Inscribing the Architect: The Depiction of the Attributes of the Architect in Frontispieces to Sixteenth Century Italian Architectural Treatises.

Desley Luscombe

Thesis submitted for award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2004 Inscribing the Architect: The Depiction of the Attributes of the Architect in Frontispieces to Sixteenth Century Italian Architectural Treatises.

Desley Luscombe Abstract This study investigates the changing understanding of the role of the ‘architect’ in Italy during the sixteenth century by examining frontispieces to published architectural treatises. From analysis of these illustrations four attributes emerge as important to new societal understandings of the role of ‘architect.’ The first attribute is the desire to delineate the boundaries of knowledge for as a discipline, relevant to sixteenth-century society. The second is the depiction of the ‘architect,’ as an intellectual engaged in the resolution of practical, political, economic and philosophical considerations of his practice. The third represents the ‘architect’ having a specific domain of activity in the design of civic spaces of magnificence not only for patrons but also for the city per se. The fourth represents the ‘architect’ and society as perceiving a commonality of an architectural role beyond the boundary of individual locations and patrons.

Five treatises meet the criteria set for this study: ’s Regole generali di architetura sopra le Cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Toscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, 1537, his, Il Terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, 1540, Cosimo Bartoli’s translation of Alberti’s titled L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cossimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, 1550; Daniele Barbaro’s translation and commentary on ’ De’architetura titled, I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, 1556; and ’s I quattro libri dell’architettura, 1570.

A second aim for the study was to review the usefulness of frontispieces as an historical archive. It was found that frontispieces visually structure important ideas by providing a narrative with meaning as an integral part of the illustration. In this narrative frontispiece illustrations prioritise concepts found in the accompanying text and impose a hierarchical structure of importance for fundamental ideas. Acknowledgements:

A work such as this relies to a great extent on the help, advice and criticism of those collaborating in the development of thoughts and arguments. Firstly I would like to thank Dr. Flavia Marcello for her help with many of the translations from Italian and Latin in this thesis. Her work with Professor Martha Fattori encouraged me to tangle with languages outside of my own. I would also like to thank my supervisors Professors John Gascoigne and Martyn Lyons of the School of History at the University of New South Wales who guided and encouraged my thesis. Equally I would like to thank Phyllis Lambert and the librarians and staff from the Canadian Centre for Architecture including, Nicholas Olsberg, Gerald Beasley, Mario Carpo and Francoise Roux who were always available for comment, help with translation, encouragement and insightful directions to original texts. Lastly I would like to thank those scholars who heard my thoughts, read my text and were encouraged by the difficulty of my topic to give guidance. These include Myra Nan Rosenfeld, Christof Thoenes, Branko Mitrovi, Alberto Pérez Gómez, Christy Anderson and Marco Frascari. Without their help this project would not have succeeded. In the end no project can happen without the loving support of family and friends as well. My husband Leo Campbell and children Catherine and Edward gave me the time and support to write and travel, my mother Ivy Luscombe gave enormous encouragement, debate and editing skills, my friend Jeff Mueller freely gave of his encouragement and support with questioning my readings of the illustrations and Pamela Adamson facilitated my trips to Canada by offering accommodation. Inscribing the Architect: The Depiction of the Attributes of the Architect in Frontispieces to Sixteenth Century Italian Architectural Treatises.

Desley Luscombe

Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Contents iii

Introduction 1

0.1 Introducing the notion of ‘change’ in attributes of the ‘architect’ 1 0.1.1 Reappearance and transformations in application of the term ‘architect’ during the fifteenth century 2 0.1.2 Characteristics of the ‘architect’ in treatises of the late fifteenth century 5 0.2 Frontispieces as the source of data for this study 11 0.2.1 Defining the frontispiece 12 0.3 The structure of the report: the chapters 17 Chapter 1: Interpreting the ‘architect’ in the iconography of frontispieces. 25

1.1 Evidence used in presentation of recent historical interpretations of the role of the ‘architect’ in sixteenth-century Italy 26 1.2 Investigating the allegorical narrative of frontispieces 30 1.2.1 Development of conventions for understanding architectural frontispiece allegory 33 1.2.2 The sixteenth-century source of conventions in frontispiece images 36 1.2.3 Prior analyses of frontispieces 42 1.3 Section 2: The case study 44 1.3.1 Interpreting a visual allegory of the ‘architect’ 44 1.3.2 Reading an illustration with the ‘architect’ as the subject of allegorical representation 45 1.3.3 Describing the emblems and symbols of the allegorical representation 46 1.3.4 Analysing the emblems iconographically and establishing a narrative in the frontispiece 52 1.3.5 Analysing initial interpretations in the illustration’s historical context 56 1.4 Interpreting frontispieces – concluding comments on method 62

Chapter 2: The ‘Architect’ and the acquisition of the status of a professional class in the act of delineating their discipline: the frontispiece of Sebastiano Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura 7 6

2.1 Attribution of the frontispiece 78 2.2 Describing the frontispiece to Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura and analysing its component images 81 2.2.1 The classicised aedicule with pilastered columns and 83 2.2.2 The Herms and 89 2.2.3 The surround of bunches of picked fruit and flowers tied by ribbons and the of fruit and flowers on the pediment 96 2.2.4 The cartouche of classical fragments 98 2.2.5 The Greek meanders 102 2.3 Interpreting the portrayal of the ‘architect’ of sixteenth-century Italy in Serlio’s frontispiece 105 Chapter 3: The ‘Architect’ perceives architecture as the resolution of the ‘Natural’: Sebastian Serlio’s frontispiece to Book III, Il Terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma. 125

3.1 Investigating changes in Serlio’s context between 1537 and 1540 during the interval between the printing of Book IV and Book III 126 3.2 Describing the frontispiece to Serlio’s Il terzo libro and analysing its component Images 129 3.2.1 The Lemma 130 3.2.2 The classical portico setting 139 3.2.3 The perspectival construction of the colonnade 143 3.2.4 The collection of classical fragments 146 3.2.5 The allegorical figure of Architettura 151 3.2.6. The Inscription found on the classical fragments 156 3.3 Interpreting Serlio’s sixteenth-century ‘architect’ in the frontispiece to Il terzo libro and comparing this with his architect of Regole generali di architettura 158

Chapter 4: The ‘Architect’ representing a Court politics with his practice based on talent and intellect to conceive and direct his transformations of stone into architecture: the Frontispiece of L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, Cosimo Bartoli’s translation of L. B. Alberti’s De re aedificatoria. 171

4.1 Cosimo Bartoli, and the Medici court of : The glorification of the Tuscan 173 4.2 Describing the frontispiece to Bartoli’s L’Architettura and analysing its component images 177 4.2.1 The Tuscan aedicule and setting 180 4.2.2 The imprese and the allegorical figures on the pilasters 182 4.2.3 The allegorical figures on the pediment 189 4.2.4 The river god and emblems in the foreground and the Roma antica 195 4.3 Interpreting the allegorical narrative of the ‘architect’ in the Bartoli and Vasari frontispiece to L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti 198

Chapter 5: The term ‘architect’ as a social functionary in command of collectively understood structured intellectual processes: the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari. 212

5.1 Daniele Barbaro’s context during preparation of his Vitruvian Commentari 213 5.2 Description of the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari and analysing its component images 217 5.2.1 The triumphal arch of the frontispiece 221 5.2.2 The personifications 229 5.2.2.i The figures on the attic level 231 5.2.2.ii The figures in the niches 241 5.2.3 The central figure of Architettura 250 5.3 Interpreting the ‘architect’ in Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari 253

Chapter 6: The term ‘architect’ separating from notions of patronage and locale: the frontispiece to Andrea Palladio’s 1570 treatise I quattro libri dell’architettura. 277

6.1 The context for Palladio’s preparation of his books 278 6.2 Describing the frontispiece to Palladio’s I quattro libri and analysing its component images 284 6.2.1 The pedimental aedicule and its perspectival context 286 6.2.2 The two allegorical figures of the aedicule 291 6.2.3 The central figure of REGINA VIRTVS 302 6.2.4 The central maritime cartouche 308 6.3 Interpreting the ‘architect’ in Palladio’s I quattro libri 312

Chapter 7: Conclusion 330

7.1 Four distinctive attributes of the sixteenth-century ‘architect’ visually represented in selected frontispieces 330 7.1.1 The architect as ‘professional’: architects determining the distinctive boundaries and categories of knowledge of their profession 331 7.1.2 The architect as ‘intellectual’: the representation of the ‘architect’ depicted in frontispieces in allegorical images with supplementary values dialogically connected to one another 336 7.1.3 The ‘civic’ architect: represented in frontispieces as having a specific domain of activity in the design of civic spaces of magnificence not only for patrons but for the activities of the city 340 7.1.4 The ‘universal’ architect: the frontispiece’s portrayal of the ‘architect’s’ role as common to all ‘architects’ of sixteenth-century Italy – a role changing from having an attachment to a single patron and location to having a societal occupation with its own discipline 343 7.2 Review of the three aims of this study 345 7.2.1 Aim 1: to investigate the frontispieces and note which attributes of the architect or his practice were emphasised and to interpret whether this emphasis signified change specific to the sixteenth-century in Italy 346 7.2.2 Aim 2: to contribute to the history of the sixteenth-century Renaissance architect and his practice 347 7.2.3 Aim 3: to evaluate whether frontispieces are a unique source of data that can be read and interpreted in order to contribute to historical research 350

List of Illustrations 351 Bibliography 357 INTRODUCTION

This study aims to contribute to the scholarship of the history of the architectural discipline in the cultural and socio-political context of the sixteenth-century . It isolates and investigates attributes essential to the architect of that time that were portrayed visually in frontispieces to published architectural treatises. This was a time when both the role of the architect and the discipline of architecture were being discussed in the broader city-based reorganisations of societies. This introduction outlines the context of understandings of the term architect at the beginning of the sixteenth century in Italy. It summarises current scholarship on the passage of the term into more common usage and the specific values absorbed during the early Renaissance and it raises issues associated with using the frontispiece as a source of information. By so doing I aim to explain my interest in investigating the frontispiece for attributions of the Italian architect of this time. Clarifying the issues surrounding this study is essential to forming a framework for the broader questions of investigative method explained in Chapter One. The close of this introduction describes the sequencing of the chapters in the reporting of this study’s findings.

0.1 Introducing the notion of change in attributes of the architect Many twenty-first-century uses of the term architect or its equivalent have a commonality even though there is little understanding of how the social figure of the architect has become imbued with its range of specific values and roles. In the Anglo- American countries, issues of professionalism that developed during the nineteenth century assumed attributes for the architect that emerged from a long history of work practices in changing social settings. These attributes related to social values and status, the scope of accepted authority, and an ability to design buildings and document those designs. It is an aim of this study to investigate one of the issues of ‘professionalism’s’ emergence in architecture – to investigate changes in the attributes of the architect that indicate the emergence of architecture as a profession in a distinctive time and place. The social history of the architect underwent vital change in sixteenth-century Italy when the term, having re-emerged during the fifteenth century, became the subject of discussion by practitioners, patrons and humanist scholars. Propositions about application of the term at this time, built on the conceptualisation of the architect as interpreted from the late first-century BC text, of Vitruvius but were also influenced by the social practices and theoretical developments of Renaissance Italy. Change in the application of the term was also a concomitant of specific changes in the structure of work practices in individual cities as a consequence of the humanist focus on all aspects of the classical past. During its reintroduction in the Renaissance, the term architect increasingly became a term associated with particular attributes and social values, consequently enabling an understanding of meaning for the term by contemporary society in the Italian states.

0.1.1 Reappearance and transformations in application of the term architect during the fifteenth century The etymology of the term architect shows that with its re-appearance in fifteenth- century Italy there was a change from its Roman and Greek origins. Considering the anomaly between fifteenth-century writer’s concepts of the architect and what architects were actually doing, historian Richard Krautheimer asked, “After all, whom among all of his contemporaries would Messer Battista at the time of writing call an architect, except for Brunelleschi, who had died in 1446?”i Consistent with this evaluation Mary Hollingsworth concluded from her investigation of building records, that for fifteenth-century Florence there was no clear social occupation for designing architecture but there were some individuals calling themselves architects.ii In analysing influences on the use of the term architect in the fifteenth century, Nikolaus Pevsner suggested that meaning at this time developed from two primary sources.iii Firstly, St Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, had explained philosophy as ‘architectonicae . . . quasi principales artes’ bringing concepts of the architect and philosopher together. Aquinas also stated that “a philosopher is a man who knows how to arrange things in their proper order and therefore determine the goals of other secondary sciences,” a conceptualisation that later was to become implicit in the term architect.iv From this conflation of agendas between philosophy and architecture, Aquinas brought to the term the notion of a knowledge and ability for ordering and determining the goals of secondary sciences. Pevsner suggests that through his choice of terms, Aquinas tied the term architect to notions of “leading, governing and conducting.”v Joseph Rykwert has suggested that it was a reference to Aquinas’s understanding of the term architect that presents in his Proemio to De re aedificatoria.vi Renaissance humanist audiences and their writers most concerned with the nature of social order and the government of civic reform deemed the conceptual tie between the terms philosophy and architecture appropriate.vii The second derivation of meaning for the fifteenth century comes from the writing of the Dominican scholar John de Janua who saw the term ‘architector’ as describing a roofer and carpenter, a hands-on practical worker. Pevsner suggested that it was the wide use of John de Janua’s Catholicon, which led to the term architect being more commonly used by the time of Alberti in the mid-fifteenth century but that this particular re-emergence had a less significant societal role.viii Rykwert argued that it was clarification from this use of the term that was a most important issue for Alberti in his Proemio because of its low-status implications as a craft. The importance of the architect being recognised as having a high social status was indicated in his defence of the architect’s status in the opening statements of De re aedificatoria. This location was reserved by humanist scholars for presentation of the main propositions of their discourse and these were argued in detail later in the text or oration.ix Pevsner claims that although there were recurrences of the term ‘architectus’ in Medieval Italy, such as that appearing in the illuminated thirteenth-century manuscript Relatio Translationis Corpus Sancti Geminiani, he views these occurrences as exceptional. It was not until the mid-fifteenth century that the term was more commonly applied to persons actively involved in the design and erection of buildings. Liisa Kanerva has suggested that many individuals working in the manner of what is now understood by using the term architect were simply known through the name of their primary calling, trade or craft.x However, Mary Hollingsworth explains that to complicate matters further, during the fifteenth century the terms ‘capomaestro,’ ‘architetto del nostro lavoro,’ or ‘ingegniere/inzignerius’ were used to refer to individuals who worked in the manner of an architect, as was the office of protomaestro in .xi Kanerva specifically draws attention to the term magister lapidum as a master in stone, an individual, who although part of the Northern European traditions, was sometimes involved in building work in Italy. The magister lapidum was a term that signified an intellectual, one who was master over all the sciences of architecture, rather than a craftsman.xii In conclusion, whilst accepting that they may have practiced under differing titles, Hollingsworth found three specific attributes of those who worked in Florence as architects. Firstly, that they were paid in florins rather than lire assuring a status and economic stability gained through gold currency; secondly, they were paid monthly or annually rather than at a variable daily rate as craftsmen, assuring security; and thirdly, architects were paid at a rate that suggests each commission fulfilled only a portion of the time commitment of the individual designer so that each architect would require multiple commissions to gain economic stability.xiii

0.1.2 Characteristics of the architect in treatises of the late fifteenth century The sources for establishing attributes of the architect in the fifteenth century include printed treatises on architecture. Two new treatise editions are examined in this section. The first is Vitruvius’s De architectura edited and translated by Sulpicio da Veroli, and printed during 1486, and the second is Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria edited by Angelo Poliziano and printed in Latin during 1485.xiv Sulpicio da Veroli’s edition of Vitruvius followed manuscript copies of the family of the Harleianus 2767 (H) a ninth century manuscript now in the British Library.xv Johann Schneider’s analysis of Sulpicio’s edition, carried out in the early nineteenth century, concluded that the philologist must have used manuscripts including those of Vaticano MS 1563 and Biblioteca Corsini MS 784 deriving from Harleianus 2767.xvi Schneider suggests his edition “concords perfectly with the codices, with the exclusion of a few words.”xvii It was in the transformation from manuscript to printed text that Vitruvius became confirmed as the authority on the architect and architecture. This was a fundamental source of ancient authority for Renaissance Humanists convinced of deriving benefit from a return to classical origins of all knowledge. Sulpicio’s edition of Vitruvius respected the general themes of the text in its manuscript form, but in his new Latin edition he made changes so that the text was more relevant for fifteenth-century Italy.xviii One important change for current relevance was the transformation of Vitruvius’s characterisation of the architect by including attitudes evident in MS 784 Biblioteca Corsini’s versions of the text. By introducing these changes as part of a printed version of the text, Sulpicio re-enforced, for his Renaissance audience, the authority of Vitruvius while including values important for a Renaissance audience. In early manuscript copies of Vitruvius’s text no attempt was made to define the term architect but instead knowledge required by the architect was emphasised. The Harleianus 2767 manuscript had said, “The knowledge of the architect is ornamented/enriched by many disciplines and by a wide-ranging culture.xix It is born from the practice of the artxx and from reasoned thought (ratiocinatione).”xxi For this medieval version of Vitruvius, architecture originated as unformed matter “brought to by using the hands.”xxii In explanation of the theoretical components of architecture, the architect was expected to demonstrate and explain built form through logic. Here, in Harleianus 2767, the architect is concerned with his specific practices, the theoretical basis for their conceptualisation and the explanation of these as built and discursive forms. This notion is expressed differently in the fifteenth-century translation. In his discussion of the attributes of the architect, Sulpicio included the sentence “through his judgment he is able to verify those works which are brought to completion within the other Arts.”xxiii An important issue for fifteenth-century Renaissance audiences was this fundamental attribute of the architect: his ability to reason and judge what was appropriate to civic action and to represent this visually in his architecture. This added sentence gave a new dimension to Vitruvius’s architect and also suggested a different application of Vitruvius’s term, ‘Art.’ Whereas the earlier manuscript had an abstract concept ‘Art,’ Sulpicio changed this concept to a more contemporary understanding of arts and located architecture with other arts used in buildings, such as painting and sculpture. Furthermore, in the sentences that followed he linked ‘hand’ and ‘material’ and, by doing this, perfection became tied to practical replication based on experience, whereas, in the earlier manuscript, perfection was derived through resolution of individual designs with each design being conceived as a solution for a particular ‘problem.’ Leon Battista Alberti’s manuscript, De re aedificatoria substantially completed in the 1450s, was addressed to humanist rulers and recommended a return to ancient models of thought for the embellishment of civic life.xxiv By writing an array of treatises on family life and others on painting and sculpture, Alberti displayed his personal eloquence and presented himself as an authority in all aspects of court life.xxv He advocated restoration of the title architect from Roman antiquity in preference to any of the multitude of terms associated with current or medieval manual-crafts or building practices. In the Proemio, by separating the architect’s position from those of the craftsmen he directs Alberti’s treatise makes one clear pronouncement about the architect: But before I proceed further, it will not be improper to explain what he is that I allow to be an Architect: For it is not a Carpenter or a Joiner that I thus rank with the greatest Masters in other Sciences; the manual Operator being no more than an Instrument to the Architect. Him I call the Architect, who by sure and wonderful Art and Method, is able, both with Thought and Invention, to devise, and, with Execution, to complete all those Works, which, by means of the Movement of great Weights, and the Conjunction and Amassment of Bodies, can, with the greatest Beauty, be adapted to the Uses of Mankind: And to be able to do this, he must have a thorough Insight into the noblest and most curious Sciences. Such must be the Architect.xxvi

He further distinguished the architect’s mastery of science and his capacity for intellectual reasoning from other activities related to building construction. The location in the treatise of this initial description of the architect can be interpreted as reflecting a Ciceronian device that suggested that the compelling summary of the major argument and a persuasive appeal for the treatise’s full discussion should be the topic of the prologue and that the full discussion and argument should be located later in the text.xxvii Alberti explained that, in relation to the architect’s education, his proposition was different to that of Vitruvius’s. He set out his own case for the term architect and argued for the inclusion or exclusion of each of Vitruvius’ educational requirements. In Book IX. x., Alberti, following Vitruvian sentiments states, Of the arts the ones that are most useful, even vital, to the architect are painting and mathematics. I am not concerned whether he is versed in any others. I will not hear those who say that an architect ought to be an expert in law . . . . Nor do I demand that he should have an exact understanding of the stars . . . . Nor do I say he ought to be a musician . . . nor an orator . . . . For all this I would not expect him to be a Zeuxis in his painting, or a Nichomachus in arithmetic, or an Archimedes in geometry. Let it be enough . . . that he has sufficient knowledge of mathematics for the practical and considered application of angles, numbers, and lines such as that discussed under the topic of weights and the measurement of surfaces and bodies, which some call podismata and embata. If he combines enthusiasm and diligence with a knowledge of these arts, the architect will achieve favour, wealth, fame for posterity and glory.xxviii

Alberti also recognised that the architect had to derive an existence from patrons who were often not knowledgeable about architecture, and that it was mandatory that as architect he had to conform to the humanist understanding of the absolute and civic order in society.xxix These two pragmatic concerns for the architect meant that those who took part in architectural practice had to represent a civic order and decorum in an environment that was not always supportive of these values. It was through conformity to the requirement for an ethical stance based on notions of civic order, and the development of eloquence attaching intellectual to the term architect, that the architect was able to transform his lower status as craftsman to one of higher social status, at least in the conceptual sense of the term. The concept of the architect now had the vocation, with an associated social position from which architect-authors could work to construct the idea of a social functionary who could reorganise and restore the natural order of the cosmos in the civic realm of architectural space. The logic of this presentation of the architect as part of the social fabric of the city detached his work from its former status as a manual labour controlled by a guild system. After Alberti’s treatise, there were two other significant manuscripts written that included descriptions of the architect. These were the treatise of Antonio di Piero Averlino, known as Filarete, Trattato di Architettura written in between 1461 and 1464 and Francesco di Georgio’s treatise Trattati di architettura civile e militare written around 1477.xxx However, the increased accessibility that the advent of the printing of his treatise afforded Alberti’s status in Florence and aided the growth of discourse in the sixteenth century that used his text as a starting point to continue discussion on the architect. One of Vitruvius’s aims was to document the work of great architects of his immediate past, whereas Alberti’s aim was to idealise the social practice of architecture, transforming the role of the architect into an intellectual role of high social status and to resolve the lack of clarity in Vitruvius.xxxi In this context Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria had a didactic function and was tied to an oral transmission of architectural theory as a public, literary practice that defined the discipline of architecture to “lords, clergy and literati.”xxxii Alberti’s use of classical sources other than Vitruvius to pursue arguments, his writing of the text in the Latin language of the church and humanist scholars, and his recommendation for employing the ancient methods of building, although conditional, were also attitudes of a politically astute theoretician of the fifteenth century.xxxiii Instead of describing the education of the architect, a rhetorical move that would inevitably set him in specific dialogue with Vitruvius and could undermine the advantages, to humanists, of having Vitruvius as an authority from classical time, Alberti provided a series of conceptualisations of the architect and the social arena for Renaissance architectural practice based on his belief that debates concerning civic life, and specifically his context of the Florentine court, must centre on problems of the city and of architecture.xxxiv His arguments did include the appeal to classical precedent not as an archaeological source to be reproduced, but as a model which could be modified to conform to contemporary concerns of program, physical conditions of site, and political conditions of the city.xxxv In this representation he centred the architect as the intellectual who could develop appropriate architectural design. Alberti recognised that this re-conceptualisation of antique authority was vital because evidence from fragments, and the measurements and subsequent drawings of ancient did not support strict adherence to Vitruvius as the authority of the classical, an important precept of early Renaissance humanists. By the close of the fifteenth century in Italy these concepts had emerged as powerful issues but had had little impact on the working relations between patrons, building designers, and construction processes. It was during the sixteenth century that discourses concerning the architect began to clarify that changing working relations of the architect were integral to attitudes of professionalism in Italian society and governance of the city. Chapter 1 continues discussion of historical interpretations of the architect of the sixteenth-century Italian States through an examination of the types of evidence historians have used to present ideas about changes to an understanding of the roles and values of the architect of that time.

