni de Medici.72 The text was selectedfor the beginning of the Medici Codex and for Raphaels portrait becauseof its associations with the name and the voice of Leo X, and serves, alongwith other cues, to identify both as portraits of the pope.

While unfamiliar, the idea of a manuscript of motets as a portrait does notrequire us to step far outside the conventions of contemporary portraiture.The sitter would most often be depicted with an attribute illustrative of theirprofession, position, or interests: a soldier with armor, a scholar with a book,a musician with notated music. In some cases the material existence of a rulercould be subsumed entirely within the personality of a symbolic avatar Ercole I dEste as Hercules, for example. In the case of the Codex we have onlyto admit that, to some extent, the attribute has come to stand in for the person.There can be little doubt that contemporary and later observers numberedmusic among Leo Xs defining attributes indeed, sometimes to his cost, asevidence of his inappropriate taste for luxury.73 For instance, in a strikingmetamorphosis, a later sixteenth-century copy of Raphaels portrait took therevealing step of replacing Leo Xs Bible with a music manuscript.74 Leo Xeven had a history of encoding political and dynastic messages into a musicalcontext, as with the lavish decorations of the chant manuscripts of the Duomoof Florence, examined recently by Marica Tacconi in terms of the Mediciidentities constructed around the familys return from exile in 1512.75

The comparison with the portrait idiom offers some important clues asto how to read the relationship between the Codex and its donor. One thingportraits never aim at, or at least never achieve, is objective reproduction.In the course of an inspired reframing of the Renaissance portrait, PatriciaSimons makes the point with particular clarity: Portraiture is a fictive,rhetorical device. Characters display themselves in theatrical masks, or dondisguises.76 The portrait is thus revealed as a tool in the now-familiar business

71Minnich, 102426.72Shearman, 1975, 140.73Dean, 1997, 62324.74The copy was made in 1584 by Lodovico Buti: see Beck, 12930.75Tacconi.76Simons, 268. Though her study is primarily concerned with portraits of women, her

introduction, ibid., 26377, offers a valuable up-to-date discussion of portraits more generally.


of self-fashioning, the more-or-less-strategic construction and presentation ofidentities within an explicitly or implicitly public arena.77 The Frenchness ofRaphaels portrait of Lorenzo was not out of character for the Medici during LeoXs pontificate, but given the circumstances of its production it can hardly bedoubted that it accomplished diplomatic aims: it constructed Lorenzo in a waythat presented him most favorably to his French bride and her family. Similarly,it is well established that Leo X had a taste for French music, but it is only asa deliberate strategy of self-presentation that we can fully explain the presence inthe Codex of a large number of composers perhaps ten who can beassociated, either directly or indirectly, with the French royal chapels.78

How might a portrait make a gift? The answer, from the perspective ofgift theory, is very well indeed. The nature of a gift, according to thetraditional formulation, is that it is inalienable, that is, it exists ina continuity of essence with its donor, and derives its significance from itsirrevocable and continuing connection with that donor.79 A portrait is a kindof ultimate inalienable possession: a portrait as a gift is a thing that turns itsexplicit inalienability into the object of the donation. In effect it is a gift ofthe constructed self, which in our cases painted and musical adds up tothe gift of strategic and visible-audible legitimation.

With Alfonsinas account of the performative donation of the paintedportrait in mind, we can attempt a similar theory and understanding of themusical portraits donation. The eventual opening work is a prayer to SaintMargaret, patron saint of pregnancy. Presuming that Madeleines pregnancyfollowed an average term, a calculation from the date of birth of Lorenzo andMadeleines daughter Caterina, 14 April 1519, suggests that Madeleinebecame pregnant in mid-July 1518, before the couple had left France.80 Hadthat been the case, and even allowing a margin of error to account for the

77On portraiture and self-fashioning, see ibid., 26777, which gives a brief bibliography

of self-fashioning at n2: the locus classicus is, of course, Greenblatt.78The biographies of most of the composers in the Codex are partly or substantially

incomplete. Given the mechanics of Renaissance patronage, it is also sometimes difficult to

establish the nature and strength of a musicians relationship with a musical center. On thespecific composers involved, see n10 above.

