Rosso\u2019s reception as a canon of Sainte Chapelle in Paris.<\/p>\n
The document recording this reception has not been found (the Registres Capitulaires of Sainte Chapelle – LL 625 and 626 – give nothing on this subject).\u00a0 Roy, 1920, 84 (1929, 150), referred to Rosso as a \u201cchanoine de la Sainte-Chapelle, en exercice depuis le 14 ao\u00fbt 1532, date de sa r\u00e9ception,\u201d but he gave no documentary evidence for this fact.\u00a0 That Rosso was a canon of Sainte Chapelle is indicated in a document of November 20, 1540 (DOC.43<\/a>) that states that six days after his death the collegiale assembly of Sainte Chapelle of Paris agreed to celebrate a trible obit for him, \u201cchanoine de c\u00e9ans.\u201d\u00a0 In documents of May 26, 1541 (DOC.48<\/a>) and June 11, 1541 (DOC.50<\/a>) the deceased Rosso is referred to as \u201cchanoine [chanoyne] de la Saincte Chapelle et de N. D. de Paris.\u201d\u00a0 Then on March 1, 1544 (DOC.55<\/a>), Scibec de Carpi declared that Rosso was a \u201cchanoine de la Sainte Chappelle du Pallais et de Notre Dame de Paris.\u201d\u00a0 The second canonicate mentioned here was obtained by Rosso in 1537 (see DOCS.31-34).\u00a0 Vasari, 1550 (II, ed. Ricci, 250), stated \u201cgli [Rosso] don\u00f2 [Francis I] un canonicato della Santa cappella della Madonna di Parigi,\u201d repeating it \u2013 \u201conde non passo molto, gli diede…\u201d \u2014 in 1568 (II, 210; Vasari-Milanesi, V, 169), apparently conflating Rosso\u2019s two canonicates (although the placement of this passage, especially in the second edition, after the king had seen much of Rosso\u2019s work, including the Gallery of Francis I, suggests the canonicate primarily indicated here may be the one at Notre Dame).1<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0 The canonicate at Sainte Chapelle would have been given to Rosso by the king because of the chapel\u2019s royal status.\u00a0 Rosso\u2019s Paris house was in the enclosure of the palace (assise dedans l\u2019enclos dud. Pallais [DOC.55<\/a>]).<\/p>\n Although Roy did not give a source for his information, the date he gave is so specific that it has generally been assumed that he had documentary proof for it that has not again been located.\u00a0 Hence it has been accepted by Venturi, IX, 5, 1932, 197; by Giesey, 1960, 39; and by Grodecki, 1975, 100, among others.\u00a0 It is mentioned in Carroll, 1987, 30, 35, n. 90.\u00a0 Well before Roy\u2019s publication, Pfnor (1889, 150) noted that \u201cil eut un canonicat de la Sainte-Chapelle,\u201d without, however mentioning any date, nor giving any source for this fact.<\/p>\n