0.2 Frontispieces as the source material for this study This study examines the frontispieces of architectural treatises for visual representations of change in the role and status of the architect in Italy during the sixteenth-century. The fifteenth and sixteenth-century humanist program dedicated to the revival of the classical origins of knowledge and the different social practices of the Italian humanist situation introduced new meanings to the term architect and the practices of architecture. The introduction of printed books at this time provided an opportunity to convey these new meanings to a wider audience. However, many individuals of this wider audience lacked familiarity with reading and lacked the development of the skills essential to comprehension of meaning in text, more traditionally conveyed visually and/or orally. Unlike the immediate glance comprehensions enabled through images, or the re-presentation of concepts orally through dialogue, the comprehension of meaning in text required the sequential development of understanding over time and pages dependent on many single- temporal comprehensions of information. Whether as an aid to interpretation or the clarification of other aspects of the discipline, a fortuitous development occurred in book production in sixteenth-century Italy: the introduction of illustrations including representations that visually portrayed the attributes of Architettura. Included in these representations were the illustrated frontispieces included in the paratextual material in printed books on architecture. While there have been a number of studies of fifteenth and sixteenth-century Italian architects, their design practices and built work, there has been little investigation of the frontispiece as a potent source of information on the architect.

0.2.1 Defining the frontispiece Definitions of what constitutes a frontispiece have varied because of the different types of specialists interested in the production of books; these include historians of book printing, bibliographers and art and architectural historians. Margaret Smith has discussed the sources of the use of the term ‘frontispiece’ as an umbrella term for a decorative front page to printed books.xxxvi She cites Margery Corbett and Ronald Lightbrown’s work, The Comely Frontispiece, that sourced the English use of the term from the early seventeenth century; in this work the book’s title page was seen as equivalent to a building’s frontispiece or façade, two terms later commonly used in France. However, Smith’s study favours the term ‘title page’ because her interest is its separation from the text that it precedes.xxxvii Instead my study focuses on the term frontispiece defining the illustration facing the title page of a book or as an illustration incorporated into its title page. Furthermore, for this study the frontispiece must develop an allegorical narrative or story that presents a consistent and single argument based on the combination of its emblems, geometries and framing devices. The distinction I wish to draw here is that while title pages may incorporate a number of emblems used in a symbolic way its is only when a title page illustration combines the meaning of individual visual characteristics into a more comprehensive single proposition that it forms a frontispiece. Thus, in this study, a frontispiece is defined by its allegorical proposition.xxxviii The title page, while perhaps having symbolic or emblematic illustration, does not form an allegorical proposition; that is, while a title page can include an illustration it does not interact with the book’s content. Examples of early fifteenth-century decorative title pages included little more than decorative frame for the title whilst the frontispiece with its allegorical references represented a communication of relevance between the book’s content and specific social contexts of the reader.xxxix Francesco Barberi’s comment on the frontispiece to seventeenth-century books focuses on what he describes as the fortuitous connection between the allegory of the image and the content of its book. He said, We have, therefore, in the sixteen hundreds three types of frontispiece: purely typographical; with decoration (mark, stemma, vignette, portrait, cornice); wholly engraved and the antiporta . . . It can be said that the decoration of books in the sixteen hundreds, more than in other eras, looks towards the major arts and in particular, architecture. The architectural elements that frame the title are generally enriched by various naturalistic and figurative elements: male and female figures in the most varied attitudes. They are allegorical, mythological or historical characters, putti holding scrolls, patron saints; the human figures are often found also in the top and bottom margins, sometimes inside a niche. The more or less direct reference to the content of the work is fortuitous: often the decorative elements have only this function.xl

However, what is most recognisable in the books included in this study was the intrinsic connection between the frontispiece’s comprehensible meaning and the content of the book it faced. Barberi’s discussion draws attention to the allegorical or mythological male and female figures that became fundamental to understanding the allegorical story or narrative of the frontispiece illustration. In the sixteenth century in Italy these allegorical images were often highly idiosyncratic to individual frontispieces, extending and changing meanings more commonly found in emblem genre works such as Andrea Alciato’s Emlematum Liber printed during the middle third of the sixteenth century.xli The frontispiece’s proposition can thus be seen as an integral part of the complete production of the book. As well, unlike the illustrations most often found in the body of the treatise where the appearance of the frontispiece was to facilitate explanation of the text. The frontispiece, as a paratextual component of the treatise, provided signs or metaphors for what the treatise’s content was contributing to an understanding of its role in particular social contexts. The definition of the frontispiece in this study is that it is an allegorical depiction composed of personifications, images of buildings, representations of architectural elements, and occasionally, textual lemma used to focus the reader’s attention on major propositions of its treatise in the context of its publishing. In this study the criteria for selection of frontispieces is: that each frontispiece is in the first printing of its treatise to incorporate the frontispiece, that the content of each selected treatise has as its focus a comprehensive approach to discussing the discipline of architecture, and that each of these treatises was printed in Italy in book form before the close of the sixteenth century.xlii My reason for investigating only each frontispiece’s first appearance in print is that in their reuse the original meaning of the illustration was commonly placed in a different context or the frontispiece was changed.xliii In Italy, during the sixteenth century, five treatises meet my criteria focusing the study on treatises published in Italy after 1537: Sebastiano Serlio’s Regole generali di architetura sopra le Cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Toscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, 1537; Serlio’s Il Terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, 1540;xliv Cosimo Bartoli’s translation of Alberti’s De re aedificatoria titled L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, 1550; Daniele Barbaro’s translation and commentary on Vitruvius’ De’architetura titled, I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, 1556;xlv and Andrea Palladio’s I quattro libri dell’architettura, 1570. Some of those involved in the writing of these treatises were not architects; however, Sebastiano Serlio and Andrea Palladio were working as architects prior to, and at the time that their treatises were published. Others held significant political positions in the governance of their cities. Although working as an architect, Sebastiano Serlio had been trained as a painter and cutter of wood blocks whereas Andrea Palladio had been trained as a stonemason. Cosimo Bartoli, was by 1550, a humanist advisor and courtier to the court of Cosimo I de’Medici and a religious cleric who had achieved the position of Provost of the Florentine Baptistery during the time of his writing. Daniele Barbaro was also a religious prelate and had been appointed Patriarch-Elect of Aquileia at the time of preparing his manuscript. The reason for these latter two authors’ involvement in architecture was artistically as well as politically motivated and reflected their own depth of knowledge necessary for civic life and, as such, their presentation of the role and attributes of the architect is essential to a more complete account of the sixteenth-century Italian architect. It is probable that each frontispiece studied has been designed and executed by an individual who was the author, translator and commentator of the treatise or was closely associated with that person. The attribution of the designer of Sebastiano Serlio’s frontispieces is controversial but in the chapters about Serlio’s frontispieces, I argue that there is strong evidence that it was Serlio himself; Giorgio Vasari, a close associate of Cosimo Bartoli designed the frontispiece to Bartoli’s translation of Alberti’s L’architettura; the designer of the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary was Andrea Palladio perhaps with the involvement of other artists; and Andrea Palladio was both author of his treatise and designer of his frontispiece (although this again could have also involved other artists). It should be noted that wood block sculptors, often employees of printing houses, were responsible for the frontispiece’s final appearance and could have slightly altered the original design of the frontispiece or may have suggested the necessity for a change to the designer. The printing house of Francesco Marcolini was involved in three of the treatises examined: Serlio’s two books and Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary, and it was probable that because of Marcolini’s death, Palladio used the small but elite printing house of Domenico dei Franceschi. Both these printing houses were located in Venice and both were involved in the production of abundantly illustrated architectural treatises. The printer involved with Cosimo Bartoli’s translation of Alberti’s L’architettura was Lorenzo Torrentino, the major court printer to the Florentine court of Cosimo I de’Medici. To investigate frontispieces illustrations as a source of information for determining changing attributes of the architect relies on this investigation being able to question an illustration from standpoints not immediately obvious. These frontispieces describe Architettura or the field of architecture and the practices of the architect both in a literal and allegorical vein. They have most commonly been questioned from the basis that they represent the discipline of architecture being described in the text but this line of questioning can be seen as anachronistic. The discipline of architecture is not a term that is clearly defined as having boundaries and a cogent discipline of knowledge during the sixteenth century. The figure of Architettura while often portrayed allegorically as part of frontispieces is not the only illustration included in their allegory and does not clearly define either the discipline or the actor in the practice of the discipline. This study thus investigates frontispieces for their complex portrayal not only the discipline of architecture but also the social attributes of the architect. This aims to explore both the defining of a discipline’s knowledge boundaries as well as the social morays needed by those involved in its practices. The depicted of attributes that were needed by the architect to engage with the required social mores of sixteenth-century Italy could also be interpreted in the allegorical illustration of the frontispieces. For each of the selected frontispieces, I aim to analyse each personification or emblem and their interactions to elicit contribution to our knowledge of the sixteenth-century Italian architect. Analysis of the frontispieces to elicit the attributes of those to whom the term architect was applied in sixteenth-century Italy provides an opportunity to make a distinctive contribution to scholarship that focuses on the Renaissance architect and the history of the architectural profession. In my study investigations have been reported in a chronological sequence rather than sequenced by theme or other conceptual device. Although in chronological sequence, this sequencing does not suggest a cumulative development elegantly leading to the final realisation of meaning for the term architect of the late sixteenth century in Italy; analysis of each frontispiece in chronological sequence aims to isolate specific attributes of the architect visible in each frontispiece and these will be collated in the concluding chapter as attributes of the sixteenth-century Italian architect and architecture as a discipline.

0.3 The structure of the report: the chapters Chapter one investigates the method I use for examining and interpreting the concept of the architect as visualised in frontispieces. This chapter breaks into three sections: it evaluates the types of archive used, including the evidence and outcomes forming the focus of previous studies on the architect of sixteenth-century Italy; it then discusses this study’s method for analysing the pictorial conventions of frontispieces as a potent source for investigating the societal figure of the architect; and, finally, to facilitate explanation, it clarifies the method by reference to a case study of an allegorical illustration found on folio LXXXXIv of ’s translation, commentary and publication of Vitruvius’s De architettura, titled, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, printed in Como in 1521.xlvi Chapters two to six are each individual studies analysing and interpreting a frontispiece to a selected architectural treatise. These chapters document the historical and political context of the author of the treatise and document the association between the author and the artist of the frontispiece illustration. Each frontispiece study examines the component images of one selected frontispiece for meaning related to the term architect and assesses this interpretation for consistency with the propositions expressed by the editor/author in his text and in the specific historical and political setting of the book’s publication. From this investigation, the narrative of each frontispiece is examined for its contribution of attributes specific to the role and status of the architect of sixteenth-century Italy. Chapter seven collates and summarises allusions to attributes of the architect evident in the frontispieces and concludes that frontispiece illustrations are fertile primary sources of information relevant to understanding the practice, role and status of the sixteenth-century Renaissance architect.

i Richard Krautheimer, “The Panels in Urbino, Baltimore and Berlin Reconsidered,” in Henry A. Millon and Vittorio M. Lampugnani, eds., The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to : The Representation of Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 255. See also Franklin Toker, “Alberti’s Ideal Architect: Renaissance - or Gothic?” in Andrew Morrogh et al., eds., Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth, Florence: Giunti Barbéra, 1985, 667-674. ii Mary Hollingsworth, “The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence,” Art History, 7(Dec., 1984), 385. iii Nikolaus Pevsner, “The Term Architect in the Middle Ages,” Speculum, XVII(1942), 549- 562. iv Pevsner, “The Term Architect in the Middle Ages,” 1942, 559-560. v Pevsner, “The Term Architect in the Middle Ages,” 1942, 559-560. vi Joseph Rykwert comments in, Leon Battista Alberti, On The Art of Building in Ten Books, Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavenor, trans., Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988, 366, n. 1. Rykwert also directs attention to Richard Krautheimer, “Alberti and Vitruvius,” International Congress of the , Acts of the Twentieth Congress, Studies in Western Art, Vol. 2, 42-52. This paper is later published in Krautheimer’s Studies in Early Christian, Mediaeval and , New York: University Press, 1969, 323-332. vii See Annarita Angelini who suggests that philosophers such as Campanella and Patrizi, and authors such as Garzoni and Recorde were like those alchemists, philosophers, artists, scientists, poets, Catholics or reformists who declared themselves architects in the sense that they were able to transfer a ratio onto pre-existing elements. Annarita Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtù. Il mediomondo di Danile Barbaro, Firenze: Olschki, 1999, 360. viii Pevsner, “The Term Architect in the Middle Ages,” 1942, 560-61. ix See W.K. Lacey, Cicero: Second Philippic Oration, London: Aris and Phillips, 1986, 20, for his outline of Ciceronian elegance in rhetoric. x See Liisa Kanerva, Defining the Architect in Fifteenth Century Italy: Exemplary architects in L.B. Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1998, 11- 17 and James Ackerman, Distance Points: Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991, 382. xi Hollingsworth, “The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence,” 1984, 386-387. xii Kanerva, Defining the Architect in Fifteenth Century Italy, 1998, 11-17. xiii Hollingsworth, “The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence,” 1984, 387-389. xiv L. Victruuii Pollionis ad Cesarem Augustum De architectura liber primus[-decimus], Roma: George Herholt, s.n., 1486 or 1487, Giovanni Sulpicio da Veroli, trans., and ed.. Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria, Angelus Politianus, ed., Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 1485. xv Lucia Ciapponi’s “Fra Giocondo da Veroli and his Edition of Vitruvius,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 47(1984), 73. xvi Johann Schneider, Marci Vitruvii Pollionis, De architectura libri decem…, Lipsiae, Göeschen, 1807-1808. xvii Schneider, Marci Vitruvii Pollionis, De architectura libri decem, 1807-1808, xii. xviii See Laura Marcucci, “Giovanni Sulpicio e la Prima Edizione del De Architectura di Vitruvio,” in, Luigi Vagnetti et al., eds., 2000 Anni di Vitruvio, Firenze: Cattedra di composizione architettonica I A di Firenze, 1978, printed as Special Edition of Studi e Documenti di Architettura 8(1978), 185-95. On page 192 she suggests that, “Sulpicius, following the humanist tradition, tried in fact to remain as faithful as possible to the original Latin, without trying to interpret those parts that were not so clear as others had done before him and how the translators of the sixteenth century continued to do. To arrive at a perfect understanding of the treatise, not only was the interpretation of some sentences required; but also, the determination of the lost illustrations to which the Vitruvian text often refers, that are indispensable to a better knowledge of ancient architecture.” Flavia Marcello, trans.. xix The term ‘culture’ here meaning how he has been educated, how he is a product of the institution that produced him. xx The act of building as opposed to actual built form. xxi Pollio L. Vitruvius, De architectura …, manuscript, Harleanus 2767, British Library, I, I, 1, Architecti est scientia pluribus disciplinis & variis eruditionibus ornate: quae ab caeteris artibus perficiuntur opera, ea nascitur & fabrica & ratiocinatione. xxii Vitruvius, De architectura …, Harleanus 2767, I, I, 1, Fabrica est continuata ac trita usus meditatio quae manibus perficitur: e materia cuius cumque generis opus est ad propositum deformationis. xxiii Vitruvius, De architectura, Harleanus 2767, I, I, 1, Architecti est scientia pluribus disciplinis & variis eruditionibus ornata : cuius iudicio probantur quae a ceteris artibus perficiuntur opera. ea nascitur ex fabrica & ratiocinatione. xxiv Alberti’s treatise was presented to Nicholas V in 1452. Nicholas V was Alberti’s employer and documented improver of Rome. Franco Borsi, Leon Battista Alberti, R. G. Carpanini, trans., New York: Harper & Rowe, 1977, 316. Borsi also notes Alberti’s greater concern for the patron than the architect, both in educating a public, and in advising the architect to choose his patron well, p. 343. The treatise was first printed in 1485, edited by

Angelus Politianus, titled, Leon Baptiste Alberti De re aedificatoria, Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 29 December 1485. xxv For a full account of the range of Alberti’s publications and activities as an archaeologist see Borsi, Leon Battista Alberti, 1977, 275. xxvi Translation taken from Leon Battista Alberti, Ten Books on Architecture by Leon Battista Alberti: Translated into Italian by Cosimo Bartoli and into English by James Leoni, Venetian Architect, Joseph Rykwert, ed., London: Tiranti, 1965, ix, Preface. I have used the Leoni translation as it was the earliest translation into English and repeats the capitalisation of fonts that was favoured during the sixteenth century. Rykwert in his later translation suggests that this distinctiveness of the architect from the carpenter was a refutation of the etymology of the word. For the later translation see Leon Battista Alberti, On The Art of Building, Rykwert, et al., trans., and eds., 1988, 366. The Latin edition used throughout this text is Orlandi’s, Leon Battista Alberti, L’architettura, Giovanni Orlandi, ed., Milano: Polifilo, 1966, 7-9. Architectum ego hunc fore constituam, qui certa admirabilique ratione et via tum mente animoque diffinire tum et opere absolvere didicerit, quaecunque ex ponderum motu corporumque compactione et coagmentatione dignissimis hominum usibus bellissime commodentur. Quae ut possit, comprehensione et cognitione opus est rerum optimarum et dignissimarum: Itaque huiusmodi erit architectus. xxvii Françoise Choay calls attention to Vitruvius’ use of the proemium, a literary introduction to each book and an excursis at their conclusion. She suggests that unlike the tight rhetorical model used by Alberti, these elements make great amount of Vitruvius’ text superfluous to its subject content. Françoise Choay, “Alberti and Vitruvius,” Architectural Design 49, 5-6(1979), 26-35. Indira McEwen provides a differing view drawing a closer relationship in Vitruvius’s text with the writing of Cicero, Varro and Lucretius. See Indira McEwen, Vitruvius, Writing the Body of Architecture, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2003. xxviii Alberti, On The Art of Building, Rykwert, et al., 1988, 317. Latin edition used: Alberti, L’architettura, Giovanni Orlandi, trans., and ed., 1966, 861-863. Quae autem conferant, immo quae sint architecto penitus necessaria ex artibus, haec sunt : pictura et mathematica. In caeteris doctusne sit, non laboro. Nam, qui architectum dixerit iuris . . . Astrorum etiam in eo exactam peritiam non postulo ea re, . . . ne musicum etiam esse oportere dixero ea re . . . au rhetorem . . . . Sed ne Zeusim quidem esse pingendo aut Nichomacum numeris aut Archimedem angulis et lineis tractandis volo. Sat erit, . . . si eam etiam peritiam ex mathematicis adeptus sit, quae angulis una et numeris et lineis mixta ad usum est excogitata : qualia sunt, quae de ponderibus de superficiebus corporibusque metiendis traduntur, quae illi podismata embadaque nuncupant. His artibus aditiuncto studio et diligentia sibi gratiam architectus opes nominisque posteritatem et gloriam nanciscetur. xxix See Alberti’s comments in De re aedificatoria, 1485, Book IX, x and xi. See also Mark Jarzombek, On Leon Baptista Alberti: His Literary and Aesthetic Theories, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989, esp 158-159. xxx See Filarete, Trattato di Architettura written in Milan between 1461 and 1464. Filarete included a discussion on the architect in Book XV, titled “A Continuation of the Golden Book: What Architects Need to Know,” see Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known as Filarete, John R Spencer, trans., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, 197ff. See also Francesco di Giorgio Martini in the introductory sections of Book V of his undated manuscript Trattati di architettura civile e militare, Codex Saluzzianus 148 Biblioteca Reale in Turin discusses the architect paraphrasing Vitruvius saying that the architect must be “practico e sciente because his profession demands fabrica e raciocinazio. He must be a natural genius and learned in many disciplines, including drawing, history, music, arithmetic, etc.” Betts dates the three copies of di Giorgio as appearing between 1475 and 1492. Di Giorgio was aware of Alberti’s treatise through its manuscript copy held in the library of Frederico da Montefeltro in Urbino. This treatise was seen to influence di Giorgio’s later copies of his manuscript treatise. See Richard Betts, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio, PhD Dissertation submitted to Princeton University, Ann Arbor, Mi: UMI Dissertation, 1981, 13. xxxi See Alberti’s criticism of Vitruvius for his prose style and unclear content in Alberti’s opening section of Book VI see Alberti, On The Art of Building, Rykwert, 1988, 154. For a recent view on the relationship between Vitruvius’s and Alberti’s text see also Carolyn Van Eck, “The Structure of De re aedificatoria Reconsidered,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 57, 3 (Sept., 1998): 280-297,362. xxxii Joseph Rykwert, “On The Oral Transmission of Architecture,” Architectural Association Files, 6(Spr., 1984), 15-27. This aspect of Alberti’s writing is also stressed in the introduction to the 1988 translation by Rykwert of De re aedificatoria, see Alberti, On The Art of Building, Rykwert, 1988, xxi. Richard Krautheimer, “The Panels in Urbino, Baltimore and Berlin Reconsidered,” in The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to Michelangelo, 1994, 255, muses: “In fact the Ten Books of Alberti’s De re Aedificatoria (composed in Latin, let us keep in mind) were not written for the benefit of builders, nor, for that matter, of architects. After all, whom among all of his contemporaries would Messer Battista at the time of writing called an architect, except for Brunelleschi, who had died in 1446? As I see it, De re is addressed to patrons; and since among older rulers humanist patrons were rare, Alberti aimed to educate a new generation of patrons, able to understand and willing to promote an architecture of humanism. These new patrons Alberti saw in the young rulers of Ferrara, Mantua, Urbino—Lionello and Meledusio d’Este, Lodovico Gonzaga and his brother Carlo, Federico da Montefeltro—all come to power in the 1440s, all aged twenty or so, and all tutored by humanists, such as Guarino da Verona and Vittorio da Feltro; hence expected to be versed in and conversant with the language of humanism, Latin, and with its spirit.” As well Françoise Choay suggested that Alberti’s treatise had a much broader project directed toward the establishment of a rational discourse on the built domain that “did not admit reduction to any external body of knowledge, or any political, economic, legal or technical practice.” For explanation of this transgressive and disruptive force of De re aedificatoria, see Françoise Choay, The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of