79For example, see Firth, 372: The basic element of a gift is an outgoing from the self ;see also ibid., 37475, 37778. Cf. Mauss, 1316. For a critique of Mausss (and subsequent

Maussian) conceptions of alienability and inalienability, see Bestor, 1024.80Sherr, 1985, n49, hypothesizes a connection between Madeleines pregnancy and the

new opening motet if knowledge of Madeleines pregnancy circulated in Rome as early as

June of 1518. Nine months before Caterinas birth is 14 July 1518, and it may not havebeen noticed immediately. Although it is possible that Madeleine had a long pregnancy, itseems unlikely that news was in Rome in June; however, I do not see this as a problem in

establishing a connection.


uncertainty surrounding the date of conception, it seems possible that shebecame aware of her pregnancy as they traveled slowly through Italy. Given theconsiderable symbolic, personal, and practical importance of this early success,it seems likely that it was communicated to Florence and Rome as soon as itwas known. Here is an event of sufficient moment for Leo X and the Medici totake priority over pious self-aggrandizement, and it seems reasonable toidentify this news as the prompt for the change of opening motet. In thisscenario, the Medici Codex could not have been completed until August1518, by which time the couple were well on their way home. The implicationis logical enough: the Codex, like Raphaels portrait, was given to the coupleupon their return to Florence. Perhaps, like the Raphael, it served a purposeduring the Florentine festivities, or was intended to divulge its symbolic andmusical messages specifically at the banquet on 8 September.

This latter suggestion, while impossible to prove, is at least entirely plau-sible. Leo X and other contemporary rulers are known to have had motets andother music performed frequently during or after dinner. Several instances in-volving Leo X have been described in print, and his example (rather thanLorenzos) is clearly the most relevant one in postulating the use of this gift at thepoint of its donation.81 Evidence for Lorenzos musical resources is limited andin some respects misleading, but he seems to have had three singers on hispermanent staff in the years immediately before his marriage, and very likely hadaccess to musicians employed by the civic authorities of Florence, the Duomo,and the Baptistery.82 As mentioned above, the celebrations begun on 7 Septemberwere organized in collaboration with the civic government, and it is on preciselythis kind of occasion that musical resources would have been shared.83

It is therefore not out of the question, and perhaps even likely, thatmusical entertainments were staged at, or immediately after, the banqueton 8 September. Given the considerable attention apparently devoted by

81The list of documented examples is long, and includes Lockwood, 1985, 100;Shearman, 2003, 1:24750 (document 1516/14); Cummings, 1981, 4546n6; Lockwood,

1976, 121n57; Blackburn, 1992, 56. See also Tomasello, 45357, 46869; Cummings,1981, 4546, with copious documentation, given largely in his n5. Paolo Cortese discussesmusic specifically as an after-dinner activity in his De cardinalatu: see the facsimile andtranslation of the relevant passage given in Pirrotta, 14755. Music was a pervasive part of

Medici festivities more generally, on which see Cummings, 1992. Finally, on two anonymouschansons that seem to mark the wedding of Lorenzo and Madeleine and may have beencomposed to be sung in similar circumstances during the celebrations in France, see Seay.

82Sherr, 1985.83By way of comparison, the payments to singers who participated in Leo Xs 1515

entrata were recorded in an account book of the Otto di Pratica, and the instrumentalistsinvolved on this occasion were probably those of the Signoria: see Cummings, 1992, 70.


Lorenzo and his collaborators to the symbolic and political weight of theoccasion, it is reasonable to suppose that such entertainments would havebeen carefully designed, and it is possible that Leo X could have envisagedthe motets in the Codex being used in this way, even if in the end they werenot. In any case, the Florentine festivities to mark Lorenzo and Madeleinesreturn lasted for several days, and several further opportunities for theirperformance must have presented themselves.

It is certainly attractive to suppose that the motets, several of which seemto have been carefully chosen for their close resonances with the occasion,were intended partly as an immediate gift of music, rather than saving theirpertinence for the future, that is, that the manuscript was truly occasional, aneloquent object. Such a donation would have been strongly consonant withthe manuscripts gift-aspect. As I have already described, it is the giving ofa gift as much as its material reality that carries its power; to fail to make themost of the moment of its donation would be to completely misunderstandits nature, as well as to go against contemporary practice.84 It would alsoentail an inexplicable veiling of the compound nature of the gift.

