It was important to Vasari, and to his patron, Duke Cosimo de' Medici, that the process of the rebirth of the arts should begin with one Florentine and reach perfection with Michelangelo, another Florentine. He claimed, therefore, in his Life of Cimabue that Cimabue was from a noble Florentine family ( Vasari, Le Vite, Testo II.35), and he attributed to Cimabue both the panel of St. Francis in the Bardi Chapel of the church of Santa Croce in Florence ( Vasari, Le Vite, Testo II.37) and the Rucellai Madonna in Santa Maria Novella ( Vasari, Le Vite, Testo II.40). Neither attribution is now accepted. The Saint Francis panel is attributed to an anonymous master of the second quarter of the thirteenth century. The Rucellai Madonna is now generally agreed to be the work of Duccio (active 1278 - 1318?). Duccio, however, was Sienese and did not fit Vasari's scheme.
Cimabue, according to Vasari 's account was apprenticed to Greek painters working in Florence. He soon surpassed his Greek masters in design and colouring, because they had 'little interest in making any progress' ( Vasari, Le Vite, Testo II.36). Unlike the Greeks of the Byzantine schools, he did not merely follow 'convention', but was helped by his observation of nature. Draperies he made more 'natural' and lifelike', and he made the portrait of St. Francis (1181-1226) 'from nature' which was a 'novelty at that time'; Vasari's chronology is impossible but necessary for his scheme.
Cimabue's skills he was said to have passed on to his pupil, Giotto, and the pupil surpassed the master. On this Vasari, Le Vite, Testo II.43, quoted Dante ( Purgatorio XI 94-96). Dante referred to Cimabue as a painter who had once 'held the field' but whose fame was eclipsed by Giotto. For Dante this was evidence that worldly fame is fickle. For Vasari it was evidence of progress towards the perfection of Michelangelo - and the perfection of Florence under the rule of Duke Cosimo de' Medici. Vasari in Preface to Part Two of the Lives asserted that these early painters did not deserve praise except in relation to the 'character of the times' in which they were working, and that when judged according to the 'perfect rule of art' their works do not deserve glory ( Vasari, Le Vite, Testo III.13; see also Vasari on Giotto, and compare Ruskin on Cimabue).