Renaissance Urbanism, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1997, 3-4. For a discussion of Alberti’s construction of his audience see A. F. Nagel, “Rhetoric, Value, and Action in Alberti,” Modern Language Notes 95, 1, 39-65 especially 53. xxxiii Christof Thoenes comments on Alberti’s astuteness suggesting that Alberti did not put the accent on universal knowledge (in the manner of Vitruvius) but on a “catalogue of bourgeois virtues with which the architect makes himself pleasing to the prince and useful to society.” Christof Thoenes, “Notes on the Architectural Treatises of the Renaissance,” Zodiac 15(Mar/Apr., 1996), 12-31. xxxiv See Alberti’s ‘Proemio’ and his discussion on the city in Book VII, ‘ to Sacred Buildings,’ in L.B. Alberti, On The Art of Building, Rykwert et al., 1988, “Prologue,” 4, and Book VII, 1 & 2, 189-191. xxxv See Spencer’s, ‘Introduction,’ to Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting, John Spencer, trans., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956, 18. See also Paolo Portoghesi’s ‘Introduction’ to the Orlandi translation of Alberti, L’architettura, 1966, xvi. xxxvi Margaret Smith, The Title-Page: Its Early Development 1400-1510, New Castle: Oak Knoll Press, 2000, 12-13. See also Margery Corbett and Ronald Lightbrown, The Comely Frontispiece: the Emblematic Title-page in England 1550-1660, London: Routlage & Kegan Paul, 1979, 9. xxxvii See Smith, The Title-Page, 2000, 14. xxxviii From the basis of the selection criteria for examining frontispieces to architectural treatises GianBatista Caporali’s translation of Vitruvius’s De architectura, printed in Perugia in 1536 is a treatise that poses a difficulty for clarity of judgement for inclusion or exclusion. Caporali’s treatise is not a complete translation of Vitruvius including only a selection of books. This would exclude it on the basis of it not having a focus of comprehensiveness in its discussion of the discipline of architecture. However, more fundamentally, debate for its inclusion or exclusion centres on its illustrative title page, which I suggest that although including emblems, is not a frontispiece as defined by the requirement of it being an allegorical illustration. The illustrative content of this illustration does not combine to present a proposition on the discipline reflecting the particular nature of this new edition but remains a collection of separate symbols. For both reasons the Caporali partial edition of Vitruvius’s treatise is excluded from the study. xxxix See E. P. Goldschmidt’s discussion on illustrations and ornament in his The Printed Book of the Renaissance, Three lectures on type, illustration, ornament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950, especially 66 in his discussion of the first architectural frames. xl Barberi, “Il Frontespizio nel Libro Italiano del Seicento,” 1985, 73 - 84. xli See the earliest emblem book in Alciatus, Andreas, Viri clarissimi D. Andre Alciati . . . ad D. Chronradum Peutiner Augustum . . . Emblematum liber, per H. Steynerum : Augustae Vindelicorum, 28 Feb, 1531. xlii My focus on treatises published in Italy stems from notions of reception theory that are made more complex with the inclusion of other countries such as France or Germany. xliii Note Barberi’s caution about the decorative nature of seventeenth-century frontispieces. Francesco Barberi, “Il Frontespizio nel Libro Italiano del Seicento,” in Il Libro Italiano del Seicento, Roma: Editrice Gela Reprints, 1985, 84. Of the frontispieces considered the frontispiece considerably reused was that found in Sebastiano Serlio’s Regole generali di architetura sopra le Cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Toscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, 1537. William Dinsmoor provides an extensive account of the history of usage of this frontispiece after its use by Serlio. See William Dinsmoor, “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” Art Bulletin, 24, 1(1942), 66, fn 61. The claim that this is the first frontispiece in an architectural treatise is reinforced both by the work of Francesco Barberi and earlier writers who, while not specifically distinguishing title pages from frontispieces, saw a significance to Serlio’s illustration. Barberi isolated Serlio’s frontispiece to the Regole generali di architecttura, as developing a perspectival approach to frontispieces where sculpture and drawing marry. Francesco Barberi, Il frontispizio nel libro italiano del Quattrocento e del Cinquecento, Milano: Il Polifilo, 1969, Vol. I, 129. See also Alfred Johnson A Catalogue of Italian Engraved Title-Pages in the Sixteenth Century, London, Oxford University Press, 1936, vii, who suggested Serlio’s to be the first of their kind in frontispiece art. There was equally reuse of Andrea Palladio’s frontispiece in almost all of I quattro libri’s later editions. The most common change in this reuse was to the cartouche emblem of the centre of the illustration. Unlike this practice Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari changed its frontispiece in later editions including the Italian and Latin editions of 1567 and 1568. However, because the frontispiece is only marginally modified from the original the frontispiece to these later editions has not been included. xliv The earliest frontispiece to be analysed in this study is found in Sebastiano Serlio’s printed 1537 edition of Regole generali di architetura, even though Serlio’s treatise that incorporated his five books was not published until 1566 when it was then published as Tutte l’opere d’architettura et prospettiva di Sebastiano Serlio. Although unauthorised editions were translated and published in his lifetime, Serlio’s original Books I-V were first printed together in one volume in Venice by Francesco de’ Franceschi in 1566 and dedicated to Daniele Barbaro. xlv The later translation of Barbaro’s Latin commentary on Vitruvius published in 1567 has a very similar frontispiece to that of the Italian commentary of 1556. For this reason the later edition while being somewhat different in the content and argument of the treatise has not been included. xlvi Pollio L. Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, Cesare Cesariano, trans., Como: Gottardo da Ponte, 1521. CHAPTER 1

Interpreting the ‘architect’ in the iconography of frontispieces.

This chapter describes and discusses this study’s method for reading and interpreting meaning in frontispieces and presents this method through reference to a prior investigation, not of a frontispiece, but of an allegorical illustration of an architect. As a precursor to this discussion, this chapter initially examines recent studies of the Italian architect of the sixteenth century with the purpose of evaluating the types of evidence commonly used to inform historical analysis. This is to aid attention to specific attributes of the architect visualised in the frontispieces during the period under review as distinct from those attitudes evident through an examination of other sources. The second part of this chapter outlines the conventions for understanding the allegorical narrative of frontispiece imagery. It examines sources for the artistic conventions of sixteenth-century frontispieces and provides an evaluation of the limited scholarship of frontispiece illustrations. The third section of this chapter will select the earliest allegorical illustration depicting an architect in a treatise on architecture: Cesare

Cesariano’s depiction of his own ‘becoming an architect’ in his translation of Vitruvius’s

De architettura, titled, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, printed in Como.

This section discusses the method used in this study for investigating the concept of the architect in frontispieces by reference to a case study of Cesariano’s illustration.

This illustration of an architect is allegorical but, as the illustration does not fit the

25 criterion of this study that the illustration has to form a frontispiece, its analysis in not included as part of my study but only for clarification of my method.

1.1 Evidence used in presentation of recent historical interpretations of the role of the architect in sixteenth-century Italy

Historians examining the sixteenth-century architect in his societal context have selected sources relevant to their particular focus of investigation. Investigation has been directed usually through a primary source such as a particular treatise, or a document archive providing evidence for either a changing scope of work or the changing structure of the work force in the building industry. Martin Briggs’ book The

Architect in History printed in 1927 and Leopold Ettlinger’s later study of the emergence of the Italian Renaissance architect were both based on an investigation of Giorgio

Vasari’s Le Vite de’ più eccellenti Pittori, Scultori, e Architetti.1 From this, Briggs documented the diversity of each architect’s training and social class, their attention, in their role as architects, to design rather than building crafts, their study of antiquity, their active commitment to restoring antique values, and their mastery of the arts of painting and .2

Martin Briggs was the first recent scholar to begin to document the range in education of the Renaissance architect. He proposed that the “education of the young architect depended very much upon the circumstance of his birth . . . and as to whether he began his career primarily as an architect or not.”3 His study of Vasari’s text reveals that of the seventeen lives of architects included by Vasari only two were sons of architects and thus were trained or educated as architects. Briggs lists the early training of a number of architects as broad ranging:4

Brunelleschi, like Giuliano da Majano, was intended for the law, Primaticcio and for business, Girolamo Gegna for weaving, and Andrea Sansovino began life as a farm-boy. Antonio Sangallo the Younger and Tribolo were apprenticed to carpenters; Giuliano Sangallo and Antonio Sangallo the Elder

26 to woodcarvers; Bramante, Raphael, da Carpi, Vasari, and Aristotile Sangallo to painters; and there are only two, Bartolomeo Genga and Sanmicheli (both architects’ sons) [who] were intended for architecture from the beginning.5

Ettlinger compared the descriptions of architects with other artists in Vasari’s Vite and concluded that the emergence of the architect during the fifteenth century was paradoxical in that, “unlike the painter or sculptor, the designer of buildings did not have his clearly defined place within the trades.”6

When selecting his archive, James Ackerman’s 1954 essay, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance” analysed the work-practices of the sixteenth-century Italian architect from an investigation of documents related to payments and other correspondence associated with building processes.7 This was a practice followed also by Mary Hollingsworth in her study of the Florentine architect of the fifteenth century.8

Ackerman’s search for the moment of change to the conceptualisation of the architect highlighted the difficulties in delineating the social figure of the Italian Renaissance architect and his work practices. Ackerman concluded: “When I began to write this paper I expected to finish with a picture of an architect more like today’s. But now he appears to be of quite a different species.”9 Ackerman alluded to a “rugged individualism” which pervaded those working in sixteenth-century Italy. He suggested

“the Roman Renaissance architect was less trained in the technique and less organized in the practice of his calling than any of his contemporaries in the arts.”10

Yet, he continued, “but paradoxically this was a step toward establishing architecture as a respected profession, because it represented, far more than the procedures of painters or sculptors, a liberation from the bonds of the medieval shop system.”11

Other historians have attempted to identify the architect as a social figure by focusing their attention on the material archives associated with the everyday work-practices of architects in relation to the design and making of buildings. Catherine Wilkinson and

Myra Rosenfeld in two separate chapters of the book titled The Architect edited by

27 Spiro Kostof speak of these changing practices as defining a new professionalism.12

Wilkinson acknowledges that at the time of her writing there were no general studies of the architect’s profession in the Renaissance. Her focus on the architect’s new skills such as disegno resulted in a presentation of the changing attitudes to manual work in

Renaissance Italy and evident in the work of those designated architect.13 Her examination of archival material relied as much on the study of original perspectival sketches and orthographic drawings as on other documentary evidence. Rosenfeld’s study focused on the activities of the Royal Building Administration in France, but is of relevance for interpretation of the Italian Renaissance architect because an important

Italian architect, Sebastiano Serlio, had move to the French Court of François I. From evidence collected in France, Rosenfeld examined the social structuring of an architectural practice in court-based society and concluded that the sixteenth-century architect became pivotal in the management of public institutions devoted to the building industry.

Richard Goldthwaite and Luigi Vagnetti used a broad approach to developing an investigative archive. Richard Goldthwaite’s chapter on the architect, in his book The

Building of Renaissance Florence: An Economic and Social History, proceeds from a social and economic historical perspective focused on Florence and the market for the architect’s services.14 He aimed to untangle the work-relations of the building industry of Renaissance Italy as evidence of a humanist concept of society. He concluded, “If the architect of the Renaissance began to play with many more of his own peculiar ideas, it was because the market for his services had changed, challenging him to be more inventive and original.”15 With support from his evidence, Goldthwaite suggested that the new structure of the building industry was conducive to the social figure of the architect changing status and acting in a consultative manner rather than as supervisor of the day-to-day activity of the building site. He argued that this separation of the design function from construction was the main change occurring during the fourteenth

28 and fifteenth centuries. In his study of Italian architects, L'architetto nella storia di

Occidente, Luigi Vagnetti interpreted the development of the profession through questioning how individual architects had been educated, how they practised, and their resulting social status.16 He focused on modes of commission and on the growth of design academies, and refers to the changing function of botteghe (workshops) into professional studios.17

Also carrying out her research in the late 1970s, Pamela Long’s dissertation The

Vitruvian Commentary Tradition and Rational Architecture in the Sixteenth Century investigated the Vitruvian commentaries of the sixteenth century to evaluate their representation of the “symbolic figure of the architect.”18 She concluded that in these commentaries the architect was characterised as the embodiment of moral and ethical virtue, an imitator in building practices of the proportions and geometry of the cosmos.

Later projects, but with similar focus in treatises, include Franklin Toker’s 1985 study and Liisa Kanerva’s 1998 study of the fifteenth century figure of the architect through an investigation of Alberti’s De re aedificatoria.19 Toker, in his chapter entitled “Alberti’s

Ideal Architect: Renaissance – or Gothic?” questioned the comparative social and professional standing of the Renaissance architect to the Renaissance master and to the Gothic master by teasing out some of the different social practices. He found that during the Renaissance the architect “aspired to and succeeded in becoming the social companion of his patron with greater frequency than [he had when with] Gothic masters.”20 Toker suggests that this was a significant social transformation attached to changes in the work-practices of architects. Liisa Kanerva developed her study of

Alberti’s architect, entitled Defining the Architect in Fifteenth Century Italy, by focusing on the attributes of the exemplary figures used by Alberti in explication of a requirement of the architect. From these she deduced the attributes that Alberti attached to the ideal Renaissance humanist architect as definite characteristics.

29 Each of these investigations has been motivated by questions about the role of the architect in Renaissance Italy. However, apart from James Ackerman’s questioning of the similarity of the sixteenth-century architect from twentieth-century historical presuppositions, the notion that the Italian Renaissance architect can be understood in a manner similar to our current professional architect underlies many of these studies.

However, from a twentieth-first-century perspective we could define the architect as the social functionary who designs, documents and administers the contract for the construction of buildings, and is one who has a particular education and is controlled in his/her practice through systems of registration through professional institutions. The visual iconography of the frontispiece may provide more precisely contextualised depictions for what an architect may have been in sixteenth-century Italy: the social and ethical values expected, the breadth and depth of knowledge required, their work practices and societal customs, their social status, and the degree of autonomy for design decisions.

Questioning whether sixteenth-century Italian readers of these treatises could extrapolate meaning in a similar manner from these frontispieces is an underlying proposition of this study. Investigation of each allegorical figure within the frontispiece thus relies heavily on evaluations of similar illustrations in the emblematic traditions of the Italian renaissance. It is only through the build up of consistency of approach that we can assume the illustration’s capacity for interpretation.

1.2 Investigating the allegorical narrative of frontispieces

When reading a sixteenth-century frontispiece the allegorical, socially reflective and rhetorical elements of an illustration, both independently and in combination, contribute to the narrative of its message. Gaye Clifford’s analysis of the poetic convention of textual allegory draws attention to how conventions of visual allegory can be understood.21

30 She suggests that, “allegory invites its readers from the outset to see the particular narrative as being also a series of generalized statements, and demands that concepts be identified simultaneously in their fictional and ideological roles.”22 To Clifford, understanding allegory is fundamentally different from interpreting single symbols, emblems or icons. She says, “the strength, but also the limitation of symbols is that they tend to be static, with all the ramifications of meaning focused within the symbol.

In allegory the concern is always with process, with the way in which various elements of an imaginative or intellectual system interact, and with the effects of this system or structure on and within individuals.”23 As interpretation of the allegorical interaction of groups of symbols is a major focus of my study, I aim to deduce the contribution of each group of interacting or connected symbols to the meaning of a specific frontispiece’s narrative.

Developing the narrative of the frontispiece of sixteenth-century Italy was often a collaborative venture between artists, authors and humanist advisors who may have had the role of finding suitable historical references for images. The humanist advisor to a court or household, as writer of invenzione for representations of its power, was a role fundamentally tied to defining the attributes and social associations within the functions of political life. Judith Bryce suggests that artists often sought directions from advisors on the subjects of classical mythology, poetry and history, and requested their collaboration in iconographical matters. Bryce clarifies the specific nature of this act stating that,

inventio, a standard term of classical rhetoric, when transferred to the realm of the visual arts, involved the working out of the theme or narrative of a painting in all its detail including, where appropriate, the accompanying allegorical figures and other symbolic ornament, all of which together translated into visual terms the underlying idea or concept.24

The knowledge of the advisor in the creation of invenzione was fundamental to the representation of attributes of individuals as having a reputation worthy for governance

31 and authority and representation of disciplines as having attributes worthy of high societal status.

For each frontispiece, my analysis evaluates the continuity and discontinuities of meaning over time of individual emblems and combinations of emblems. It then analyses how each emblem or combination of emblems may have been modified or changed to achieve a specific meaning for a frontispiece. Symbols and emblems used in the frontispiece may have derived from classical Rome or Greece with meaning implicit from their original source but for use in Renaissance Italy the emblems and meaning were transformed and Christianised. To elicit meaning in a frontispiece it is necessary to recognise the symbol in its present form as an adaptation of an earlier tradition and recognise it in a process of interaction outside its original cultural specificity.

Allegorical representations of the sixteenth century included references to characteristics unique to their time and place. The antique form in language and the inclusion of allegory based on well-known topoi used in the context of audience persuasion determined not only the choice of images to be included but also the meaning of certain representational juxtapositions. These included allegorical depictions of social values – such as virtue, prudence, fortune, time and fame – that could be recognised by their contemporary audience and their meanings grasped as associated with a specific context of their social life.25 For example, it would be impossible for a sixteenth-century audience to see a personification of Flora without thinking of her traditional reference to Spring and new life, but directed by clues to a more specific context, they would recognise that Flora, in a specific instance, symbolised the city of Florence.

These classically informed sixteenth century images were transformed to hold both religious and secular references relevant to the social contexts of Renaissance humanism and Roman Catholicism’s struggles for power in Reformation and Counter-

Reformation Italy. The purely pagan symbols of classically referenced allegorical

32 images, such as image representations of Apelles or Atlas, became Christianised to be relevant for Renaissance Italian audiences – even in the more secular contexts of the humanist’s reinvention of an antique . The great project for the christianisation of such classically referenced personifications and their values emerged in the writings of Renaissance scholars such as Marsilio Ficino.26

Subsequent to their transformation with christianised values, catalogues of allegorical personifications and their emblems emerged and in Italy during the sixteenth century include Andrea Alciati’s Emblematum liber of 1531, Achille Bocchi’s Symbolicarum quaestionum of 1551 and the later influential work of Cesare Ripa Iconologia of 1592.27

1.2.1 Development of conventions for understanding architectural frontispiece allegory

The representational form of the frontispiece in printed architectural treatises can be seen as a development from the illustrated incipit of earlier manuscript copies of treatises like the many versions of Vitruvius’ De architectura and, during the late fifteenth century, the copies of Alberti’s manuscript, De re aedificatoria.

Recognition of meaning in frontispieces developed from, and for successful reception relied on, the continuity of such conventions.

The folio format of the manuscript and its distinct graphic elements of text, illustration, marginalia and capitals, clearly represented the delineation of production- labour in the scriptorium. Manuscript

Figure 1 Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria, edited by Angelus Politianus, Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 1485, f102. New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library33 PML44056. Photo J. Zehavi. treatises occasionally had illustrations or marginalia added later that included sketches, commentary, explanation or corrections to the transcription.28 Illustrations for an incipit

(first page) could contain signs of the social status of the patron (heraldic devices, archetypal portraits), depictions of building craft, and conventional page ornamentation.29

These images had little to do with the content of the manuscript and their representation seldom had value for the intellectual discourses related to development of a discipline. The status of the commissioner of a manuscript and esteem accorded to their ownership of the text could be discerned through the effort given to the decoration of the incipit with the author of the text and its content having visually secondary impact.30 The first printed editions of fifteenth-century treatises of Vitruvius and Alberti reflected the separation of labour in the medieval scriptorium and were printed without illustrations but still conformed to the convention of leaving space for illustration in the text or for enlarged capital letters to signify the beginning of paragraphs or chapters.31 Margins were also generous so that illustrations and notations could be added or applied later, to relevant sections of the text, in the library of each court or collection.32 Figure 1

However, in the format of the printed book the manuscript’s visible sign of ownership, symbolised through the imprese and other symbols of ownership, was not the most significant graphic display.33 By the early sixteenth century, new practices of labour- separation and changes to accommodate the new requirements of book production created different conventions of presentation to include title pages, frontispieces and the addition of printed illustrations.34 The printed book required an acknowledgment of worth by independent and influential sources outside established patronage because of the manner of their production and their potential for a wider readership. In the context of printed book production, the patronage of a Prince could guarantee acceptance of the author as the authority for the book’s content. Like that of a member of a religious

34 order, the author’s authority came vicariously from a relationship to a higher power.

Other writers relied on gaining authority and status for their future enterprises through an appeal to potential patrons in their treatise. The author’s reliance on beneficence took the form of public endorsement in the granting of imprimaturs and dedications often beyond those contributing to his immediate source of earnings for the treatise. In part, this new visible convention reflected new copyright laws and printing privileges, an acknowledgment of the flow of money and the processes of support.35 As a result the printed book became an object of ownership and a vehicle of knowledge to a broader community of courtiers, practitioners and scholars.36 To this wider audience, printed sixteenth-century treatises were not simply objects for connoisseurship; they became instead active political and practical tools in the context of public culture.

An understanding of what the illustrations signified developed from the provision of an alternate form of knowledge seen as equivalent to, or relevant to textual content.

Recent studies in visual media emphasise the dominance of visually based material such as the photograph or illustration over the text of the printed page.37 Much of this dominance is related to the instantaneous recognition of images and the comparatively longer duration necessary for comprehension of the text. Commenting on illustrations associated with Cesare Cesariano’s early sixteenth-century edition of Vitruvius, Roland

Recht suggested that the illustrations make visible or facilitate a mental imagery of the textual descriptions.38 This does not mean that the image is an alternate explanation of what is in the text but, with the reader’s attention drawn to the depicted image, it may direct them to an important issue for correct interpretation of the text.