5. T H E CO D E X A D D R E S S I N G I T S A U D I E N C E

The gift of the Codex was not simply the gift of an object, but the gift ofits contents as well. The donation was therefore incomplete without aperformance, and at least the initial performance of the motets, in whatevercontext, would certainly have been undertaken under the auspices of theCodexs gift-aspect. I have noted above that it is in their severance fromliturgical function, and, further, in the appropriation of sacred music asa secular gift, that the motets semiotic potential or, rather, their potentialto suggest allegorical associations with the Codexs attendant circumstances is especially enhanced. Raymond Firth has argued that the symbolic powerof a gift extends beyond the mechanics of status discussed by Mauss,embracing fully the particular contingencies of a particular donation.85

Although (probably) all the works in the Codex were written with nonotion of their use in this particular manuscript collection, through thediscriminating act of selection the motets and their texts are admirably

84As well as the circumstances surrounding the donation of Raphaels portrait, it isworth bearing in mind that the presents sent to the French court were not sent to theirindividual recipients directly, but were sent to an agent, himself a man of considerable status

and importance, who could arrange appropriately ceremonial presentations to each of therelevant recipients. For an anthropological consideration of the integrity of the moment ofpresentation to the gift-concept, see Firth, 37581.

85Ibid., 368402, esp. 386.


adapted to convey such messages, many of which depart from the obviousand overarching theme of conventional piety.

I have already explained the contextual significance of the original firstmotet, Boyleaus In principio erat verbum (no. 2), setting a text alsoassociated with Leo X in his painted portrait.86 Like the Raphael at the feast,the presence of saintly Giovannis in the Codex, identifying it as a figurativeportrait of Leo X, was presumably a mark of the popes role in negotiatingand supervising the wedding and its preparations, representing and furtheringhis dynastic pretentions. The original second motet of the collection, MaistreJhans (ca. 14851538) Lauda, Jerusalem, Dominum (no. 3 [Psalm 147]),must also have been an obvious choice. Within its first few lines it coversseveral aspects of the situation of Lorenzo, including the new security of hispossession of Urbino, his marriage and the good foreign relations it secured,and the resulting celebrations:

Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem:praise thy God, O Sion.Because He hath strengthened the bolts of thy gates:He hath blessed thy children within thee.Who hath placed peace at thy borders:and filled thee with the fat of corn.

87

Maiste Jhans motet also makes a particularly successful pair with Inprincipio, as it goes on to describe the power of the word of God.

The extremely pertinent theme of peace is taken up again later in theCodex in a short motet by Jean Mouton (ca. 14591522) (no. 38): Yours isthe power, Yours the kingdom, Lord. You are above all nations. Give peacein our time, O Lord.88 And perhaps also in Erasmuss polytextual settingcombining (and editing) phrases from the liturgy of the Octave Day ofSaints Peter and Paul (no. 50):

The glorious princes of the earth, as they loved each other in life, thus also indeath they are not separated.

86Throughout this section I rely on the translations and identifications of the texts of theMedici Codex motets given in Lowinsky, 1968, 3:123236. He considers each motet in

order, and here I give the numbers by which he lists and identifies them.87Ibid., 3:126: Lauda, Jerusalem, Dominum / lauda Deum tuum, Sion; / quoniam

confortavit seras portarum tuarum; / benedixit filiis tuis in te. / Qui posuit fines tuos pacem /

et adipe frumenti satiat te. It is worth noting, in light of my interpretation of itssignificance, that this motet supplies the L of Laurentius in the acrostic.

88Ibid., 3:186: Tua es potentia, tuum regnum, Domine. Tu es super omnes gentes. Da

pacem, Domine, in diebus nostris.


Peter the Apostle and Paul the Doctor of the people, they taught us YourLaw, O Lord. Thus also in death they are not separated.

89

Here it is very tempting to read the glorious princes of the earth asa reference to Francis I and Leo X. Among all the motets of the Codex, thisone can most clearly be seen as a musical reflection of Leo Xs attempt toimplicate himself in the history and myth of the French monarchy, a questexemplified in the depiction of the Coronation of Charlemagne in the papalapartments, completed in 1517 by Raphael and assistants, which Vasariidentifies as Leo X consecrating Francis I with portraits from the life.90

Perhaps it constitutes a further attempt to address Leo Xs paranoia aboutstatus, asserting equivalence between the Medici and royal families throughthe proxy apotheosis of the papacy.