The first printed treatise to be graphically represented, as an illustrated treatise was the edition of Vitruvius translated and illustrated in woodblock by Fra Giocondo in 1511.39

Giocondo’s comment in the title, “M. Vitruvius . . . solito castigatior factus cum figures et tabula ut iam et intelligi possit,” “so that it can be read and understood,” justified his inclusion of illustrations.40 Giocondo included one hundred and thirty-six illustrations in his

35 1511 edition, using the illustrations as a sixteenth-century lexicon of explanation for

Vitruvian terms including elements such as contemporary improvements to mechanical devices and specific architectural elements. Giocondo’s purpose was to make this antique text relevant to the practice of architecture as then currently performed. However, in his drawing of the Ctesibius machine, Giocondo comments about the restrictive nature of both illustration and textual description. He says, “I think I have done enough, in that I have opened the for scholars and shown them the paths by which this author can be understood.”41 For Giocondo, neither text nor illustration was seen as complete in descriptions of all the knowledge required for architecture but illustration could trigger understanding. Illustration and text were seen as mutually supportive but quite separate in the information they were able to project for the reader.

As a medium, illustrations could act as a prompt for textual content in the memory of the reader or provide a substitute for the reader who may have little prior experience of the terminology used. With reference to Francesco di Giorgio’s hand-illustrated manuscript of 1481-92, Margaret D’Evelyn suggests that, “by referring to the drawings as “signs” throughout the latter part of the treatise . . . Francesco di Giorgio was giving to the drawing certain rhetorical functions usually associated with a text. As a sign, the drawing takes on the functions of a “signifier,” the explanatory, demonstrative “words” or “verba” aspects of discourse. The art of persuasion is manifest through the drawing.”42 That a commonality of meaning and the extension of understanding were engendered between the rhetoric of language in the text and the visual rhetoric of the illustrations highlights the importance of illustrative matter in treatises.

1.2.2 The sixteenth-century source of conventions in frontispiece images

For sixteenth century Italy, unified social action took the form of festivals, religious rituals, readings, plays and the entries of dignitaries into the city. It is these festivals and their decorations that are reflected in images of the frontispiece. The enactment of

36 social rituals provided the inhabitants of a city with occasions to come together to express, in a unified manner, a single understanding of the structure, values and beliefs, customs and traditions of that society.43 The specific performances and appearances of these festivals and rituals, whether religiously or politically inspired, were tangential to their purpose of displaying a sense of community and its social hierarchies of power.44 David Kertzer suggested, “It is by uttering the same cry, pronouncing the same word, or performing the same gesture in regard to some object that they become and feel themselves to be in unison.”45 The frontispiece included a visible reminder of this uniformity of meaning in social festivities.

Richard Ingersol suggested that the acting out of rituals could be understood as a symbolic representation for the resolution of conflict.46 In such explanations, rituals were emphasised as models ensuring conformity to behaviour-expectation at all levels of society. Entries and festivities gave visible form to the many-layered messages needing to be transmitted throughout the social fabric of a city. Barbara Wisch and

Susan Scott Munshower list three representations of meaning fundamental to festivals: firstly, an understanding of a transcendent civic ideology; secondly, the more immediate civic concerns of daily activity; and thirdly, a display of tangible civic resources to visitors and the public.47 Wisch and Munshower see these as powerful vehicles of communication with their scripts conforming to a knowledge format to ensure the enactment of elaborate diplomatic etiquette. A fourth representation in the enactment of the entrèe was the visible and ritualised recognition of structures of power and social governance. It is these four representations that are absorbed by the paratextual material of the book, the frontispiece and its associated dedications and letters.

After printing made books more widely available, a new opportunity existed to register aspects of societal display. The frontispiece of architectural treatises contributed to the context of ritual in the city as a register of ritualised entry, but as well it signified the role

37 that architecture played in urban ritual. Henri-Jean Martin sees a direct correlation between the social contexts of these entries and triumphs and the development of the frontispiece in books of the sixteenth century. Martin suggested,

In the sixteenth century a desire to make a self-sufficient entity of the title-page had led to a fashion for frames. These could be a triumphal arch, a portico or an échafaud, a scenic construction like those set up for a Prince’s solemn entry. This aligned the frontispiece directly to the new vision for city plans and their manifestation of power and magnificence. One entered into the book as into a city or onto a theatrical stage set.48

Eugenio Garin has suggested that to the humanist thinker, the science of architecture and town planning was indivisible from the political organisation of the city-state.49 To interpret the frontispiece as conceptually working in the same manner as the princely entry into the ideal city was to conceive that the image was also inseparable from the political requirements of that ritual. The introduction of the frontispiece in the book of sixteenth-century Italy provided the opportunity for formal registration of court life and recognition of the role which architecture played in this context. One of the main themes of the treatises selected for examination is that architecture provided a permanent setting for ceremonies in the city: architects created a space within the reality of the walls of the often disordered medieval city imposing architectural order as an expression of the prince’s power and magnificence. This theme is reflected in the notion that the frontispiece illustrated the ordered and ceremonial entry into the intellectual space of the book in a manner similar to architecture’s provision of entry to the space of ceremony in the city.

The antique sources for the ritual of the entry and the triumph provide further understanding of these images as registers of meaning for the city and its residents.

Richard Ingersol has spoken of the “adventus” tradition as the source for entries and triumphs of the Renaissance and sees a continuity of this tradition from antiquity.50

Ingersol classifies two types of festivals involving the city entry and reception of a

38 leader. In commenting on the traditions for the reception of a visiting dignitary he suggests: “its function in Hellenic culture was to celebrate the entry of the ruler as if it were an epiphany of a god, an interpretation that was elaborated on by the Roman emperors in connection with their own deification.”51 Diplomacy in this case would ensure that a city demonstrate deference to the authority of the visitor. In contrast to this, he speaks of the triumph as “a celebration awarded for a specific instance of military victory.”52 Constructions of triumphs in the form of arches decked with the spoils of battle and painted with images of battle were built to mark processional boundaries. He concludes that, in each case, the visitor was manipulated through the journey both on the route taken to the city’s gates and then on the routes taken inside the city. At specific points as they moved toward the city, and depending on the importance of the visitor or victor, the procession would be met by increasingly more important people who would guide their ritualised approach. With these performances and theatricals as models, the role and imagery of the frontispiece can be understood: the reader is manipulated through the framing of the book, the reading of the frontispiece, the discerning of authority and worth by referring to the dedications to patrons and dignitaries, and only then is ready to proceed to the body of the text.

Ingersol makes a further claim that during the Renaissance practice of the festivals, the clear boundary between entry and triumph was lost. Descriptions of entries depended on the use of triumphal arches as places of ritual diplomacy. The triumphal arch was often a temporary timber and plaster structure that acted as a gate but it also could house rooms for theatrical performance or diplomatic greeting.53 On the structure of the triumphal arch were located pictorial and sculptural representations of the visitor’s or the city’s status and stories of the visitor’s value to the host city. Actors dressed as allegorical figures stood on the triumphal arch and made orations aimed at explaining the visitor to the assembled citizens or praising the visitors as they travelled through the arch. A sequence of these allegorical triumphs would line the approach to the city

39 and similar decorations would be mounted on the city gates. These performances had direct public engagement: entries and their allegories/emblems and plays meant that

Renaissance audiences were accustomed to interacting with knowledge which relied on recognition of sophisticated visual symbols and an understanding of the narrative of the displays.54

Renaissance festivals developed a spatial use of city that was perspectival in its representation and understood by its citizens as the underlying representation of its significance and status in the known world. This conceptualisation of the city, as a ritualised and perspectival space that could be comprehended through the reaffirmation of a single idea, reflected a society that strived to represent civic order both in its politics and through its displays of urban life. The architect in this conceptualisation was actively engaged with ideas of social order, its power relations and their representation in built form.

As with the development of perspective in Italian Renaissance artistic practices, the frontispiece represents both a compliance with the systematic conceptual framework of perspectival space and a compliance with the opposite concepts of aggregate space associated with medieval art. The frontispiece relied on the triumph, entry or proscenium to form a frame for its allegorical and emblematic representations. As such the image forms a scene with a single and mathematically determined viewpoint and an underlying systematic unity to its representation. However, the emblems and scenes of the frontispiece do not always conform to a perspectival view. Often, the scene created a tableau vivant of signs to be interpreted using clues such as a pointed finger or directional gaze for guidance.55 As well, the scene within the scene, forming the major focal point of the composition, could either reinforce the perspectival reading of the space or simply represent an activity within a frame. The juxtaposition of these two conceptual systems creates a complex coming together of medieval and

Renaissance concepts of visuality: the frame conforming to Renaissance

40 understandings of perspective, and the images derived from classical and allegorical sources, interact and aggregate to produce a narrative derived from medieval systems of representation.56

Parallels can be made between the frontispiece, the entry triumphs, and the more private court entertainment of the masque as a vehicle for representations of contemporary politics. The symbolic nature of the masque was a metaphoric emanation of divine order in the structure of power of the court.57 Both royalty and actors played parts within the masque. Actors took speaking parts while royalty often appeared as allegorical representations of their own status.58 Royalty acted some parts of the performance and viewed other scenes. Sets for masques were constructed as single-point perspective: the ideal viewing point was that of the seat of the sovereign placed higher in the audience than those of the surrounding nobles.59

The proscenium decoration fulfilled many of the representational requirements of entry triumphs, containing allegorical and emblematic representations of status.

All the treatises investigated for this study strongly infer that architecture could provide a permanent theatrical setting for ceremonies in the city. An expression of the prince’s power and magnificence was created by architecture’s representation of imposed order within the body of the previously disordered medieval city. The appropriate use of antiquity, adapted to the new urban program was crucial to this expression. Fragments of the past had to be used to reconstitute a language of architecture that could be recognised for its extension of classical traditions. A similar idea is portrayed in the panel paintings of ideal cities where a vision of an ordered utopia is represented as a city shown in a detail made possible by the new techniques of the perspective view.60

Linguistic notions of stable and historically legitimated meaning, urban decorum and magnificentia, combined with contemporary ideas of governance as a medium for the imposition of order, were tied to the notion of the planned city. Triumphs represent images of an idealised community just as frontispieces presented an image of an

41 idealised entry to an architecture based on the knowledge of the ancients: the cultural rebirth of classicism was firmly aligned with this culture of spectacle. The frontispiece took on this representational form, emerging in a form that Roland Barthes has called a

‘natural narrative’ enabling immediate understanding by its audience.61

The frontispiece and title page represent the published treatise’s realignment with a new set of conventions of authorship: commentary on the past through allegorical and classical references, appealing to a public not conversant with Latin, the language of humanist texts, but understanding that building and images give an indication of how wealth, power and most importantly magnificence are conveyed.62 The concepts about architecture presented in frontispieces, as seen in the three-dimensional character of the image and its narrative structure, reflected discourses about space.63 The images, depicted through conventions that could be widely understood, represent comprehensive stances on architecture: the control of the urban environment, attitudes to mathematical description, and disciplinary aspirations to a notion of science that was not compatible with its tradition as a craft, and allusions to new linguistic and literary ideas created by the restructuring of the ideas of classical antiquity for current relevance.

1.2.3 Prior analyses of frontispieces

Modern interpretations of frontispiece imagery have been sporadic and generally outside the historiography of the discipline of architecture. Interpretations have ranged from simple iconographic listings of emblems and allegorical representations, to explanations of their development within the context of printing, to recent attempts at interpretations of the narrative meaning of some selected depictions in architectural frontispieces. More commonly, interpretations have been carried out in the context of the history of the development of books. Rarely have frontispieces been interpreted as

42 social metaphors forming a pivotal relationship between the written content of books and their societal context.

Interest in frontispieces and title pages occurred with the rise of antiquarian book connoisseurship in the late nineteenth century and include such works as A. W.

Pollard’s Last Word on the History of the Title-page with Notes on some Colophons and Twenty-seven Fac-similes of Title-pages.64 Early twentieth-century examples of the cataloguing of emblems from Italian frontispieces include the collection of writings by Alfred Forbes Johnson. Most pertinent to this study is his Catalogue of Italian

Engraved Title-Pages in the Sixteenth Century.65 His text lists specific emblems in each frontispiece but does not extend this to their interpretation. One or two images are described more fully in his ‘Introduction’ but only to the extent of allowing the reader to see the magnitude of interpretive possibilities rather than present a specific interpretation. This pattern of description and partial interpretation is followed in later studies of the frontispiece in books such as Francesco Barberi’s Il frontespizio nel libro italiano del Quattrocento e del Cinquecento but there is rarely a linking of a discipline and an individual frontispiece’s narrative or meaning specific to that discipline.66 This manner of description continues through the major catalogues of sixteenth-century books including Ruth Mortimer’s Harvard College Library Department of Printing and

Graphic Arts Catalogue of Books and Manuscripts: Part II: Italian 16th Century Books,67 and Martha Pollak’s The Mark J. Millard Architectural Collection Volume IV Italian and

Spanish Books: Fifteenth through Nineteenth Centuries.68 Descriptions of frontispieces where they occur are indebted to particular art-historical methods including iconography with its study of Renaissance pictorial conventions but the frontispiece images have seldom been interpreted as multi-coded representations.

Interpretation of personifications and emblems, including questions of meaning in relation to the discipline of architecture, has been more specifically addressed in the writings of Marco Frascari and Christof Thoenes with their commentary on the

43 frontispieces of Sebastiano Serlio, Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola and Andrea Palladio.69

Their work initiated recognition of individual personifications and emblems but did not develop questions related to the role of the narrative of frontispieces in relation to a specific context for the content of each treatise. Whilst Frascari and Thoenes were not investigating the term architect implicit in the frontispieces, their use of iconographical and iconological methods directs attention to the range of contextual studies necessary for such an investigation. They have shown how the sources for Renaissance images could originate in the multifarious contexts of religious and philosophical thought, classical mythology and the emergence of critical thought in science and rhetoric developing in the sixteenth century.70 Interpretations of post-Renaissance frontispieces by historians such as Hans Böker further highlight the political agenda inherent in frontispiece representations.71

1.3 Section 2: The case study

1.3.1 Interpreting a visual allegory of the ‘architect’

In the process of publishing a Renaissance treatise many competing agents were involved, not all of which had the intent of the original author of the text uppermost in their aims. Printers, artists, translators, commentators, patrons, benefactors and those granting printing privileges all engaged as potentially active contributors to the appearance of each publication and with the final production, the culmination of this process. When considering that a number of others were instrumental in influencing forms of publication and printing in Renaissance Italy, it became apparent to me that the full range of rhetorical constraints on textual composition and modes of pictorial representation produced a field too wide for investigation in a single study.

In accepting that the production of a frontispiece may not mirror the intent or aim of the original author, investigation of each frontispiece in this study has attempted to uncover

44 ideas in the frontispiece’s conception. This study claims significance for the correlations found between the text’s content and visual emblems in the frontispieces in that, when interpretation from the frontispiece is compared with that from the text it accompanies, consistency between meaning in the frontispiece and the presentation of ideas in the treatise cannot be ignored. A most likely explanation is that it may have occurred as a result of close collaboration between the author of the text and the artist of the frontispiece, or it may even have occurred without explicit transference of authorial intent from text to illustration. I have limited this investigation to explaining the emergence in sixteenth-century Italy of architecture as a profession by correlating the development of change in the architect’s role and status as portrayed in frontispieces with ideas consistent with relevant components of the texts they accompany.

1.3.2 Reading an illustration with the architect as the subject of allegorical representation

This section discusses the ‘layers’ of analysis in my method and issues relevant to each ‘layer’ through reference to a prior depiction of an architect in an allegorical illustration – a study of Cesare Cesariano’s own transformation in becoming the architect. This image is found on folio LXXXXII of Cesare Cesariano’s 1521 translation, commentary and publication of Vitruvius’s De architettura, titled, Di Lucio

Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, printed in Como.72 Figure 2 Cesariano is depicted on the central left in the act of metamorphosis, becoming an architect.

Cesariano’s treatise does not have a frontispiece and therefore does not form part of this study but his illustration is of interest to this chapter on method because its subject is an allegorical depiction of the attributes of the architect. Unlike frontispieces, rather than an illustration of Architettura, this illustration focuses on the architect rather than

45 his practices. In presenting Cesariano as a case study to introduce issues related to method, my aim is not to contribute to what has been documented about this image but to show what can be interpreted from visual material. It illustrates how illustrations can be analysed and to make propositions about the architect. While the nature of the proposition is quite unique in Cesariano’s illustration and distinct from later frontispieces it provides a working example of how the narrative of allegorical illustrations developed and were interpreted by their audience. The analysis of

Cesariano’s illustration is thus included for a number of reasons: firstly, this initial study exemplifies the steps in analysis and interpretation required in a method for reading a frontispiece with the aim of revealing meaning embedded in the specific context of

Renaissance Italy; secondly, it also provides an opportunity, with reference to interpretations by others, to discuss significant issues pertaining to forms of analysis and interpretation of illustrative allegory; and, thirdly, it demonstrates the necessity for breadth of scope in source material needed for accuracy in interpretation of frontispieces.73

1.3.3 Describing the emblems and symbols of the allegorical representation:

The first stage or layer of investigation of each frontispiece documents the treatise in which it is located, its publication contexts, attribution, names the historical figures of importance associated with the frontispiece’s immediate context, and describes the basic composition and allegorical elements. It was in Cesare Cesariano’s 1521 translation and commentary on Vitruvius that the combination of allegorical emblems for the visual representation of the architect first appeared in treatises on architecture printed in Italy during the sixteenth century. Analysis of the illustration in Cesariano’s text is made complex by the idiosyncratic language he developed for his translation of

Vitruvius. His combining words and phrases that derive from Latin and Italian sources

46 using Italian endings to Latin words or a mix of words from either language means that the inference of his statements is open to debate.

Figure 2 Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, trans., Cesare Cesariano, Como: Gottardo da Ponte, 1521, LXXXXII. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture.

In a folio toward the end of the treatise he depicted himself portrayed in allegorical form as embodying the attributes of an architect.74 We recognise that it is Cesariano being

47 depicted in this way because of the surrounding text and the heading MUNDI

ELECTIVA CESARIS CAESARIANI CONFIGURATA,75 “The Chosen of the World by

Cesare Cesariano.” In his introductory text, Cesariano described himself as citizen of

Milan and professor of architecture. He was also a member of the Milanese clergy.

His treatise was highly significant in the context of treatises on architecture and the

Vitruvian commentary because it was the first translation of Vitruvius into a dialect that combined the volgare with Latin derivations and it was lavishly printed in folio format and included a number of illustrations.

This initial ‘reading’ is what Erwin Panofsky has termed pre-iconographic – a description of the frontispiece before analysis – understood as recognition of visual elements based on prior and usually ‘common’ knowledge.76 However, he acknowledges that in describing an allegorical representation it is difficult to separate this layer from the one that follows because in making this description historians are at the same time processing their initial reception. Sources contributing to descriptions of images often exist in texts close to the frontispiece; description may be facilitated by reference to other texts by the author of the treatise or in other texts and commentaries emerging from the same historical milieu. In the chapters that follow I have separated the description of the frontispieces into components structured by looking firstly at the framing device of the image: whether it is an architectural frame or a particular drawing technique, and, if relevant, describing its elements and characteristics. This is followed by a sequence of investigative descriptions of the images, from smallest to largest or least significant to most significant, and then to the symbolic or allegorical content suggested by this initial perusal. Making these initial judgments pertaining to significance follows pictorial conventions usually applied to allegorical representations; in such illustrations, it is this hierarchy of significance of images that directs a focus to the central theme and reveals clues for interpreting the narrative of the frontispiece.

48 In Cesariano’s treatise, text accompanying the illustrations describes components of the illustration telling us of the trials and tribulations that he suffered in order to carry out this translation and commentary of Vitruvius’ De architectura acknowledging that he risked moving his readers to tears!77 He described how, as a result of being thrown out of his paternal home, he practiced “pictura & Architectura” helped only by God and himself, and how he studied cosmography and other “electe scientie”, not to mention

Greek and Latin. He said that he took it upon himself to “touch the forehead of

Fortuna” and thence to enter into Princely circles.78 This he said was justified because of certain qualities that he held such as: Patientia, Prudenta and Audacia, virtues that confirmed his ability to emerge out of the darkness of poverty into which his stepmother had thrown him.79 In the illustration Cesariano is located centrally with the instruments of the compass and ruler and he is crowned with a laurel. He has an inscription

EXIGITUR TANDEM A PAUPERTATE DOCTUS (the learned man at length is cast forth from poverty).80 Located behind him are Prudentia and Audacia who are actively engaged with directing the Cesariano figure.

In a recent iconographic study, Paolo Verzone has carried out a description of the illustration of the Cesariano allegory.81 Scholarly explanations such as this are useful checking devices and reinforce that it is essential to search a wide range of previous interpretations of the allegorical representation of any segment of each frontispiece.

The plan of Verzone’s explanation of Cesariano’s illustration draws attention to the compositional structure of the image and the naming of each particular personification and translation of the inscriptions into Italian in order to contribute to an understanding of the illustration. Following this description Verzone interprets the narrative action that is taking place in the most crucial components of the illustration.

Verzone states that the image can be seen to divide into two sections vertically; the left side holds emblems representing the world of the poor: the children of what Verzone has named ‘Nouerca’ seated in horizontal layers on a globe; and the right side holds

49 emblems of the celestial world of the elect immortals: an imperial couple, a pope surrounded by cardinals and two regal figures. He follows with a description of the principal layers of personifications on the left, naming them and their inscriptions: the dominant three figures of the upper level, Invidia (Envy), Ignorantia and Persuasio with the inscription INVIDIA CONSIGLIERA DELLA IGNORANTIA - PERSUASIO FILIA

SAPIENTIAE (Envy is the advisor of Ignorance – Persuasion the daughter of

Knowledge/Wisdom). Below this there are two other inscriptions IN MUNDI NUBIBUS

STAT PAUPERTATIS STATUS (It is in the clouds of the world – as opposed to the light – that Poverty lies) and PAUPERTATIS COETUS, a statement uniting a group of figures below. These figures include Desperatio, Labor (Manual work), Specs (Hope),

Individiosa Fraus (Fraud), Hypocresia, Patientia and Calumnia at the same level with

Indolencia below, excluded from the field of action.

Verzone continues with a description of the right-hand realm where the celestial world is dominated by a figure of Mercurius playing the role of Deus Ex Machina with the inscription SIC FATA VOLUNT. The figure of Cesariano in the centre of the image turns his face to Mercurius, an act that Verzone suggests indicates the depth of paternal feelings Cesariano has for his stepfather Pirovano. The arc of the celestial figures has three descriptive inscriptions labelling its figures: IMPERATORUM

SERENITAS below the imperial couple, SUMMORUM PONTIFICIUM MAXIMORUM

AC CARDINALIUM ET CHORI ECCLESIAE FOELICITAS below the pope and his cardinals, and REGUM MAIESTAS AC MULTORUM PRINCIPUM IMMORTALIUM

SEDES below the regal figures. Below Mercurius is Fortuna with her hair blowing before her and in her hand are the bellows of inspiration.