Leo X might also have interpreted Erasmuss motet in another way. Itstwo texts sung simultaneously one by three voices and the other by two,making a five-voice texture; one celebrating peace among secular rulers andthe other peace among sacred leaders might well have stood as symbolsfor Francis I and Leo X, respectively, whose new (symbolic) inseparability isamply conveyed through the contrapuntal interlocking of their respectivevoices. Saints Peter and Paul had always played an important role in theconfiguration of the papacy, and Leo Xs papacy was no exception: in theyears leading up to 1518, tapestries recording the saints deeds were inpreparation for the Sistine Chapel, the designs commissioned by Leo X fromRaphael. Such a view would explain the coming together of the voices at theend in the phrase thus also in death they are not separated, which

89Ibid., 3:229: Gloriosi principes terrae, quomodo in vita sua dilexerunt se, ita et inmorte non sunt separati. Petrus Apostolus, et Paulus Doctor gentium, ipsi nos docuerunt

legem tuam Domine. Ita et in morte non sunt separati. The Erasmus in question is not thefamous humanist, but a little-known composer called Erasmus Lapicida, who worked in thechapel of the Viennese court, dying there in 1547. On his identity and uvre see Lowinsky,

1968, 3:230; Weiss, with updated bibliography.90Vasari, 4:36061: There are in the others two scenes: when Pope Leo X consecrates

the Most Christian King Francis I of France. . . . In the other scene is made the coronation ofthe said king, in which is the pope and also Francis portrayed from the life, the one in armour

and the other in pontifical robes. On this fresco, see, recently, Oberhuber, 1999, 14567,esp. 14849 (with image); Rowland, esp. 11718; Talvacchia, 2007, 80103, esp. 103.Oberhuber, 1999, 14849, suggests that the scene should be understood as an allusion to the

meeting of Francis I and Leo X in Bologna in 1515. The decoration of the chant manuscriptsof the Florentine Duomo find Leo X once again attempting to implicate himself intohistorical personas and events, including the Florentine archbishop Saint Zenobius and the

Dedication of the Church: see Tacconi, esp. 34043.


Lowinsky considers to have been in contravention of the liturgical text andof plain sense.91

Besides In principio, the Codex contains several motets makingreference to one or another Saint John, or setting texts from Johns Gospel,in which the supervision and power of the pope might also have been felt.Josquin des Prezs (ca. 1450/551521) motet in five parts, O admirabilecommercium (no. 4), concludes with the antiphon: Behold, Mary hasgiven birth to our Savior! When John saw Him, he exclaimed, Behold theLamb of God; behold Him who takes away the sins of the world, alleluia.92

Costanzo Festas (ca. 1485/901545) Angelus ad pastores ait (no. 8) freelycombines Gospel elements, returning to the theme of the word:

The angel said to the shepherds: I bring you glad tidings: unto us is born theSavior of the world, alleluia.

The shepherds said one to another: Let us go to Bethlehem and see thisthing which the angel has made known to us.

And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the newbornChild. And they worshipped him, saying:

The Word was made fleshof the Virgin Mary.Unto us a child is bornof the Virgin Mary.In this time of year,Life is given to the people,Born in a mangerof the Virgin Mary.Alleluia.

93

91Lowinsky, 1968, 3:229; ibid., 230, instead connects the motet loosely with the deaths

of Louis XII and Anne of Brittany. Erasmus Lapicida worked ca. 151020 for thePrince-Elector of the Kurpfalz, who was not directly involved in the events that gave riseto the Medici Codex: see Weiss. However, and confusingly, the motet appears in no other

sources before 1534; of Erasmuss very few other surviving motets, one appears unicum in themanuscript Florence BN II.I.232, which Cummings, 1983, 26793, connects conclusivelywith Medici patronage at the same period.

92Lowinsky, 1968, 3:12930: Ecce Maria genuit nobis Salvatorem, quem Joannes

videns exclamavit, dicens: Ecce Agnus Dei, ece qui tollit peccata mundi, alleluia.93Ibid., 3:139: Angelus ad pastores ait: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: quia natus

est nobis Salvator mundi, alleluia. Pastores loquebantur ad invicem: Transeamus usque in

Bethlehem et videamus hoc verbum, quod annuntiatum fuit nobis angelo. Et veneruntfestinantes et invenerunt Mariam et Joseph et infantem natum. Et adoraverunt eum dicentes:Verbum caro factum est / de Virgine Maria. / Puer natus est nobis / de Virgine Maria. / In

hoc anni circulo, / Vita datur populo, / Natus in praesepio / de Virgine Maria. / Alleluia.


A free combination of elements from the liturgy for the Feast of Saint Johnthe Baptist produces a text in praise of the saint set by La Fage (no. 13):

Elizabeth, the wife of Zachary, gave birth to a great man, John the Baptist,the precursor of the Lord. There was a man, one sent by God, whose name wasJohn, to bear witness concerning the light. Saint John, pray for us.

Among those born of women there has not risen a greater than John the Baptistwho prepared a way for the Lord in the desert. John is his name. He shall drink nowine or strong drink, and many will rejoice at his birth. Saint John, pray for us.

94

Among the various elements of this text is a sentence based on a famouspassage, John 1:67: There was a man sent from God, whose name wasJohn. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all menthrough him might believe. This passage was subject in 1489 to a ratherstartling paraphrase that marked the appointment of Giovanni de Medicias cardinal. In the dedication of Ficinos translation of Iamblichuss DeMysteriis appears the eulogy: There is a man of Florence sent by God whosename is John, born of the heroic stock of the Medici. This man has come fortestimony that he might bear witness about the greatest authority among usof his father, the magnanimous Lorenzo.95

La Fages motet finds an almost exact parallel in a text that draws on theliturgy of the Feast of Saint John the Evangelist to constitute a briefbiography of the other Saint John, set by Willaert (no. 24):

Blessed John, Apostle and Evangelist, was called from the wedding and he,a virgin, was selected by the Lord and loved more than the others. Very highlywe must venerate him; for during the Last Supper he reclined on the breast ofthe Lord.

He it is who having drunk in the streams of the Gospel from their very source, theLords sacred breast, like unto one of the paradisiac streams, he diffused the grace ofthe divine word over all the world. Saint John, pray the Lord for us. Amen.

96

94Ibid., 3:147: Elisabeth Zachariae magnum virum genuit, Joannes Baptistam,

praecursorem Domini. Fuit homo missus a Deo, cui nomen erat Joannes, ut testimoniumperhiberet de lumine. Sancte Joannes, ora pro nobis. Inter natos mulierum non surrexitmaior Joanne Baptista, qui viam Domino praeparavit in eremo. Joannes est nomen eius:vinum et siceram non bibet, et in nativitate eius multi gaudebunt. Sancte Joannes, ora pro

nobis.95Minnich, 102425.96Lowinsky, 1968, 3:163: Beatus Joannes, Apostolus et Evangelista, de nuptiis vocatus,

et virgo electus a Domino, atque inter ceretos magis dilectus. Valde honorandus est, quisupra pectus Domini in coena recubuit. Ipse est, qui Evangelii fluenta de ipso sacroDominici pectoris fonte cum potasset, quasi unus de paradisi fluminibus verbi Dei gratiam

in toto terrarum orbe diffudit. Sancte Joannes, ora pro nobis Dominum. Amen.


Here we encounter highly fortuitous references to a wedding and a banquet,as well as others to drinking that provide a convenient reflection of referencesin the La Fage. Finally, Saint Johns intercession is called for in passing in ananonymous setting based on the Litanies for Rogation Days, Virgo, DeiGenetrix (no. 31).97

The motets symbolic potential is further increased by the contemporarycircumstances of musical circulation. Rob Wegman has recentlydemonstrated that Renaissance musical works made their way aroundEurope within a gift economy that exhibited basically Maussiancharacteristics.98 Ownership of a work could only be achieved throughthe sufferance of a previous owner, be it musician, agent, or patron,whose gift was motivated by the hope of reciprocal gain: status, favor,trust, influence, or a return gift.99 Thus, while the manuscript was itselfa gift from one patron to another, its existence relied on a complexhistory of gifts: each motet in the Codex entered papal music circlesbecause a previous owner thought it might benefit them to place it there.Some may even have arrived there with a view to their inclusion in theCodex, the larger gift becoming the motivator of the smaller gift. Theidentity of the Codexs motets in Medici circles was thus tied (at leastpotentially) to the circumstances of their gift, circumstances thatrequired notice and reciprocation at some level of the establishment,whether in money, employment, favor, or the more subtle ends ofdiplomacy.