This description focuses attention on the virtues that Cesariano presents as being necessary attributes of the person he understands as an architect. These virtues are not developed in isolation and their emergence had previously been emphasised in the rhetorical tradition of Leon Battista Alberti, Filarete (Antonio di Piero Averlino) and

50 Francesco di Giorgio Martini, each of whom had written architectural treatises during the fifteenth century.82 There was also a growing tradition of commentary and translation of Vitruvius’s De architectura in manuscript and printed form, a tradition that was willing to add Renaissance values to earlier copies of the text.83

Verzone’s description of this image outlines some of the represented allegorical qualities as being intrinsic to Cesariano himself. Verzone explained the narrative of the illustration thus:

The principal group of figures, which is the crux of the composition, is centred on the figure of the author. Poverty is represented by an old, ugly woman with torn clothing and a bunch of keys hanging on her belt. Her inscription reads: “Dira paupertasa filia ignorantiae” (Poverty, daughter of ignorance). She holds a part of Cesariano’s clothing. Poverty appears to be pushed away from Cesariano by Prudence’s right hand and with a club held high in the left. Prudence is a tall, young woman with a helmet on which a winged chimera sits. Cesariano has his face turned towards a happy future and holds the instruments of the architect - the compass and the ruler - in his hand. On his back is the inscription “Exigitur tandem a paupertatis doctus.” (The learned man at length is cast forth from poverty). His patrician clothing, the bag at his side, the laurel and his well-combed hair represent this success. The action actually taking place is Cesariano attempting to take Fortune by the hair, a beautiful young woman with a crown who rises from a multitude of smaller figures that could represent the world of fantasy. Fortune assists this with a ‘waft’ of inspiration from Fate.84

Verzone’s description of Cesariano’s illustrations interprets the immediate connection between the image and Cesariano as the named figure in the illustration’s title but does not go beyond what Cesariano had already explained to question the impact that emphasis of such virtues would have on a Renaissance audience.85 To carry out a full investigation of the illustration, historians would have to question why the particular qualities of Patientia, Prudentia and Audacia, stated by Cesariano as his own qualities, were so important in that context to warrant such emphasis. Questioning the

51 implications of making this statement to a Renaissance audience would also have to be raised within the second and third layers of investigation.

1.3.4 Analysing the emblems iconographically and establishing a narrative in the

frontispiece:

Firstly, I reiterate a statement made earlier: in practice, the first two stages of an iconological analysis are often not completely separate endeavours. From the basic description, the study’s second layer of investigation proceeds to analysis of each emblem iconographically and to investigation of the relative importance of emblems, personifications and inscriptions or lemma. An initial hypothesis of the meaning in the narrative of the complete image starts to be formulated. This investigation of personifications, emblems and symbols is carried out from both a diachronic perspective in an historical or chronological manner and synchronic perspective through investigation of structures of conventional meaning little changed over time. In the chapters of my study that follow, I have investigated the specific characteristics of personifications and other emblems in each frontispiece by comparing them with attributions from past visual media. Fundamental to this investigation are recent publications discussing emblems and the wealth of literature on Renaissance images including those by Aby Warburg, Erwin Panofsky, Rudolf Wittkower and Raymond

Klibansky.86 Of significant use for this stage of investigation are books analysing the use in literature of allegorical personifications, their attributes and purpose in the text.87

While it is commonly understood that the emblem tradition became established with the printing of Andrea Alciati’s Emblematum liber in 1531 it is the continuity of usage over the previous century that informs the use of emblems and allegories in illustrations such as Cesariano’s.

52 In the example of Cesariano’s depiction, investigation would be carried out on the virtues of Patientia, Prudentia and Audacia to establish the meaning of these personifications at the time and in the context of their use. Further investigation may also be needed to comprehend the purpose of including Mercurius and other personifications such as Fortuna. These were not uncommon personifications in the art of the early Italian Renaissance and by the early sixteenth century had developed a tradition of usage.

Knowledge of the tradition of emblem usage and the specific references to this tradition in Cesariano’s text, helps direct the investigation. However, in suggesting that there may have been a convention of representation that Cesariano’s image replicated, highlights the necessity for prior investigation of unique attributes. In the fifteenth century, rhetorical descriptions of the attributes of the architect had included skills and knowledge that the architect of the fifteenth century must develop or learn and also included development of personal values. For the Renaissance, the most significant and distinctive quality added as that of the architect was the necessity for utilising his intellectual ability. This capacity for intellectual rigor and the values required for public life were commonly spoken of in the rhetorical texts as pertaining to and essential for the courtier.88 Describing the architect with similar attributes suggests that what is being presented is a distinctive change in status – up from the lower status of the practical manual crafts to the higher status of a public figure.

When we compared this with Cesariano’s text we find support for the notion that he was intent on emphasising essential qualities of an architect because his purpose was to educate a reading public in how to distinguish between ‘pseudi’ and ‘docti’ when it came to architects.89 He had stated,

Therefore those architects who bring forth skilled results seem to be like demi-gods, because they try to make art similar to nature and a supplement to it. And for this

53 the noble science and operations compel the untutored illiterates to remain subject always to the educated and experienced.90

Cesariano went so far as to suggest that there should be a clarification of to whom the term applied and that ‘pseudi architecti,’ “these false men . . . must be deprived of the title and be called builders, masons or labourers, and not architects.”91 Cesariano’s stress of his virtues for public life and his education in the intellectual rigors of Latin, pictura and Architettura, portrays his understanding of himself as being a model of a

“docti.” In the text beside Cesariano’s illustration, he compared himself to Vitruvius and

Apelles and, through these comparisons, takes on as his own virtue the authority of

Vitruvius and the antique. Following reference to his text, the allegorical image is portrayed as an explanation of his ‘moment of authority’ and represented as his leaving the world of mortals to be deified as the architect.92 His text explained that he took it upon himself to “touch the forehead of Fortuna” and enter into the princely circles, implying that this was the status that belonged to the ‘Vitruvian architect.’ He continued that it was through qualities he held such as Patientia, Prudentia and Audacia that he was able to emerge out of the darkness of poverty to be the “illuminator of this divine work.”93

The boldness of Cesariano’s act of reaching out to touch the forelock of Fortuna was an act of proving that through perseverance, learning and labour, success can be achieved with help from Audacia. Cesariano quoted Aristotle in his statement that

“philosophy teaches man to know their Creator.”94 However, Cesariano reflected on this closeness to immortality and the Divine nature of creativity in Platonic terms elsewhere in his treatise, suggesting that unchanging ‘certain truths’ were understood through the contemplative state.95 Cesariano said, “what is held by one who understands proven, unchanging and certain reason . . . and wisdom, thereafter, is what the mind and intellect hold exclusively in intent contemplation.”96 These concepts

54 of the architect’s closeness to divinity brought with it notions of moral good and social virtues found represented in the emblems of the illustration.

In analysing Cesariano’s allegory further, investigation can be directed to a number of sources including interpretations by other writers of the time or by more recent scholars. Cesariano aimed to be acknowledged as architect as defined in Vitruvian terms. Pamela Long has interpreted the illustration as Cesariano actively defending, against two Aristotelian beliefs, his capacity to gain status both as a socially important figure and as an architect. Cesariano included a reference to these beliefs in his text.

Pamela Long quotes the two relevant comments in Cesariano’s defence of his worth.

In Cesariano’s opinion Aristotle had said: “it is impossible that the needy devote themselves to good, as they are lacking in zeal” and “it is impossible that they who are poorly born are able to do good . . . conversely they who are well-born can impart benefits.”97 Analysed against the background of these statements, Cesariano’s depictions of virtues and his ‘moment of attainment’ take on a different and personally distinctive meaning. Long suggests that the title of the illustration reinforced

Cesariano’s presentation of an argument against Aristotle’s propositions of the apparent fatalism of status. This idea is also in Manfredo Tafuri’s writing with his suggestion that Cesariano had referenced Leon Battista Alberti’s idea of man being in charge of his own destiny.98 Cesariano reinforced the claim that he had been chosen to ‘impart gifts’ even though circumstances had made him of lowly status. Pamela

Long, in more closely analysing Cesariano’s depiction of himself in the illustration, states: “He was dressed in the clothes of a patrician, with a fat purse clasped to his waist. His head was encircled with laurel leaves, the Renaissance symbol of humanistic learning. In his hand he carried the compass and a rule, the tools of the architect.”99 From this closer investigation it becomes clear that this is a depiction of a man whose status has been transformed, a definite statement that the social virtues necessary for public life can be gained through aptitude and learning.

55 Two aspects emerge from this layer of investigation. Cesariano views the architect as driven by intellectual concerns and to emphasise this he follows the Renaissance convention by making explicit reference to the classical philosophical ideas of both

Plato and Aristotle. The second is that Cesariano presented the idea in allegory that within Italian Renaissance society change in status could be achieved through individual effort. This reinforces the notion of the social figure of the architect as engaged in intellectual pursuits, was not a unknown concept to sixteenth-century Italian

Renaissance society.

1.3.5 Analysing initial interpretations in the illustration’s historical context

The third layer of investigation goes beyond the analysis of personifications and the meaning attributed to modification of their traditional use for current relevance. It raises questions related to an understanding of whether the specific historical context of the frontispiece allegory as a whole had more specific political or social relevance than expected from knowledge of its traditional use and its modification for the society at the time of the illustration. Many components of this layer of investigation address the criticism that the first two layers of investigation provided insufficient evidence for understanding meaning. That is, this stage would question, in the case of Cesariano’s image, whether, in his treatise or elsewhere, a politicised function would add support or otherwise for the prior tentative interpretation of the allegory.

To recapitulate to this point, the case study of Cesariano’s image has directed initial investigation, the recognition and description stage, firstly to texts and the traditional use of emblems; secondly, for initial interpretation stage, investigation is directed to supporting evidence in other illustrations in the treatise. At this stage, the investigator also analyses the author’s text and the paratextual material of the treatise, to assist in deducing the new meaning that the author is imposing on an emblem when he modifies

56 its traditional appearance. The investigator will be alert here also to the possibility that the author is ‘connecting’ elements so that there interaction introduces a specific meaning to the narrative of the whole illustration. However, information gleaned from these sources does not provide all the answers concerning Cesariano’s representation.

To interpret why Cesariano’s allegorical transformation has certain features we need additional information supplied by: contextual historical evidence that may help in the resolution of apparent discrepancies between text and image, and support for these new considerations from other sources. To pursue interpretation of elements of an illustration such as a frontispiece it is also essential to recognise the potency of specific emblems, allegories and icons for particular audiences. Interpretation resulting from all this evidence needs also to be confirmed or defended through analyses of other primary source material and historians’ later interpretive analyses of similar emblems.

The interpretation of evidence associated with Cesariano’s allegorical representations requires a knowledge of the politics of the time – that of the Hapsburg and Holy Roman

Emperor, Charles V, captured Milan during 1521 may be relevant to a comprehension of a political influence on Cesariano. Milan was then a city-state under the leadership of the king of France. While, in the treatise, the privileges to be granted from Pope Leo

X and Francis I are both acknowledged and a dedication is made to Francis I, by including others in his broad ranging dedication Cesariano modified the impact of these potential supporters. His dedication is to his expected audience; firstly he offers the work to the city of Milan and the King of France and to all its future rulers and senators, and then to the “Patrician Heroes”, the clergy and the nobility and, no less, Don Pietro de Novate who at the time was the aedilis of Milan, a public magistrate who took care of private and public building, streets and solemn games.100 He also presumes that the

“Colegio de tuti li nostri Egregii Architecti”, rectors and the learned and erudite are those who will read his work.101 Investigation would have to question why each of

57 these figures was important to Cesariano and whether they played a specific role in his quest to be an architect.

The broad dedication focuses on issues of Cesariano’s own status, an issue also highlighted by Aloisio Pirovano in his Oratio and Agostino Gallo’s La Praefatione, included in the paratextual material of the treatise.102 Aloisio Pirovano claimed himself to be “citizen of Milan and renowned professor of arithmetic and geometry in that bountiful city,” and had been Cesariano’s benefactor. Agostino Gallo was Royal

Referendary for Francis I in Como.103 The two men were involved in the publication of

Cesariano’s treatise but a dispute had occurred in the final stages of its completion. In his Oratio to the treatise, Pirovano presented the volume as if it were the work of various scholars. He said, “not without maximum expense I engaged many excellent painters to draw and similarly I engaged not mediocre engravers to engrave the illustrations which were delineated and drawn with a compass. So that in this work no appropriate thing could be left to be desired by the diligent and by scholars.”104 His

Oratio excluded Cesariano’s name as the major figure of the text and focused on others,

We have led those men who are scholars in such doctrine: who have corrected, faithfully translated and clarified with utmost diligence (as much as the brevity of time allowed them): the most excellent Mauro Bergomense a man who is not ignorant of such doctrine, who has translated the text itself and has enunciated many difficult passages and has reinstated an infinite number of confused points to the true order prior to giving this work to the printers.105

Pirovano and Gallo were interested in presenting the publication as representing a broad collective recognition of the ‘humanist spirit’ with their own involvement given primacy. Pirovano attempted, in the lavish production of a significant treatise, to portray an image of his own status by his association with Agostino Gallo, a man of status and influence beyond Milan. However, Cesariano had stated that his aim was to control the full production of the book, and to present himself as an authority on

58 Vitruvius and Renaissance understandings of architecture. These competing claims are revealed in an investigation of the book’s various paratextual materials.

These discrepancies between Pirovano’s claims and those of Cesariano, focus on the book as an instrument for political and ideological purpose at a time when an appeal could not be made to a ruler as dominant patron, as was customary, as both leaders of

Milan were ‘in absentia.’106 This meant that the courts and merchant classes were confronting distant power structures that perhaps did not value the Milanese notion of urbanity, an urbanity that was being contested at the time with tradition valuing an idealised Lombardian and Gothic understanding of the value of classicism to the city.

Cesariano’s claims for status as an architect, one committed to benefiting the public and worthy of recognition in such a context, was important to the Milanese notion of social values.

There is further evidence from historical sources that contribute to an investigation of

Cesariano’s allegorical depiction of himself as architect. This evidence stems in part from Cesariano’s presentation of philosophical ideas developed from those of Aristotle and Plato that had a political potency in other social enterprises of Milan, and were introduced by Cesariano into other illustrations in the treatise. Manfredo Tafuri suggested that Cesariano’s translation of Vitruvius reflected the new role of the

‘intellectual’ in the social division of work in the construction industry and the need for a cultural politics based on a theoretically based ideology.107 As proof of his position as architect, Tafuri suggests that Cesariano had referenced Leon Battista Alberti’s

Aristotelian idea of man being in charge of his own destiny, and, in all he does, transmitting an image of his own humanitas; Cesariano portrayed himself as a model for living and for cultural behaviour.108 This intertwining of social behavioural ideas and architectural propositions with appeal to a specific audience infers a politicised narrative in Cesariano’s illustration.

59 In his illustration Cesariano depicted his intellectual worth through notions of this

Aristotelian humanitas but as well he superimposed, as a basis for design in architecture, Neoplatonic notions of conformity and transference of order and ‘certain truth’ as it occurs in the cosmos and is reflected in the natural world. This portrayal of the intellectual worth of Cesariano is in contrast to the different political aspirations of the other players involved in the production of the treatise. The reason that Cesariano represented himself in such a manner is confirmed by the inclusion of representations of local architectural debates in the illustrations to the treatise, particularly the woodblocks of . It is these illustrations that have been judged as most idiosyncratic in Cesariano’s presentation of Vitruvian values.109 Carol Krinsky suggested that Cesariano had never visited Rome nor seen many of the examples of antique buildings and ruins held to be significant to an understanding of Alberti’s and

Vitruvius’s treatises.110 Arnaldo Bruschi concluded that Cesariano’s method for adapting, copying and developing images of the antique,

Indicates a method of procedure by which Cesariano drew freely upon diverse iconographic material as a point of departure for his own elaborations. It is quite possible that among these varied sources were, eg, images found in illustrated manuscripts, which Cesare - man of the cloister and the library - certainly knew as “letterato” and painter and must have cherished. It is also possible that he had access to some drawing collection, particularly one of architectural and decorative details after ancient buildings. On the other hand it is not possible to trace any real relationship with drawings of the antiquities of Rome, which surely were circulating in northern Italy at the time, given the numerous artists returning there from the papal city; an example of such are drawings attributed to Bramantino. Instead in numerous instances Cesariano derived ideas directly from buildings in the area of the Po Valley.111

For Renaissance writers the understanding of examples of architecture that could be referred to as antique ranged over both Romanesque and Gothic structures. To

Krinsky, Cesariano’s inclusion of Milan Cathedral was a conservative act, an attempt

60 “to combine the words of a Roman authority with illustrations of available buildings that seemed to have something in common with those words.”112

However, this apparent conservatism had its radically motivated edge, one that has been recognised by Arnaldo Bruschi. Bruschi suggested that Cesariano was reproposing a design by Stornalco of 1391 and that Cesariano saw himself as “uno medico architetto” offering Vitruvian dignity to what was a Germanic Gothic design.113

Cesariano chose to represent Milan Cathedral to match the out-of-favour design by

Bramante.114 In doing this he codes the very parerga of the text with political allegiances of his colleagues rather than those of his publishing patrons. By introducing the active debates about continuing the building of the Milan Cathedral,

Cesariano complicated the message that his book was focused only on understanding the classical architecture of Vitruvius. Considering these aspects of the illustration, one would have to question what benefit Cesariano expected to achieve by focusing attention on himself as an authority on architecture? At the time, the merchant classes of Milan were known defenders of the Gothic, and were reluctant to accept an architecture based on the imagery of a Roman Antiquity. Here, Cesariano both contextualised an understanding of antiquity and also tried to present the similarities of

Germanic Gothic with antiquity. In the allegorical illustrations and those of Milan

Cathedral, Cesariano presents himself within a difficult political arena, as architect, allegorist, designer and defender of a professional attitude that redefined architecture as the focus of many levels of society rather than as a forum only for the display of the magnificence of a ruler. It is a defence that could have been influential in his gaining the esteemed position of capomaestro of Milan Cathedral’s construction soon after completion of the treatise and if so an example of an effective political ploy.115

61 1.4 Interpreting frontispieces – concluding comments on method

While other contextual investigations could perhaps extend what has been presented above, these suffice for a discussion of method. Sources enumerated above have shown how the term architect has become entwined in the battles between the historical figures implicated in its use and how the term could be given distinctive attributes during each occurrence of its use or representation in image. However, each representation in image of the term has been contextualised through presenting a claim that its meaning or status is symptomatic of broader issues of social concern. Roland

Barthes referred to the referencing of Renaissance images to the classical, such as

Cesariano did, as acting as a ‘native’ narrative for the printed book.116 This ‘native’ narrative is evident in the illustration and confirmed through analysis of sources essential to the illustration’s interpretation. In my study, interpretation of the frontispiece aims to find this ‘native’ narrative for the term architect and the relevance of this in the politics of its historical production. In the method described through the case study of Cesare Cesariano’s illustration, I have discussed the specific steps for investigation of each frontispiece in the chapters that follow. However, it is important to note that the investigation of the frontispiece and its reporting have distinctively different characteristics. Just as layers of investigation are not separate and discrete, so in the reporting of any iconographic study, the distinctive phases of description, analysis and interpretation cannot be entirely separate in their presentation. They are combined in a narrative and constrained by the structure and rhetorical framing of each chapter. This is not an excuse for any lack of clarity or accuracy in analysis, explanation and reporting, but an acknowledgement that reporting of an iconographic investigation is both objective and subjective and is the telling of a story, an interpretive act.

62

1 Martin Briggs, The Architect in History, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927, 130-189. This is the title of the 1550 edition. Briggs states that his references are to the English edition in Bohn’s Library, London, published in 1907. 2 The value of Briggs’ scholarship is that it makes the case that an attribute of Vasari’s themed approach it contorts biographical history to construct a notion of progressive perfection in the arts during the Renaissance. See Howard Saalman’s comments on the writing of biography during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, in his “Introduction” to Antonio di Tuccio Manetti, The Life of Brunelleschi, Catherine Enggass, trans., Philadelphia: Penn State Univ, 1970, 26. See also Leopold Ettlinger, “The Emergence of the Italian Architect during the Fifteenth Century,” in The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, Spiro Kostof, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 96-123. 3 Briggs, The Architect in History, 1927, 137. 4 While the accuracy of Briggs statement can now be questioned with the emergence of some architectural training being undertaken by Antonio da Sangallo the Younger his argument concerning the broad-ranging education of architects and one’s position being reliant on birth and family situation remains. 5 Briggs, The Architect in History, 1927, 138. 6 Ettlinger, “The Emergence of the Italian Architect during the Fifteenth Century,” 1977, 96. 7 James Ackerman, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 13, 3(Oct., 1954), 3-11and reprinted in his Distance Points: Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture, Cambridge: MIT Press, c1991, 361- 385. Ackerman suggests that documents related to the practices of the architect tend to be construction drawings, invoices, accounts, and work books and are not located in a public arena. These tend to be private documents with a different rhetoric to the documents concerned with public engagement. 8 Mary Hollingsworth, “The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence,” Art History, 7(Dec., 1984), 385-410. 9 Ackerman, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance,” 1954, 3-11. 10 Ackerman, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance,” 1954, 3-11. 11 Ackerman, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance,” 1954, 3-11. 12 Catherine Wilkinson, “The New Professionalism in the Renaissance,” 124-160, and Myra Nan Rosenfeld, “Emergence of the Italian Architect During the Fifteenth Century,” 96-123 in, The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, Spiro Kostof, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. 13 Wilkinson, “The New Professionalism in the Renaissance,” 1977, 149. Wilkinson characterises theoretical discussions in architectural treatises as “rhetorical and lacking in any direct relationship to design.”

63

14 Richard Goldthwaite, Chapter Seven “The Architect,” in his, The Building of Renaissance Florence: An Economic and Social History, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1980, 351-396. 15 Goldthwaite, The Building of Renaissance Florence, 1980, 354. 16 Luigi Vagnetti, L'architetto nella storia di Occidente, : CEDAM, 1980. 17 The botteghe developed from trade workshops and were the location of training through apprenticeship. Vagnetti, L'architetto, 1980, 213-6. 18 Pamela Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition and Rational Architecture in the Sixteenth Century: A Study in the history of Ideas, PhD dissertation submitted to Graduate School, University of Maryland, 1979, Ann Arbor, Mi: UMI Dissertation, 1980. 19 Toker, “Alberti’s Ideal Architect: Renaissance – or Gothic?” in Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth, Andrew Morrogh et al., eds., Florence: Giunti Barbéra, 1985, 667- 674, and Liisa Kanerva, Defining the Architect in Fifteenth Century Italy: Exemplary architects in L.B. Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1998. 20 Toker, “Alberti’s Ideal Architect: Renaissance – or Gothic?” 1985, 669. 21 Gay Clifford, The Transformation of Allegory, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974, 2. Clifford suggests, “each of these passages confronts us with a strange world, which though distinctive, resembles the others in its combination of elusiveness and familiarity. Their strangeness derives not from exoticism, but from the fact that they are so neutral, so indefinite, and yet immediately suggest that they mean something important.” 22 Clifford, The Transformation of Allegory, 1974, 7. 23 Clifford, The Transformation of Allegory, 1974, 11. 24 Judith Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli: The Career of a Florentine Polymath, Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1983, 56. 25 Note Francesco Barberi’s caution about the decorative nature of seventeenth-century frontispieces as distinctively different to the allegorical intention of sixteenth century frontispieces. Francesco Barberi, “Il Frontespizio nel Libro Italiano del Seicento,” in his Il Libro Italiano del Seicento, Roma: Editrice Gela Reprints, 1985, 84. 26 Marsilio Ficino, De vita triplici, III, 2, Opera, 534, is characterised in this manner in Paul O Kristeller, Renaissance Thought and the Arts, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965, specifically Chapters IV and V. 27 Andrea Alciati’s Emblematum liber of 1531, Emblematum libellus nuper in lucem editus, Veneti: Figlio di Aldus, 1546, and for Achile Bocchi’s Symbolicarum quaestionum of 1551 see Symbolicarum Quaestionum de universo genre quas serio ludebat libri quinque, Bononiae: in aedibus Novae Academiae Bocchianae, 1555, and as well the later influential work of Cesare Ripa, Iconologia overo descrittione dell'imagini universali cavate dall'antichità et da altri luoghi da Cesare Ripa Perugino, Roma, Gigliotti, Giovanni eredi, 1593, (unillustrated), printed with his illustrations in Padua: Tozzi, 1611 and reprinted by New York: Garland Pub., 1976. 28 Examples of heavily illustrated manuscripts are those of Francesco di Giorgio Trattato I and Trattato II of c.1470-1490 and Filarete [Antonio di Piero Averlino] De architectura libri XXV

64 manuscript c.1488. These treatises used drawing to explain or extend the text. For example folio 57 verso returns to an earlier examination of smooth and fluted columns. Filarete says, “For the present you have understood enough about the columns and have seen enough of the large and small drawings. I will show them to you again in drawing.” He clarifies the point of discussion with drawings of both columns. Examples of the copies of Francesco di Giorgio’s Trattato I and II can be seen in Gustina Scaglia, Francesco Di Giorgio: Checklist and History of Manuscripts and Drawings, London: Associated University Presses, 1992, esp. Ch. V-VI with a further discussion of the adaptation of Francesco di Giorgio’s text and drawings in Ch, VIII. See also Francesco Paolo Fiore, “The Trattati on Architecture by Francesco di Giorgio,” in Paper Palaces:The rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, Vaughan Hart with Peter Hicks eds., New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998, Ch 3, 66-85. An example of the use of drawing to clarify text is evident in Filarete’s comparative drawing of the three Orders from Codex Magliabechiano, fol. 57v. See John Spencer, Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known as Filarete, John R Spencer, trans., Vol. I and II, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, Vol. I, 99 and Vol. II, f. 57v and see also Luisa Giordano’s chapter “On Filarete’e Libro Archittonico,” in Paper Palaces, Hart with Hicks eds., 1998, Ch 2, 51-65. 29 Leon Batista Alberti, De re aedificatoria, Capitolo del Duomo do Olomouc in Moravia: Ms. Lat. CO 330, f. 2r, Biblioteca Estense, Modena: Alpha 0.3.8 Lat. 419 and Roma Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, (Cod. Urb. Lat. 264). See Henry Millon and Vittorio Lampugnani eds., The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to Michelangelo, 1994, 457. Margaret Manion and Bernard Muir suggest that the Alberti manuscripts made for Matthias Corvinus may be compared with the two examples of breviaries made for Matthias exhibiting the same style of illumination: these documents differ in their illustration of particular passages from the Bible, where attempts are made at a perspectival rendering of interiors. In Margaret Manion and Bernard Muir, eds., Medieval Texts and Images: Studies of Manuscripts from the Middle Ages, Chur, Switzerland: Craftsman House, c1991, 87-89. See also Joseph Rykwert in Alberti, On The Art of Building in Ten Books, Rykwert, et al, 1988, xvii claims Cod. Urb. Lat 264, manuscript was finished in 1483 for Federico da Montefeltre, Duke of Urbino. 30 Of great interest in these decorative elements is the dress and ‘station’ of the figures which often denoted the position or status of the Patron, Sumptuary Laws, regulating the materials, cut and cost of clothing and jewellery, in many Italian cities: Florence passed such laws in 1415, 1464 and 1471. Regulation of dress is of great detailed concern to Alberti in his treatise I Libri della Famiglia. These laws were often flouted by the aristocracy, but nevertheless gave the appearance of a civic life that was tied closely to social status rather than wealth. The growing wealth of the borghese represented a threat to the traditional aristocracy. The regulation of ostentation, and the exercise of patrician taste were two methods for signalling one’s family lineage. This type of signal became reinforced both in painted images and representation in illuminations. See Jacqueline Herald, Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400-1500, London: Bell & Hyman, 1981, 151.

65

31 Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria …, Angelus Politianus, ed., Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 1485. The usual addition to the Alberti text was Politian’s introductory letter to Lorenzo de’Medici which Burckhardt who cites Tiraboschi (1772) dates from 1480. See Jacob Burckhardt, The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985, 31. Politian had saved de’Medici’s life in the Pazzi conspiracy during a grab for financial power by the Pazzi family in 1478. This political act brought to the book a recognition not only of the author and subject but also the importance of the role of other players in the success of the publication and the profession. Both Alberti and Politian had been members of the Platonic Academy of Lorenzo and here the letter which appeared first in a manuscript works as an epitaph to reinforce Alberti’s status in this first printed edition. 32 Examples can be found in Battista da Sangallo’s illustrated copy of the editio princeps of Vitruvius, De Architectura, Roma: George Herholt, 1487, Biblioteca Corsini, Rome, 50, f.I., and the 1492 illustrated version of Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, Angelus Politianus, ed., Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 1485, also an editio princeps with added illustrations dated 1497 held at the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, PML 44056. For the copy of Alberti found at the Pierpont Morgan Museum see Kathleen Luhrs, ed., In August Company: The Collections of the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, 1993, 192. For the copy of Vitruvius at the Corsiniana, see Millon and Lampugnani, eds., The Renaissance: Brunelleschi to Michelangelo, 1994, 533. 33 The signs of ownership of manuscripts were evident in not only the binding but also in the specifics of illumination attributable to particular scriptoria and personally stamped paper. Books were printed as loose leaves and bound on sale to the specification of the purchaser. Binding became the clearest sign of ownership. While the work relations of the scriptorium changed, the binder’s craft continued but changed location moving from courts to commercial enterprises. See Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin, The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450-1800, London: National Library of Britain, 1976, 105. 34 Elizabeth Eisenstein stresses the “interplay between diverse occupational groups” which occurred in the newly set up printing workshops as opposed to the well-established craft guild run scriptoria. Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Social Change, Vol 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979, 55 and 59-60. 35 See for example, Deborah Howard’s documentation of Sebastiano Serlio’s copyrights in, “Sebastiano Serlio’s Venetian Copyrights,” Burlington Magazine CXV, 845, (Aug., 1973), 512-516. 36 Henri-Jean Martin, The History and Power of Writing, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994, 332. Just how broad this readership was, is difficult to establish, see, Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Social Change, vol 1, 1979, 63 and her directions to the Chapter, “Printing and the People,” in Natalie Davis’s, Society and Culture in Early Modern France: Eight Essays, Stanford, Ca: Stanford University Press, 1975, 189-226. 37 Example can be taken from William Mitchell, Picture Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.

66

38 Roland Recht, “Codage et fonction des illustrations: l’exemple de l’edition de Vitruve de 1521,” in, Les Traites D’Architecture De La Renaissance, Jean Guillaume, ed., Paris: Picard, 1988, 61-67. 39 Vitruvius, M. Vitruvius per Iucundum solito castigatior factus, cum figures et tabula, ut iam legi et intelligi posit, Fra Giocondo da Veroli, trans., Venetia: Iohannes Tacuinus, 1511. This followed Vitruvius’s original treatise that had also been conceptualised as an illustrated work with 10 illustrations but no illustrations survived to its medieval copies. 40 For further comments see Lucia Ciapponi’s, “Fra Giocondo da Veroli and his Edition of Vitruvius,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 47(1984), 72-90. 41 Ciapponi, “Fra Giocondo da Veroli and His Edition of Vitruvius,” 1984, 74. Singula enim et in his machinis et in multis superiorum rerum descriptionibus si quis declarare vellet, opus esset et plura scribere et cuiusque rei varias figurationum facies pingere, quibus et quae rebus ipsis intra sunt et extra monstrari possent. Sed satis mihi fecisse videor aperuisse scilicet studiosis fores et ostendisse semitas quibus hic auctor intelligi valeret. Vitruvius, M. Vitruvius per Iucundum solito castigatior factus, Fra Giocondo da Veroli, trans., 1511, 102v. 42 With reference to Francesco di Giorgio’s hand illustrated manuscript, Margaret D’Evelyn states that, “by referring to the drawings as “signs” throughout the latter part of the treatise . . . Francesco di Giorgio was giving to the drawing certain rhetorical functions usually associated with a text. As the sign, the drawing takes on the functions of a “signifier,” the explanatory, demonstrative “words” or “verba” aspects of discourse. The art of persuasion is manifest through the drawing.” Margaret D’Evelyn, Word and Image in Architectural Treatises of the Italian Renaissance, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1995, 46. 43 Many texts have been written on the festivals of Renaissance Italy. Of note are Jacob Burckhardt’s descriptions in “Society and Festivals”, the ‘Fifth Part’ of his book, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, London: Phaidon, 1944, 214-221. 44 Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology, Joseph Ward Swain, trans., Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1947. Durkheim suggests the sacred ultimately refers not to a supernatural entity but rather to people’s emotionally charged interdependence. See Edward Muir, Ritual in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, 3-5 for discussion. 45 David Kertzer, Ritual, Politics and Power, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, 61- 62. 46 Richard J Ingersoll, The Ritual Use of Public Space in Renaissance Rome, PhD dissertation submitted to the University of California, Berkley, Ann Arbor, Mi: UMI Dissertation, 1985, 23. Ingersol suggests, “By examining the scope of rituals in urban space, I am going to demonstrate the legitimating function they played in extremely conflictual society of Renaissance Rome. The papacy during 15th and 16th century was absolutist only in ideology, while in fact its stability was constantly threatened by the internal dissension of the cardinals, the competing forces of civic and baronial factions in the city, and the external pressures of

67 international politics. Public rituals and urban planning served to produce an image of power that was to become more or less permanent by the end of the period under study.” 47 Patricia Fortini Brown, “Measured Friendship, Calculated Pomp: The Ceremonial Welcomes of the Venetian Republic,” in “All the World’s a Stage”: Art and Pagentry in the Renaissance and : Part 1, Triumphal Celebrations and the Rituals of Statecraft, Barbara Wisch and Susan Scott Munshower eds., University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University, 1990, Ch 4. 48 Martin, The History and Power of Writing, 1994, 320. 49 Eugenio Garin, Science and Civic Life in the Italian Renaissance, Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 1969, 41. 50 Martin, The History and Power of Writing, 1994, 365. 51 Martin, The History and Power of Writing, 1994, 365. 52 Martin, The History and Power of Writing, 1994, 365. 53 Roy Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals, 1450–1650, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1984, 10, outlines the growth of the Classical triumph from a medieval precursor in which the entry of a royal person was celebrated by enacting appropriate scenes from the Bible. 54 Not all were simple narrative – some were ironic in their intentions. 55 For a discussion of the concept of tableau vivant in frontispiece illustrations see D’Evelyn, Word and Image in Architectural Treatises of the Italian Renaissance, 1995, especially her chapters on Serlio. 56 For an understanding of Medieval aggregative systems of viewing see Tobin Nellhaus, “Mementos of Things to Come: Orality, Literacy, and Typology in the Biblia pauperum,” in, Printing the Written Word: The Social History of Books, circa 1450-1520, Sandra Hindman, ed., Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991, 292-321. 57 John Harris, Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, The King’s Arcadia: and the Stuart Court, London: Arts Council of Great Britain, 1973, 35. 58 See entry of Henri II into Paris C’est l’ordre qui a este tenv a la novvelle et ioyevse entrée, que tres hault, tres excellent, & tres puissant Prince, le Roy tres chrestien Henry deuzieme de ce nom, à faicte en sa bonne ville & cité de Paris, capitale de son royaume, le sezieme iour de iuin M.D.XLIX. (On les vend à Paris : par Iehan Dallier sus le pont sainct Michel à l’enseigne de la rose blanche, [ca. 1549]). Patricia Fortini Brown, Venice and Antiquity: The Venetian Sense of the Past, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1996, 282-284, speaks of Palladio’s involvement in such structures. 59 Christine Boyer, The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments, Cambridge Mass: MIT, 1994, Ch. 3, especially. See also Jonathon Kamholtz, “Spenser and Perspective,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 39, 1(Fall 1980-81), 59-66, for an account of Spenser’s poetic use of the implied specific relation of the viewing subject in perspective drawings, and the meaning which Spenser gives to various positions of the subject. 60 Krautheimer, “The Panels in Urbino, Baltimore and Berlin Reconsidered”, 1994, 233- 258.

68

61 Roland Barthes, Mythologies, Myth Today, trans., Annette Lavers, London: J Cape, 1972, 109-159. 62 “Personal celebrity is related to printed publicity at present. The same point may be applied to the past- in a manner that is especially relevant to debates over the difference between medieval and Renaissance individualism. When dealing with these debates, it is useful to recall that both the eponymous inventor and personal authorship appeared at the same time and as a consequence of the same process.” Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Social Change, Vol 1, 1979, 121. See also Eileen Harris, British Architectural Books and Writers: 1556-1785, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990, 59- 60. 63 See Lew Andrews “Ordering Space in Renaissance Times: Position and Meaning in Continuous Narration,” Word & Image 10, 1(Jan-Mar., 1994), 84. 64 A. W. Pollard, Last Word on the History of the Title-page with Notes on Some Colophons and Twenty-seven Fac-similes of Title-Pages, London: J. C. Nimmo, 1891. 65 Alfred Forbes Johnson A Catalogue of Italian Engraved Title-Pages in the Sixteenth Century, London: Oxford University Press, 1936. 66 Francesco Barberi, Il frontespizio nel libro italiano del Quattrocento e del Cinquecento, Milano: Polifilo, 1969. 67 Ruth Mortimer, Harvard College Library Department of Printing and Graphic Arts Catalogue of Books and Manuscripts: Part II: Italian 16th Century Books, Cambridge, Mass: Belknap, 1974. 68 Martha Pollak, et al., The Mark J. Millard Architectural Collection Volume IV, Italian and Spanish Books: Fifteenth through Nineteenth Centuries, Washington: National Gallery of Art Washington and Braziller, 2000. 69 Marco Frascari “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the Sides of Lady Architecture,” Assemblage 7 (Oct 1988), 15-27, and Christof Thoenes, “Serlio e la trattatistica,” in Sebastiano Serlio: Sesto seminario internazionale di storia dell’architettura, (1987), Christof Thoenes, ed., Milano: Electa, 1989, 9-17; Christof Thoenes, “La ‘Regola delli cinque ordini’ del Vignola (1981) in, Sostegno e adornamento: saggi sull’architettura del Rinascimento: disegni, ordini, magnificenza, Christof Thoenes, ed., Milano: Electa, 1988, 77-107, and Christof Thoenes, “Vignolas ‘Regola delli cinque ordini’”, Römisches Jahrbuch die Kunstgeschichte XX, 1983, 347- 74. 70 Erwin Panofsky characterizes much of the spatial theory of Renaissance images in his Perspective as Symbolic Form, trans., Christopher Wood, New York: Zone Books, 1997. He develops his theory of iconology in texts such as Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanist Themes in the Art of the Renaissance, New York: Oxford University Press, 1939 and Meaning in the Visual Arts, New York: The Overlook Press, 1955. 71 Hans Böker, “Respiciendo et Prospiciendo: Political Allegories of Architecture and Sculpture on the Frontispieces of Leoni’s Editions of Palladio and Alberti,” in, The Emblem and

69

Architecture: Studies in Applied Emblematics from the Sixteenth Century to the Eighteenth Century, Hans Böker and Peter, Daly, eds., Turnhout: Brepolis, 1999, 231-245. 72 Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, trans., Cesare Cesariano, Como: Gottardo da Ponte, 1521. The edition used in this study is, Vitruvius, Vitruvio: De Architectura: Translato Commentato Et Affigurato Da Caesare Cesariano, 1521, Arnaldo Bruschi, Adriano Carugo and Francesco Paolo Fiore, eds., Milano: Il Polifilo, 1981. 73 Paolo Verzone has made the conjecture that Cesariano’s name may have been actively removed from a frontispiece and colophon in the act of publishing the treatise. Paolo Verzone “Cesare Cesariano,” Arte Lombarda XVI(1971), 208. There is a documentation of the final breakdown between Cesariano and his collaborators in Arnaldo Bruschi’s “Introduction” in Vitruvio: De Architectura . . . Caesare Cesariano, Bruschi, Carugo and Fiore, eds., 1981. 74 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, trans., Cesariano, 1521, see his allegory on Fol LXXXXII. The image placed before the title page is an elaborate printer’s device developed by Gotard da Ponte for the publication. For further examination of this printer’s devices see Barberi, Il frontespizio nel libro Italiano, 1969, 105-6. 75 The term ELECTIVA in this statement is an example of Cesariano’s idiosyncratic language where he has Italianised and Latin word. In this chapter I have transcribed his language form direct from his text rather than transforming to either correct modern Latin or Italian. 76 Panofsky develops his theory of iconology in texts such as Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanist Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (1939), New York: Oxford University Press, 1972, and Meaning in the Visual Arts (1955), New York: The Overlook Press, 1974. The method of Iconology has received much criticism and a number of changes have been suggested and even though Panofsky later agreed to drop the term iconology in preference for iconography the name persists. See an explanation of the method in Jan Bialostocki, “Iconography and Iconology,” Encyclopedia of World Art, vol. VII. London: McGraw-Hill, 1963, 770ff. For a discussion of a number of controversial issues on iconology and iconography see, Iconography at the Crossroads: Papers from the Colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, Brendan Cassidy, ed., Princeton: Dept of Archeology, Princeton University, 1990. A number of earlier critical works are listed in Michael Ann Holly, Panofsky and the Foundation of Art History, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984, 248ff. 77 Cesare Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, LXXXIVv, quali inenarrabili casi patiti non li extendo per non incitare forse a prorupere lacrime a li lectori. 78 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, LXXXIVv, a volere tangere la conmata fronte della Fortuna, 79 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, LXXXXII. 80 Translation in Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 139. 81 Paolo Verzone, “Cesare Cesariano,” 1971, 203-210.

70

82 Alberti’s treatise was presented to Nicholas V, Alberti’s patron, and re-constructer of the city of Rome around 1452. Borsi, Leon Battista Alberti, 1977, 316. Borsi also notes Alberti’s greater concern for the patron than the architect, both in educating a public, and in advising the architect to choose his patron well, 343. See also Antonio Filarete, Trattato di architettura written in Milan between 1461 and 1464, in Spencer’s translation of Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known as Filarete, trans., John R Spencer, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, 197ff. See also Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Trattati di architettura civile e militare, Codex Saluzzianus 148 Biblioteca Reale in Turin. Di Giorgio was aware of Alberti’s treatise through its manuscript copy held in the library of Frederico da Montefeltro in Urbino. See Betts, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio, PhD dissertation submitted to Princeton University, Ann Arbor, Mi: UMI Dissertation, 1981, 13. 83 Printed translations of Vitruvius prior to 1521 include translations by Giovanni Antonio Sulpicio of Veroli, L. Victruuii Pollionis ad Cesarem Augustum De architectura liber primus[- decimus], Roma: s.n., 1486 or 1487; Vitruvius, De architectura libri dece, trans, unknown, Firenze: Christophoro de Pensis, de Mandello, 1495; De architectura libri dece, trans, Giorgio Valla Placentino, Venezia: Simonem Papiensem dictum Bivilaquam, 1497; M.Vitruvius per Iocundum solito castigatior factus.., trans., Fra Giovanni Giocondo da Verona, Venetia: Iohannes Tacuinus, 1511; Vitruvius Iterim et Frontinus à Iocundo revisi, trans, Fra Giovanni Giocondo da Verona (copy) Firenze: Sumptibus Phillppi de Giunta, 1513. For further discussion see Marcucci, “Giovanni Sulpicio e la prima edizione del De Architectura di Vitruvio” (1978), 185-95. Numerous manuscripts dated prior to the sixteenth century can be found in Carol Krinsky, “Seventy-eight Vitruvius Manuscripts,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 30, 1967, 36-70. 84 Verzone, “Cesare Cesariano,” 1971, 206. Il gruppo principale di figure, il nocciolo della composizione è centrato sull’Autore trattenuto per un limbo dell’abito dalla Povertà, una brutta vecchia con abiti lacerati ed un mazzo di chiavi pendente dalla cintura: DIRA PAUPERTAS FILIA IGNORANTIAE. Questa odiosa povertà, che sempre ossessionò il povero Cesariano, appare respinta con la destra e colpita con la mazza alzata con la sinistra dalla Prudenza, PRUDENTIA, bella giovane con elmo coronato da una chimera alata. Il Cesariano è espresso come volto verso un avvenire felice: reca un compasso ed una riga, strumenti di lavoro dell’architetto, ed una tabella sulla schiena con la scritta: EXIGITUR TANDEM A PAUPERTATE DOCTUS (è condoto fuori, reso edotto dall povertà); il suo successo è dimostrato dall’abito degno di un patrizio, dalla pingue borsa al fianco e dalla corona d’alloro che cinge le ben pettinate chiome. L’azione in atto è spiegata anche dalla ‘pagina autobiografica’ : L’autore cerca di trattenere per la chioma la Fortuna, una bella giovane coronata che sorge radiosa fra una moltitudine di piccole figure, forse il mondo della fantasia; questa “Adiuuante fortuna” incoagia l’azione con inspirazione soffita dalla Sorte (SORS). (Translation Marcello). 85 Verzone, “Cesare Cesariano,” 1971, 205.