Included in the Codex is a large number of works by Jean Mouton, theleading composer at the French court. Also present are several motetstangibly celebratory of the French monarchy: Moutons Domine, salvumfac regem (no. 20), a prayer for a king certainly the King of France;Pierre Moulus Fiere attropos (no. 43), which mourns a French queen,most likely Anne of Brittany; Costanzo Festas Super flumina Babylonis(no. 49), which Lowinsky connects with the death of Louis XII; andMoulus Mater floreat (no. 17), in which musicians, many of whom wereassociated with the French and papal courts, are exhorted to join in praise of

97Ibid., 3:27, for similar comments on the symbolic potential of a few further works in

the Codex, including two on amorous texts from the Song of Songs and one recounting thestory of the Wedding at Cana.

98See Wegman, whose analysis is concerned almost entirely with gifts made by

musicians to patrons, thus making it difficult to relate his conclusions directly to the giftof the Codex as a whole.

99Ibid., 433: Who owned the music? Everybody did at least, everybody who was

willing to make copies for others.


the French king and queen.100 Most striking in its privileging of the praise ofFrance above papal dignity is the motet written by Mouton in celebrationof the French victory at Marignano, Exalta regina Galliae (no. 18).101 It isquite plausible that some or all of the French occasional motets all ofwhich appear in few or no other sources came into Roman hands duringthe peace summit between Leo X and Francis I in Bologna in 1515. Bothparties had their choirs in attendance, and the gathering of repertoire forItalian patrons at the occasion is specifically documented (though thepatrons in question were Ferrarese).102 Leo X rewarded three French singerswith ecclesiastical preferments at the meeting, and one might imagine thathe received gifts of music in return.103

Though I presume Lorenzo to be the primary recipient of the Codex, itseems unlikely that these messages, emphasizing peace, equality of statusbetween France and Rome, and political and cultural Francophilia, shouldhave been directed primarily at him. We have here what amounts to a map ofLeo Xs strategy of self-presentation, but for whose benefit? Alfonsinathought it important to note Madeleines spatial relationship with RaphaelsLeo X, with its careful construction of the popes identity. Similarly, thestrategic Francophilia of Raphaels Lorenzo was aimed at her. I suggest that,notwithstanding the acrostic and many other allusions to Lorenzo, much ofthe symbolic message of the Codex was also aimed at her, whether it was firstaired in performance during the festivities or on some subsequent occasion.No doubt it was expected that she, and members of her household, wouldreport to the French court on the quality and kind of her reception inItaly.104 Through this mechanism, though the Codex was given to the couplein Florence, the motets can be seen to work alongside the paintings orderedby Leo X from Raphael and sent directly to France: they were furtherrecompense for the gift of Madeleine, this time refracted through the brideherself.105

100Lowinsky, 1968, 3:6875, discusses these occasional motets.101Ibid., 3:7273.102An extensive discussion of the meeting and its musical implications is in Lockwood,

1979, 191217, 23446.103Cummings, 1983, 281. Richafort was granted a benefice, and Longueval and

Mouton were named protonotaries Apostolic. Ibid., 276, suggests that Moutons motet Perlignum salvi was also acquired by the pope at that time.

104Madeleines French entourage consisted of six maids of honor and a few gentlemen:Cummings, 1992, 102.

105On the role of women as ritual vehicles for the exchange of wedding gifts, see

Klapisch-Zuber, esp. 23141.


Perhaps it was hoped that Madeleine and her entourage would recognizesome of the several motets in the Codex by Mouton. Certainly they wouldappreciate the texts celebrating recent events from a French perspective.Probably they would understand the gift exchanges that had brought someof the music in the Codex to Leo Xs court. Madeleine would no doubt alsohave been touched by various references of personal significance: I havealready noted the connection between Madeleines pregnancy and the (new)opening motet in praise of Saint Margaret; a further work (no. 25) sings thepraise of Saint Barbara, whose characteristic symbol was, conveniently,a tower (de la Tour dAuvergne); and with parents named Jean and Jeanneshe could have taken the multiple mentions of Saint John as a doublereference to Leo X and to her own dynasty.106 A motet by Pierrequin deTherache (no. 12) setting words from the Sequence for Epiphany may alsohave resonated with her situation, declaring that she, the welcomed, /Rendered fruitful, soon concieved . . . Whose newborn child / The magipraise with gifts.107 Finally, the last motet of the collection (no. 53) mayhave been chosen for that position because of its brief but eloquentinvocation of the tower: Be unto us, Lord, a tower of strength in the faceof the enemy.108