71

86 Significant use has been of studies such as: Erwin Panofsky, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955; Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, London: Nelson and Sons, 1923; Rudolf Wittkower, Allegory and the Migration of Symbols, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977; Ernst Gombrich, Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, London: Phaidon, 1972; William Heckscher, Art and Literature: Studies in Relationship, Egon Verheyen ed., Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, and Baden-Baden: Verlag Valentin Koerner, 1985; and others. 87 Studies, such as, Victoria Kahn, Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985, take the virtues like Prudence and show their purpose in the rhetorical framework of Renaissance literature. 88 See Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472), I libri della famiglia of 1433; Baldesar Castiglione (1478-1529) I libro cortegiano, was finished in manuscript for by 1518 but published in 1528, see The Book of the Courtier, trans., Sir Thomas Hoby, London: Dent, 1974; and Niccolò Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) writing on the prince Il principe written in 1513 and published in 1532, see Il principe : e altri scritti / Niccolò Machiavelli , introduzione e commento di Gennaro Sasso, Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1963. 89 The term ‘docti’ in reference to the architect signified ties to education, letters and science in the Vitruvian sense. 90 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, IIv, Adu[n]cha quilli Architecti che fano p[ro]ducereli sollerti effecti pareno como semidei p[er]che cerano che larte si asimiglia e supplisca a la natura. Et p[er] esso egregie scie[n]tie e operatio[n]e. fano che li ineruditi idioti semp[er] remaneno subditi a li literati e practici. Translation seen in Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 120. 91 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, IIIr, questi pseudi . . . si deno deponere de titolo e cognominarli solu[m] fabricanti murarii vel operarii. E non Architecti . . . li veri studiosi di tal scientia possano piu magnanimamente p[er] venire con la su[m]ma doctrina al verace e excelle[n]te . . . li solertie e veri Architecti. Translation seen in Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 120-121. 92 His allegory is explained in Arnaldo Bruschi’s, “Introduction,” in Vitruvio, 1981, and the dichotomy of individual versus the collective in Manfredo Tafuri, “Cesare Cesariano e gli studi vitruviani nel Quattrocento,” Scritti rinascimentali di architettura, Arnaldo Bruschi et al., eds., Milano: Il Polifilo, 1978, 414. 93 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, LXXXXII. 94 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, VIIv, Philosophia docet homines suu[m] cognoscere creatore[m]. 95 See Pamela Long’s suggestions about the architect and the divine throughout the sixteenth-century Vitruvian commentaries, Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 163ff.

72

96 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, IXr, que a comprehensa veritatem Immutabilis e certa ratio habetur : Et sapiential postea est que proprie mentem e metellectum ad contemplationem intentum tenet. 97 Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 138-9. Impossibile E[tiam] indige[n]te[m] operari bona : et studio vacare . . . . Qui male nati sunt I[m]possible E[tiam] ut bene facere possint. E[tiam] eco[n]verso. Qui q[ue] bene sunt benefacere possunt. 98 Manfredo Tafuri, “Introduction” in Bruschi, Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, LXXV. 99 Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 139. 100 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, LXXXXII. 101 “The community of our Distinguished Architects,” Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, dedication. 102 Arnaldo Bruschi suggests that Agostino Gallo of Como, had politically aligned the dedication to gain favour in the French court. In Tafuri, “Introduction,” in Bruschi, Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, 103 Pirovano states: Augustino Gallo Referendario Comense dignissimo: Et lo prenominato … habiamo conducti homini in tale doctrina studiosi: quali hano con summa diligentia (quanto per la brevitate di tempo gli e stato licito) correcto fidelmente traducto e declarato … ha epso texto traducto e molti difficili enucleati e infiniti loci confusi al vero ordine reducti. (Augustino Gallo the very worthy Referendary of Como and the pre-named Aloisio … we have led those men who are scholars in such doctrine: who have corrected, faithfully translated and clarified with utmost diligence … translated the text itself and has enucleated many difficult passages and has reinstated an infinite number of confused points to the true order) Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, “Oratio” in Bruschi, in Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, unnumbered. 104 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, “Oratio” Non senza maxima impensa p molti excellenti pictori Io ho facto designare e p non mediocri incisori ho similmente facto intagliare le affiguratione al circino perlineate e conpassate. 105 Cesariano, in Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura, 1521, “Oratio” Habiamo conducti homini in tale doctrina studiosi: quali hano con summa diligentia (quanto per la brevitate di tempo gli e stato licito) correcto fidelmente traducto e declarato: Maxime Bono Mauro Bergomense homo di tale doctrina non Ignaro: quale ha epso texto traducto e molti difficili enucleati e infiniti loci confusi al vero ordine reducti avante che fusse epsa opera data a li impressori; licet in parte di epsa sia il nome lui surrepto e nominato solu per correctore da quello che la impressione frequentava. 106 Carol Krinsky suggests that Gotardus and the financial supporters had had some difficulty with Cesariano and the delivery of his text: “In spring of 1521, his publishing collaborators commissioned others to finish the commentary, using materials taken from Cesariano by force.” Carol Krinsky, in, Architectural Theory and Practice from Alberti to Ledoux, Dora Wiebenson, ed., [Chicago, Ill.]: Architectural Publications, 1982, I-7. See also Bruschi, in Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, LXVII.

73

107 Manfredo Tafuri, “Cesare Cesariano,” in, Scritti rinascimentali, Bruschi et al., eds., 1978, 393.

108 Tafuri, “Cesare Cesariano,” in, Scritti rinascimentali, Bruschi et al., eds., 1978, 407.

109 There has been a great deal of debate over why these images have been included and what they represent. See, James S. Ackerman, “The Certosa of Pavia and the Renaissance in Milan” Marsyas 5(1947-49), 23-37 discusses the background to a possible political use of an image of Milan Cathedral in the Milanese architectural debate. Marco Rossi, “Cesariano in Duomo,” in Cesare Cesariano e il classicismo di primo Cinquecento, Milano: Vite e Pensiero, 1996, 45-66; Maria Lodynska-Kosinska, “Quelques remarques au sujet du dessin d’Antonio di Vicenso et de la gravure de Cesare Cesariano,” in Il Duomo di Milano: congresso internazionale Milano, Maria Perer, ed., Milano: Editore la Rete, 1969, 129-131; Stanislaw Wilinski, “Cesare Cesariano elogia la geometria architettonica della Cattedrale di Milano,” in, Il Duomo di Milano: congresso internazionale Milano, Maria Perer, ed., Milano: Editore la Rete, 1969, 132-143; Carol Krinsky, “Introduction,” Vitruvius De architettura, Cesare Cesariano (Como 1521), München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1969, 5-28.

110 Bruschi, Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, comments on many of the sources for drawings in the translation in his “Introduction”. 111 Bruschi, Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, LXVI 112 Carol Krinsky, “Cesariano and the Renaissance without Rome,” Arte Lombarda XVI (1971), 214. 113 Arnaldo Bruschi, “Pereri sul tiburio del Duomo di Milano,” in Scritti rinascimentali di architettura, Bruschi, et al., ed., 1978, 319-386. This is continued in Rossi, “Cesariano in Duomo,” 1996, 50ff. 114 “Introduction,” in Bruschi, Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, LXXV. 115 This conclusion is also drawn by Rossi, “Cesariano in Duomo,” 1996, 53. Cesariano became capomaestro to the city of Milan and was consulted over the building of Milan Cathedral from 1533-1537. “Introduction,” in Bruschi, Vitruvio: De Architectura, 1981, LXX. 116 Roland Barthes explains the quality of the mythic status of images and narrative and the availability of these forms of expression to be reused: “Mythical speech is made of a material which has already been worked on so as to make it suitable for communication: it is because all the materials of myth [whether pictorial or written] presuppose a signifying consciousness, that one can reason about them while discounting their substance,” p.110. He suggests further that “it is a second-order semiological system” p.114. “Myth is a value, truth is no guarantee for it; nothing prevents it from being a perpetual alibi: it is enough that its signifier has two sides for it always to have an “elsewhere” at its disposal. The meaning is always there to represent the form; the form is there to outdistance the meaning. And there is never any contradiction, conflict, or split between the meaning and the form: they are never at the same place” p.122. “The mythical signification... is never arbitrary; it is always in part motivated, and unavoidably

74 contains some analogy” p.126. So the classical mythological framework represents a kind of “native” narrative for the Renaissance printed book. Roland Barthes, Mythologies, Myth Today, trans. Annette Lavers, London: J Cape, 1972, 109-159.

75 CHAPTER 2

The ‘Architect’ and the acquisition of the status of a professional class in the

act of delineating their discipline: the frontispiece of Sebastiano Serlio’s

Regole generali di architettura

The frontispiece examined in this chapter is from the first edition of Sebastiano Serlio’s

Book IV, Regole generali di architetura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè,

Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, printed by Francesco Marcolini in

Venice during 1537.1 Serlio’s Book IV was the first of his books to be printed and this frontispiece is the first example of a frontispiece in an architectural treatise.2 Serlio stated in his L’Auttore alli Lettori of Book IV that his intention for his treatise on architecture was to include seven books and in this letter he described the sequence and general content of the complete treatise.3 However, only Books I-V were printed in his lifetime and each was printed initially either as a stand-alone publication or bound together in specific combinations.4 An initial perusal of Serlio’s frontispiece to Regole generali di architettura for its attribution of meaning to the term architect highlights some of the complexities of investigating frontispieces. The frontispiece of this text does not include allegorical personifications that may be examined for how the social attributes of the architect feature in its visual composition. However, it does incorporate iconography that portrays allegorical meaning forming a narrative and can be analysed for its contribution to Serlio’s conceptualisation of the architect.

76 The content of Regole generali di architettura focuses on the codification of the five orders of architecture and their application to the new building types of Renaissance Italy. The expanded title promises that in its content Serlio would comply, for the most part, with the design principles of Vitruvius’s doctrine. However, Serlio qualifies this promise by suggesting that he will compare Vitruvius’s recommendations with actual examples taken from antiquity and make judgments about their relevance for Renaissance contexts.

Alberto Jelmini has drawn attention to Serlio having studied at least two distinctive sources of Vitruvius.5 On the basis of an examination of terms incorporated and expressions used in Serlio’s books, Jelmini concluded that Serlio used Fra Giocondo’s Latin edition of 1511 and Cesare Cesariano’s Italianised edition of 1521.

Serlio had gained experience of antiquities through Baldassare Peruzzi’s workshop in

Rome and then with Peruzzi on investigative trips during the mid 1520s.6 Howard Burns has suggested that it was at this time that Peruzzi embarked on a comparison between

Vitruvius’s De architectura and the surviving antiquities of Rome, an attitude of critique later emulated in Serlio’s writing.7 Serlio’s early training as a painter and cutter of wood- blocks and his experiences in the design of intarsia panels soon after his arrival in Venice during 1528 were also important in his conceptualisation of architecture.8 These skills provided Serlio with experience in techniques of disegno and perspective fundamental to the portrayal of his architectural concepts and to the compilation of his treatise as an illustrated book.

Serlio’s experience and professional life as an architect on a number of small commissions mainly for projects in Bologna before 1537, rather than indebtedness to contemporary

Italian philosophical or ideological trends, is evident in the conceptualisation of his books.9

His book’s dedication does not cite any philosophical sources as influences.10 However, it is likely that Serlio was influenced by these major trends through his circle of friends: in his

77 citations he included leading humanist, poet and scholar Pietro Aretino who was an advocate of evangelical and reformist ideas, and the Neoplatonist and designer of allegorical emblems, Achille Bocchi and his circle including Giulio Camillo, known to be a friend and designated heir of Serlio’s 1528 will.11 Serlio does not refer explicitly to these individuals as having an influence on his text but does acknowledge their importance to him personally.12 More explicit are Serlio’s allusions to architects and artists with his inclusion of works by and commentary on , Baldassare Peruzzi and

Sanzio Raphael and Giulio Romano in both Books IV and III, and, as was customary,

Serlio’s citation does acknowledge and pay due respect to his patrons.13 It is Serlio’s distinctive focus on architecture from knowledge of its technical and craft issues and their relation to design and his systematisation of the five orders that makes his treatise distinctive when comparing it with other earlier treatises written during the fifteenth century including Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, Filarete’s, Trattato di Architettura and

Francesco di Giorgio Martini’s Trattati di architettura civile e militare.14

2.1 Attribution of the frontispiece:

While no signature or initials are included for either the illustrations in Regole generali di architettura or its frontispiece, there is evidence to support the proposition that Serlio or the same person designed the wood-block illustrations for the frontispiece and the treatise’s illustrations. Much of this evidence emerges from a consistency between the graphic technique of the frontispiece and of the illustrations included in the body of the treatise.

Elements such as the dense parallel lines that form the basis for defining the architectural background of the structures can be seen in both the frontispiece and the book’s illustrations, an example of which is seen in the architrave depicted on folio XXv. The depiction of the of the frontispiece is consistent in its tonal variation from

78 background to foreground to that found on folio LXXIIIr; the inclusion of and the representation of line quality in the herms of the frontispiece is consistent with those found in illustrations of fireplaces on folios XLVIr and LXIr; the representation of shading in the bunches of fruit in the frontispiece is consistent with the depiction of foliage in the column capitals on folios such as LXIIv and LXIIIr; and, the technique used in the representation of the template or sectional face of the building elements of the cartouche in the frontispiece is consistent with representations of similar elements on folio XXIIr of the treatise.

However, the attribution of Serlio as designer of the frontispiece is not supported by

Christof Thoenes’s studies. He suggests, that just as later treatise authors formed a relationship with engravers and sculptors of wood blocks, Serlio may have formed such a relationship with the artist Domenico Campagnola who was working in Venice during the early sixteenth century.15 I would argue against this attribution and suggest that the consistent inclusion of Campagnola’s signatures on other wood-block prints and etchings places doubt on Thoenes’s suggested attribution. Emile Galichon lists thirteen prints and fifteen etchings by Campagnola, all of which were completed prior to 1518 and investigation of these shows that each has distinctive signature monograms.16 The prints each have either an abbreviated or whole signature confirming their authorship and they set the pattern for signatures for the remainder of his completed prints. Further evidence of these signatures can be seen in examples of Campagnola’s work in The Illustrated

Bartsch and although the signatures are not the same on every print they conform generally to the types found in Galichon.17 Campagnola carried out a few wood blocks in the later period of 1530 – 1540 but these also have truncated signatures. Serlio’s frontispiece carries no signature and it is thus difficult to attribute it to Campagnola. The practice that Campagnola had followed was to sign or monogram his wood blocks even though the status of their production may be limited. Serlio’s treatise, published as a book,

79 had immediate status, one with which any artist would have been keen to have their association acknowledged. By 1537, the date of Serlio’s Book IV publication, Campagnola was focusing on painting and this, in combination with the lack of signature, suggests that

Campagnola was not the designer of the frontispiece.18

The attribution of Serlio as designer of the frontispieces is strengthened by historians’ acceptance of his attribution as the designer of the illustrations accompanying the text of his treatise and, as previously mentioned, it has been accepted that the designer of the illustrations and designer of the frontispiece were the same person.19 Other evidence to support an argument for Serlio’s authorship of his frontispieces includes Serlio’s stated desire to control the full production of his books. Evidence of this is in his request for copyright privileges for the Regole generali di architettura prior to its printing: “I . . . wish to issue in print several of my books on architecture which were composed, illustrated and written by myself in the vernacular.”20 Support for Serlio’s ability to design his frontispieces is revealed in a letter dated 10th September 1537, to Francesco Marcolini by Serlio’s friend

Pietro Aretino, in which he praised Serlio’s excellence in drawing.21 This letter was included in the paratextual material of Marcolini’s edition of Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura. Aretino stated “This author, who in the modesty of how he works gives spirit to what he draws and what he describes . . .” – a statement that confirms the general understanding that Serlio’s treatise was conceptualised with primary importance being given to its illustrative content including that of the frontispiece, and his control of all aspects of the treatise’s production.22

80 2.2 Describing the frontispiece to Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura and analysing its component images

The composition of the frontispiece fills the page with a depiction of a pedimental aedicule that frames a large opening.Figure 3 The opening of the aedicule, which is located centrally in the illustration, displays the title of the book, the name of the printer and the date of the book’s printing. The printing privilege is aligned with the title but below the entire illustration.23 The aedicule’s structure is outlined at its sides with bunches of fruit descending and tied with ribbons whereas the pediment of the roof holds bunches of fruit with these cascading down its pitch. Pilastered columns with male and female herms support the aedicule and above them capitals hold depictions of mascaron.24 On the pedestals of the herm columns there are further depictions of plants. The pediment of the aedicule is open with its lintel being discontinuous across the face of its tympanum. The tympanum holds a cartouche that depicts classical building fragments. A decorative wave meander frieze is located immediately below the raking cyma of the pediment and a similar decorative frieze is depicted above the capitals of the columns on the lintel of the pediment. The theme of the meander is repeated as a Greek squared meander on the base wall below the opening of the aedicule. Selection and analysis of five component elements of this frontispiece and its title are investigated for possible reference in its narrative to a concept of the architect. The five component elements include: the classicised aedicule with pilastered columns and pediment framing the book’s title; the herms and mascaron; the addition to the aedicule of bunches of fruit on ribbons; the central cartouche of classical fragments; and the meander patterns. These five elements combine to give the frontispiece’s narrative specific meaning but, prior to an interpretation of the overall narrative, these five elements will be analysed separately. Interpretation will include a check for correspondences between the narrative of the frontispiece and

81 statements about the architect in the text. The implication of these in the context of northern Italy during the first part of the sixteenth century will then be assessed.

Figure 3 Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, Venezia: Marcolini, 1537, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. 82 2.2.1 The classicised aedicule with pilastered columns and pediment:

The aedicule, represented as stone construction, is drawn in perspective with visual depth depicted through shading and the space diminishing to a central vanishing point. The construction of the aedicule is not consistent with any particular architectural Order and this is significant in a frontispiece to a book which some have described as a pattern-book of the Classical Orders.25 It has a decorated pediment and herm-pilasters, with their capitals, shafts and bases depicted with modernised squared profiles. The depth of the aedicule is ambiguous as the title screen, in line with its face, foreshortens the view. The scale of the representation, its construction details and surround of fruit and plants suggest that the aedicule represents an opening in a garden wall.

This section investigates the role of the aedicule in the frontispiece. It questions the significance of his use of perspectival techniques in the portrayal of the aedicule and if it is as I propose, an opening to a ‘garden’ the significance of his book’s details filling this

‘opening’ and blocking entry into that garden.

The perspectival technique used for the aedicule conforms to the technique used for many illustrations in the body of Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura. The use of perspective provides a representation of the spatial characteristics of the architecture portrayed. For the illustrations using this technique, there is little attempt to accurately depict true dimensions in the receding faces even though the front elevation is based on an orthogonal representation. Similar examples can be seen on folio Xr, XIIr, and XXVIr. The views are impressionistic but enable information to be gained about the depth or circular profile of architectural elements.

In the mid-fifteenth century, Leon Battista Alberti, admonished against use of perspective technique by architects, because he believed that the primary purpose of an architect’s

83 illustrations was to comprehend dimensions, estimate expenses and deduce potential problems in the construction of a building proposal. Alberti had concluded his argument against the use of perspective by pointing out the differences between the perspectival techniques of the painter and the documentation techniques required by the architect.26

He said,

Between the design (disegno) of the painter and that of the architect, there is this difference, that the painter by the exactness of his shades, lines and angles, endeavours to make the parts seem to rise from the canvass, whereas the architect, without any regard to the shades, makes his reliefs from the design of his platform, as one that would have his work valued, not by apparent perspective, but by the real compartments founded upon reason.27

Debate on the architect’s use of perspectival technique continued following Alberti’s admonition. Serlio made his position in this debate clear by his inclusion of perspectival technique in relevant aspects of his Regole generali di architettura. It is in the context of this debate that Serlio’s frontispiece warrants further analysis.

Although Serlio does not argue explicitly against Alberti’s opinion in his text, he does express his commitment to the inclusion of perspectival depictions. In Chapter XI of

Regole generali di architettura and after explaining the importance of the knowledge of perspective for painters in their decoration of architecture, Serlio proclaims that the architect “should never be without perspective” because of his need to be in charge of all the craft aspects of building.28 As well, when describing the content of Book II in the paratextual material of his Regole generali di architettura, Serlio gave further reason for use of perspectival techniques in architecture. He said, “I shall show in words and figures sufficient perspective to enable the architect, when he wishes, to reveal his concept in a visible design.”29 More convincingly, later in Book II, Serlio claimed that the perspectival

84 technique was of fundamental importance to his own interest and training as an architect.

After stating, “perspective is absolutely necessary for the architect,” he said,

I too, for what I am worth, first practiced painting and perspective, and through these I devoted myself to the studies of architecture, studies which so inspired me and gave me such pleasure that I take great delight in these labours.30

This suggests that Serlio’s use of the technique for his frontispiece reflected three aspects of his understanding of the practices of the architect: it is able to reveal the architect’s mastery of all design and construction aspects of architecture, reveal his concepts in visible design and direct his investigation of built architecture. This active engagement using the technique to investigate built architecture is consistent with Serlio’s expressed aim in the title of Book IV: to question the accuracy of authorities’ descriptions of ancient building practices by comparing these with existing examples even though these existed now only as ruins; and to then evaluate the relevance of applying a particular Vitruvian rule in current practice.31

Christof Thoenes and Myra Rosenfeld have suggested that Serlio’s move away from

Alberti’s restriction on perspective as a suitable technique for the architect as also evidenced by his later introduction to his complete treatise with books on geometry and perspective, could have been influenced by knowledge of the argument behind the content of a letter presented by the artist Raphael to Pope Leo X.32 In the third version of the letter

Raphael included perspective views to illustrate interiors citing as authority for his technique Alberti’s treatise De pictura.33 Thoenes also suggested that Raphael affirmed the case for using perspective in architecture in the marginal notes of his copy of Fabio

Calvo’s translation of Vitruvius’s De architectura.34 Serlio’s admiration of Raphael, commented on in his dedication, confirms that Raphael’s position on the use of perspectival depiction by architects may have been an impetus for Serlio’s affirmation on

85 the use of perspective even prior to the conception of his frontispiece to Regole generali di architettura.

A second feature of the classicised aedicule image is its depiction as an opening or entry to a garden. It was customary for aedicules to separate spaces, possibly a garden from a space external to it. A garden characteristic in the frontispiece illustration is reinforced both by the depiction of bunches of fruit and other botanic themes. However, in this frontispiece we do not get a view into the garden because the opening is filled with the title details of Serlio’s book. This unexpected blocking of the view beyond the aedicule opening is significant to the narrative of the frontispiece.