6. F A S H I O N I N G L O R E N Z O

Between the giving of a musical portrait of Leo X to his nephew Lorenzo,and the direction of its symbolic messages toward Madeleine, there lies a gapthat requires explanation. Similarly, the mechanics of the gift who wasgiving what, in return for what, or returned by what still lack final clarity.Here we can turn one last time to the Codexs gift-context for help.

Though some roughly contemporary papal portraits were meant forsacred settings, Vasari reports that Raphaels Leo X with Cardinals waseventually hung above a door in the Palazzo Medici in Florence.109

106My thanks are due to RQ s anonymous reader, who brought several of theseconnections to my attention.

107[S]alutata / Mox concepit foecundata . . . Cujus Magi tribus donis. The Medicicultivated an association with the magi, and held the feast of the Epiphany in particular

regard: Tacconi, 352.108Esto nobis, Domine, turris fortudinis a facie inimici. Lowinsky, 1968, 3:235, also

associates this motet with Madeleine.109Minnich, 1026; Vasari, 4:353: and this picture is still to be found in Florence in the

guardaroba of the duke; ibid., 5:41: Federico II, Duke of Mantua . . . saw above a door inthe house of the Medici that portrait of pope Leo in the middle with cardinal Giulio de

Medici and cardinal de Rossi, that the most excellent Raphael of Urbino had made.


Following the departure of Lorenzo for Lombardy to fight the French in thesummer of 1515, Alfonsina Orsini de Medici, widow of Piero di Lorenzode Medici and mother of Lorenzo, acted for some four years as the de factoruler of Florence.110 Minnich notes that at the time of the 1518 celebrationsAlfonsina enjoyed the full libera administrazione (free administration) ofPalazzo Medici, granted to her by the senior living member of the Medicifamily, Pope Leo X.111

By this time, the Palazzo Medici had effectively overtaken the PalazzoVecchio, seat of the civic authorities, as the locus of power and govern-ment in the city. A clear picture of the daily operation of this power isoffered by a letter of Filippo Strozzi, Alfonsinas son-in-law, to DukeLorenzo in Lombardy, written in August 1515: Madonna Alfonsina isalways busy writing to Rome [presumably to Leo X or Giulio] or to [you]over there [in Lombardy], or giving an audience; consequently the houseis always full; and such numbers of visitors have brought the regimerespect, encouraged friends, and made enemies afraid.112 The papalportrait would thus have found a large audience in the regular flow ofFlorentines through the palace.113 Perhaps it was intended by Leo X toremind both leading citizens and Alfonsina that she held the PalazzoMedici and Florence in Leo Xs name. As such, it could have beendesigned to help combat Florentine unrest at the idea of pseudo-despoticrule by a foreigner who was from the Neapolitan Orsini and a woman,made very plain in a satirical poster campaign mounted to coincide withLeo Xs triumphal entry into Florence in November 1515: Liberty is lostafter this Florence; a woman of the Orsini blood is your sole ruler!114 Ineffect, the portrait added Leo Xs self-presentation to Alfonsinas identityas a ruler: it offered to the Florentines a strategically revised image of theirleader. As Patricia Simons notes, Portraits themselves performativelyshape their world.115

The Codex aims at something similar. A clue is found in the dedicatorypoem found facing the acrostic-style table of contents:

110For a discussion of her rule, see Tomas. Though Lorenzo was to be Duke of Urbino,as the senior secular member of the Medici family he acted as ruler of Florence, treating the

city as his home.111Minnich, 1026.112Tomas, 78, which gives no transcription, but cites one from Tommasini, 2:2.977n1.113The assumption of Minnich, 1042, that the portraits display in the Palazzo Medici

removed it from public view, is clearly mistaken.114Tomas, 8182. For an account of the entrata, see Cummings, 1992, 6782.115Simons, 265.


Go, my book, hurry faster than the fastest wind.Under a lucky star speed to the lucky prince:He will receive you with happy hands

Documents

Shepard-The Medici Codex as a Gift