At this time in the Renaissance, the term garden could be used to convey different concepts. In his books, Serlio used the term garden not only as a botanical space but also as the sum total of a person’s propositions and thoughts referring to his own garden in the dedication to Ercole II where he said of his talent, “nor have I kept it buried, hidden in my garden.”35 Serlio clarifies his reference to garden in the foreword to his later printed Books

I and II, by saying “I shall not discuss theorems in the manner of the profound Euclid, but rather some of the flowers picked from his most abundant garden, and from other authors.”36 In this pattern of usage, the term garden could refer to concepts within a boundary. This reference suggests that specific topics should have boundaries established if discussion is to be fruitful or to be kept to a focus. Serlio’s use of the term garden mirrors Aloisio Pirovano’s 1521 “Oratio” preceding the text of Cesare Cesariano’s

Vitruvius, where he wrote that Vitruvius’s teaching was itself represented as a pleasure garden. Pirovano stated, “Nothing of this kind has been previously produced by Man in order that some tasty fruit be picked from the florid Vitruvian pleasure garden.”37 The use of Cesariano’s translation, cited previously as one of two sources for Serlio’s study of

Vitruvius, indicates that he was familiar with this type of analogy.

86 Analogies to gardens in Serlio’s Book IV could have been merely acknowledging courtesy and respect for his patron Ercole II d’Este, Duke of Ferrara. Ercole II had within the iconography of his family an allusion to a ‘secret garden.’ His grandfather Ercole I had constructed what was known as the zardino segreto in his Palazzo Schifanoia and had this located adjacent to his personal rooms of the palace rather than having his rooms in the more formal Camere Dorate on the level above.38 In many ways the zardino segreto was utilised for activities similar to those of Serlio’s proposed ‘garden’ space in which the Duke could hold private discussions, with freedom of expression and without fear, in a separate, secluded and private space.

It is more likely that Serlio had a distinct purpose in making a specific reference to the garden as representing the entry to an intellectual terrain. Serlio’s depiction of his Book IV as significant in the entry to the current discipline of architecture and his reinforcing this through the concept of entry into a garden can be more specifically understood in the context of the wide-ranging discussions of the group of humanists, including Serlio, who congregated around the book printer Francesco Marcolini in the years between 1535 and

1542. Since the introduction of the Adeline press, Venetian print shops had become centres of intellectual exchange with Marcolini’s print-shop group including the architect

Jacopo Sansovino, the artist Titian and the play-writer and satirist Pietro Aretino who had known Serlio in Bologna.39 Since his move to Venice during 1528, this circle of writers, artists and architects comprised Serlio’s most immediate intellectual contacts.40 Their interests were broad ranging with current issues including: being critical of the corruptions in the Roman Church, discussions on the nature of social order and of architecture’s role in an urban society, the values of the volgare language and issues of rhetoric and eloquence. Pietro Aretino’s book Ragionamento delle corti printed by Marcolini in 1538 is written in the form of a dialogue that takes place in the garden of Marcolini’s home.

87 Amedeo Quondam has suggested that in the conceptualisation of Aretino’s book the garden has been doubly coded – it is both a real and a conceptual location. The Marcolini garden, as conceived by Aretino, was a location for freely expressed dialogue (locus amoenus).41 That is, this location was as much a private location for intellectual retreat and communication as it was a garden in the physical and botanical sense.42

As a metaphor, the garden was used to represent the intellectual freedom that Marcolini was known to have supported.43 Marcolini confirmed this concept in Giardino dei pensieri composto per Francesco Marcolini da Forli, published just two years after Aretino’s work and which included a modified form of Serlio’s frontispiece. Marcolini’s frontispiece copied the aedicule, but without the delicate line work of the original wood block. Its use as an introduction preceding a collection of dialogues taking place in his garden, reiterated the allusion implied in Serlio’s frontispiece to Regole generali di architettura – symbolically conceptualising the book as a garden of intellectual discourse where individuals could gather without fear to take part in open debate and without regard to the intellectual conformity then required and enforced by the authorities. The aedicule setting to the frontispiece not only indicates Serlio’s position on perspective for the architect but also indicates that the contents of his book are constrained so Figure 4 Frontispiece, Giardino dei pensieri that they include only ‘selected fruits’ from his composto per Francesco Marcolini da Forli, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Biblioteca Nazionale Firenza garden with the ‘fruit species’ selected being indicated in the title details.

88 2.2.2 The Herms and Mascaron

The herm figures of Serlio’s frontispiece to Book IV, either side of the aedicule, twist from frontal alignment animating the setting and implying linear movements that complement the static nature of the aedicule’s symmetry.Figure 5 This constructed sense of movement gives a dynamism to the composition, actively engaging the viewer’s eye and compelling the reader’s attention to move from viewing one to another. The herm- Figure 5 Herms, Detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano pilasters are located either side of the aedicule’s opening and depict male Serlio, Regole generali di architettura, 1537. and female torsos with heads.44 The figures’ torsos merge into the column through the intermediary image of a decorative leaf, a theme extended on the column pedestal with the inclusion of other botanic emblems. These figures bend forward from their capitals and this disassociates them from a weight-bearing function. They are also rendered life-like by the delicacy of the depiction of their hair and bodily features. The male herm is depicted as old and has a weathered appearance while the female herm is portrayed as a young and vital woman. The rugged delicacy of their depiction provides a living realism to their demeanour, one that is further emphasised as, unconstrained by the weight of the pediment, their heads are turned and their gaze is away from the viewer.

Directly above the herms on the capitals of the columns are depicted two mascaron figures with leaf-like structures growing from their faces and with open mouths showing bared teeth.45

In his treatise, Serlio used modified female herms to frame the Ionic fireplaces on folio

XLVv and Corinthian fireplaces on folio LXv. He suggested in the text on folio XXXVIv that the use of the Ionic was suitable for “men of letters and the quiet life” and later gave

89 examples of scholars and merchants, and that the Corinthian was suitable for temples, houses and tombs “for people of upright and chaste lives”, and that “this type of ornament could be used to preserve decorum.”46 Serlio makes no other explicit reference to a meaning for use of herm figures in other parts of his text of Book IV other than to say, “And who would doubt that this invention might not on occasions be suitable for the ornamentation of a gate into a garden or for places for triumphs?”47 Consistent with these ideas, the male herm represented Serlio’s allusion to ‘rustic folk,’ in his later published

Book II. Here in a section on satiric stage scenery he said, “in ancient Satire the corrupt and the criminal were practically identified . . . it is understandable that this sort of licence

[in performance] was granted to characters who spoke their minds, that is to say, rustic folk.”48 By using a male, ‘man of action,’ herm figure with body turned to gaze away from his book’s title and female herm figure with body turned to gaze toward his book’s title,

Serlio may be advocating that, as reflected in the representation of the gaze of the herm figures, his book required intellectual consideration and was not merely a ‘pattern book’ for immediate, unreflected action.

Investigation of earlier treatises reinforces the suggestion that Serlio may have had this specific purpose for his use of herms. Initial investigation of the typology of the herm figures suggests that there could be similarities with other anthropomorphic columns that had been included in the illustrations of previous architectural treatises. Illustrations of

Caryatid and Persian columns had previously been included in both Fra Giocondo’s and

Cesariano’s translations of Vitruvius, even though herm and termini figures had not been discussed or illustrated.49 However, Serlio’s figures are distinctively depicted as bearing no weight of the structure above whereas and Persian columns portrayed enslaved peoples holding the weight of the architectural structure in which they were depicted. Vitruvius had said of the Caryatid women, “ architects active at the time

90 incorporated images of these women in public buildings as weight-bearing structures.”50

He also alluded to images of Persian captives, with loss of pride, holding up the roof as punishment for their defeat.51 Their depiction in illustrations in Renaissance translations of

Vitruvius’s treatise emphasised the discomfort and anger at being constrained by having to bear the burden of the weight from above them. In Serlio’s frontispiece the depiction of the herms as unfettered by weight bearing makes their function, and therefore meaning, distinctly different from those of sixteenth-century representations of Vitruvius’s Caryatid and Persian porticoes.

In explaining the traditional meaning of the herm as an architectural element, George

Hersey pointed out that the totemic value of the herm and termini figure was quite different to that of the Caryatid or Persian figures of Vitruvius.52 Hersey suggested that herm and termini figures represent boundaries, a meaning derived from ‘Terminus’ (the god who would not be moved) of ancient temple architecture with the terminus figures being used to mark the boundaries or entry to the temple grounds. This conceptualisation is consistent with Serlio’s use of herm figures in the frontispiece to Regole generali di architettura where, with a function distinctly different to Caryatid and Persian figures of the porticoes, they form the frame or boundary for the opening which gives access from outside to inside or vice versa and reinforces the notion of boundary as discussed earlier for the aedicule.

Margaret D’Evelyn cites Alberti’s text to also suggest that Serlio’s concept of the herm conforms to the association of terminus figures with concepts of boundaries.53 A treatise on architecture with which Serlio would have been familiar was Leon Battista Alberti’s De re aedificatoria. The use of herms and terminus figures in association with notions of entry were first mentioned in Alberti’s De re aedificatoria Book V, vi. Alberti cited the ancient

Nigrigeneus, as providing direction for the architect on the orientation of temple sites and their Termini.54 He said, “Nigrigeneus the architect, who wrote about the Termini, informs

91 us, that the ancient architects were for having the fronts of their temples facing west: But this custom was afterwards quite altered to have the temples and the Termini look east, that they might have a view of the rising sun.”55 Alberti made a further allusion in his text to statues incorporating herm figures as adding variety to gardens.56 The inclusion of such figures in the garden was spoken of in general terms in Book IX, following a discussion of the variety of trees, plants and herbs that should abound to enable the variety of nature to be perceived. Alberti said, “Nor am I displeased with the placing [of] ridiculous statues in gardens, provided they have nothing in them obscene.”57 Through such statements Alberti likened the variety that the addition of herm and mascaron figures could contribute to a garden as producing not only an atmosphere of richness and variety in their capacity to either terrify or enchant the viewer but also as provoking contemplation of the abundance and variety to be found in nature.58

Serlio introduces the main purpose of his book in a comment alluding to the role of the messenger in comedies: in his “L’Auttore alli

Lettori,” Serlio said, “at the beginning of this book I wish to imitate the ancient writers of comedies, some of whom, when they were to perform a comedy, used to send out a messenger who, in a few words, told the spectators what the comedy was about.”59 This model builds on ancient forms of comedy where dramas focus on the resolution of differences through didactic debate, “with plausible Figure 6 Frontispiece: M. Tullii Ciceronis, resolution of the initially enigmatic Opera omnia, Venetiis: Iunta, 1537, Biblioteca Angelica Roma.

92 stipulations.”60 Serlio’s use of herms in the frontispiece is consistent with D’Evelyn’s analysis that the comic is the major literary style in Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura.61 She claims that: “by associating the first-published General Rules of 1537 with the tone and rhetorical structure of comedy - introducing the five orders as expressive actors in an ancient drama - Serlio gives an overarching shape and meaning to a body of technical material.”62 The characteristic of the comedy is then seen in the resolution of dominance and the hierarchy in the presentation and debate surrounding the orders of architecture. In the garden, implied as beyond the opening of the aedicule structure, the herm figures and mascaron tie these functions of messenger alerting the reader to there being a specific focus within, bringing concepts of boundary and variety together. Serlio’s comment in his “L’Auttore alli Lettori,” and D’Evelyn’s statement concerning Serlio’s text support the hypothesis that Serlio was attributing a meaning to herms and mascaron, similar to that of Alberti’s. However, there is no direct evidence from Serlio’s treatise to confirm that Alberti’s treatise influenced his use of herms and mascaron to convey a specific meaning.63

By the mid-sixteenth century herms and grotesque figures were a more common feature of the emblematic tradition and had appeared in engravings designed by Agostino Veneziano in The Hermae during 1536, and the decorative title page of Cicero’s Opera omnia, cum

Castigationibus Petri Victorii printed in Venice during 1537.64 Figure 6 Serlio had previously worked in partnership with Veneziano on projects engraving classical column capitals and bases.65 As well, more direct influences on Serlio’s attitudes could derive from the sentiments, debates and architectural design of his circle of friends in Venice. Nicole

Dacos suggested that it was from the study of grotesque figures at the Domus Aurea in

Rome that artists of the Renaissance again incorporated herm figures and mascaron in their art and architectural speculations.66

93 John Onians suggested that there was a link between the meaning of Serlio’s iconography of the orders of architecture and Jacopo Sansovino’s design of the Library and Mint buildings on the in Venice.67 On the entry to the

Mint, male herm columns flanking the entry are associated with the

Doric order, an order proportioned on man. Consistent with this Serlio’s

Regole generali di architettura suggested that the Doric order was appropriate for the residences of men of arms as its robust characteristics reflected greater solidity.68 In the same complex on the

Piazza San Marco, Sansovino had used female herm columns in association with the Ionic order that is proportioned on the woman, to flank the entry to the Library. As previously discussed, in Regole generali di architettura Serlio suggested that the Ionic was suitable for

“men of letters and of a quiet life,” and used the less robust female Figure 7 Female herm: Jacopo Sansovino, Entry herms to decorate the Ionic fireplace suggesting that this to the Venezia, the author. characteristic was more consistent with the “terms of the Order.”69

Serlio’s use of both male and female herms in the frontispiece to Regole generali di architettura was consistent with Sansovino’s use of male and female herms to give those entering his buildings at Piazza San Marco prior notice of their specific purpose.Figure 7 To include both male and female figures suggests the inclusion in his ideas of both the active and robust characteristics of a man of arms and the finer, less robust figure of the female to portray contemplative and scholarly characteristics. However, as previously stated, the male robust figure is gazing away from the title of the book while the contemplative and scholarly image of the female herm turns her gaze toward the book title. This could indicate that the older man-of-action figure was more confused by Serlio’s demand for prior evaluation of whether statements of traditional authorities were compatible for an

94 understanding of architectural design required for current innovation. The younger female figure, representing more scholarly attributes related to the Ionic order, is ready to actively engage with Serlio’s new ideas.

Serlio’s use of herms and the mascaron faces depicted above them is consistent with the sentiments expressed by Pietro Aretino. Aretino, a friend of Serlio’s, had called attention to the errors that could occur if an interior was judged only on perception of an exterior architectural element’s characterisation. He compared the dual characteristics of the entry to his residence and its interior. As a metaphor for the dual characteristics of his personality, using a rhetoric reminiscent of Serlio’s frontispiece illustration:

The entrance from the land, being dark, awkward, and bestial in scale [di scala bestiale], is like the frightening character [terribilità] of the reputation I have acquired in exposing the truth; but then anyone who gets to know me finds in my pure [pura], plain [schietta], and natural friendship that quiet contentment which one feels on entering the portico and in gazing at the balconies.70

The meaning implied by the use of herms and mascaron can be understood therefore through the metaphor of a garden as indicated by the setting of the aedicule. This metaphor used the concept of garden within a boundary as a location for free intellectual expression, and as having a variety consistent with that found in nature but warned by the use of grotesque mascaron, of the pitfalls, in Serlio’s terms of ‘licentious’ innovation, that such freedom can encourage. Just as the aedicule represented the entry to the garden as an intellectual terrain, the herms, continuing this theme, also represented notional boundaries to a speculation on architecture, and use of the mascaron indicated that in variety of speculation there are potential hazards.

95 2.2.3 The surround of bunches of picked fruit and

flowers tied by ribbons and the cornucopia

of fruit and flowers on the pediment:

Hanging on either side of the aedicule are depictions of bunches of fruit and flowers tied with rope or ribbon whilst individual pieces of fruit cascade down the pediment.Figure 8 These depictions accurately portray a rich variety of fruit and leaves from plants such as grapes, pears, lemons, aubergines, and cherries.71 Agostino

Veneziano had used the of tied fruit in a similar manner in 1530 in an untitled engraving

‘Panel of Ornament’ now held at the Library of Figure 8 Fruit and ribbon detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di Congress, Washington, (I,5,M978).72 Janet Adams architettura, 1537. suggests a similar derivation of Veneziano’s elements and those by Giovanni da Udine in a painting in the loggia of the Vatican.73 The enriching of the aedicule with this variety and abundance of fruits helps with the underlying representation of a garden of conceptual thoughts initiated by the other emblems of the aedicule setting. Depictions of fruit and flowers cascading down the roof were used to represent the image of cornucopia flowing over referring to notions of abundance and variety. However, with Serlio’s reference to the garden as an intellectual terrain, the abundance and variety of the tied fruit adds a specific meaning to the frontispiece.

In Serlio’s frontispiece, rather than being a decorative depiction of naturally growing plants, these elements are represented as picked and placed in an orderly display. As an extension to the metaphor of abundance and variety in nature, this tying together is

96 consistent with the inclusion of a notion of ‘ordering’ of ideas, through questioning, debate and judgment into the garden setting of the aedicule and its herm figures. For Serlio bunches of picked fruit tied with ribbons represented a metaphor for the necessity to ‘tie’ and ‘order’ new ideas – ideas that had the potential of unlimited growth, variety and abundance in architectural speculation.

The depiction of a garden and the variety of plants within that garden visually represented such ideas of copia but Serlio constrained that freedom of variety to some extent by the depiction of order in the tying of fruit in sequence of type. In his text, Serlio depicted architecture as a terrain of knowledge that could be freely debated leading to the proliferation and development of new ideas that must be subject to refinement by an architect’s personal giudicio or judgment. It is with these sentiments, for example, that

Serlio could pronounce two attitudes about speculative invention throughout his book. The first suggests a need for a richness of ideas where he said, “It is a fine thing for the architect to be full of ideas to cope with the diversity of situations that occur when building.”74 The second, related to how the architect might control the use of such variety.

Serlio said, “the judicious architect could adapt this following figure for different elements altering it according to the situations that arise,” thus controlling variety by suitability for situation. Again when he said, “the intelligent architect, having seen so many inventions in the figures above of this Doric work, will know how to make use of them, adapting them for various ornaments for fireplaces when Doric work is required,” he controls innovation through intelligent modification of the Classical Orders.75

By depicting the bunches of picked fruit and flowers tied with ribbon Serlio represented, in a metaphor consistent with that of the garden as an intellectual terrain, ideas of variety and control of that variety. Transposed to architectural speculation this emblem represents the

97 need for the architect to develop a variety of design inventions but also the need for these inventions to conform to notions of order and the decorum of each situation.

2.2.4 The cartouche of classical fragments

Located in the centre of the tympanum, an image of classical fragments is isolated from the rest of the illustration by an undecorated architrave that forms a cartouche.Figure 9 This architrave has no shading on its face making it a stark contrast to the shaded tympanum. The insertion of the cartouche in the Figure 9 Classical fragments detail: Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole pediment uses the same perspectival diminution and generali di architettura, 1537. shading to the receding faces of the architrave as that of the aedicule and thus it conforms to the perspective of the main composition. However, the cartouche opening remains a disconcerting feature because it is not structurally feasible in its location and replacing the lintel of the pediment. The cartouche’s lack of structural integrity with the requirements of the pediment suggests that it has a significant meaning, one distinct from the naturalism of the aedicule. Reinforcing it as an unusual feature of the composition are the classical fragments enclosed by the cartouche. Instead of being depicted as images in perspective represented on a flat surface they use different graphic techniques to give the impression of each floating in loose association with the others within the frame. Some elements move forward enough to have cast a shadow on the lower member of the frame.

On the left of the enclosure is a sectional cornice detail that sits behind the architrave with its face parallel to the surface of the tympanum. Its profile is shaded with its perpendicular face receiving light and is drawn in parallel projection that does not follow the perspectival

98 diminution of the aedicule. To the right of this figure are small gutter and cornice fragments that are depicted on angles and represented using parallel projection with their profile being depicted as receiving direct light. In the central foreground is a second cornice detail showing its gutter and depicted on an oblique angle to the vertical axis of the aedicule. The profile of this cornice is portrayed as receiving direct light and parallel with the face of the tympanum; its perpendicular side is drawn again with parallel projection and in shadow. The cornice casts a shadow on the architrave from the right and depicted as though it is protruding from the cartouche. The stone of this cornice is depicted with a natural fault on its rear, a fault that would be hidden in construction. Behind this cornice is another stone in shadow that by its configuration is to be carved into a cornice. It has the general shape of the cornice but its faces are rough and unfinished with natural faults depicted. To the right of these cornices there are two other cornices depicted above a fluted column shaft. The first of these cornice details is again depicted oblique to the vertical axis of the aedicule with its profile in direct light and parallel to the face of the tympanum. Its perpendicular face is depicted through parallel projection and is in shadow.

The cornice above this, in the far top right, is depicted with its profile face in shadow and conforms to the vertical edge of the architrave. The fluted column shaft below these cornices is again depicted as if it were casting a shadow from the right onto the architrave, suggesting that it protrudes from the cartouche. The plan profile of the column is in shadow with its fluted shaft depicted through parallel projection. There are two small triangular sections of stone in the cartouche. The first of these is below the oblique cornice on the left and the second is located above and forward of the oblique cornice on the right.

The graphic technique for representing the fragments within the cartouche reinforces the claim that the setting has a distinctive characteristic and therefore has significance for the

99 narrative of the frontispiece. In this setting the jumble of classical cornices, column shafts and gutters are brought together with no consideration for their weight, or the gravitational force that could be associated with the setting of the aedicule; they are merely a combination of independently suspended objects. As well, the classical fragments are not always in strict orthogonal placement as their orientation sometimes turns in the three dimensional space of the cartouche. However, the fragments appear to have been empirically measured in situ and their profile and receding faces drawn with accuracy. The fragments are extended in the third dimension by using a parallel projection and shaded to aid the recognition that this is a third dimension. This is a technique that necessitated a rigorous knowledge of the appearance and relationship of all faces and one that could be measured geometrically enabling the object to be reconstructed through graphic media.

In the distinctive depiction of the aedicule and the cartouche Serlio has exemplified, for the reader’s comprehension, two of his suggested techniques for documenting architecture: one, scenographia, a single point perspectival technique used for the aedicule, which focused on the naturalism of a painterly construction that showed the diminution of a third spatial dimension; and the other, sciographia, used for the cartouche fragments emphasising that measured and geometrical accuracy has been achieved in these three dimensional views of selected fragments of classical buildings.76 By using these techniques of representation Serlio reinforced his text’s suggestion of how techniques of architectural illustration should be used: scenographia or perspective to reinforce the theatricality of the three-dimensional view revealing the architect’s concept in a visible design and sciographia to represent, with mensural accuracy, the face of a building with receding sides.77 The underlying sentiment of Serlio’s use of the term sciographia is consistent with their mensural accuracy both in profile face and sides as depicted in the fragments with the receding sides shown by use of parallel lines rather than diminishing

100 faces. In the cartouche of fragments, care is taken to depict the section or face with the accuracy of a stonecutter’s template and each side in a form able to be measured accurately.78

Adding complexity to their representation as real fragments of buildings in ruin is the inclusion of their original deformations caused by erosion or natural formations in their rock. This depiction reinforces the importance of ‘the natural’ in terms of Serlio’s understanding of the origins of architectural design. For Serlio, it was only through study of the ruins that an understanding of ‘the natural’ source of architecture could be understood. He had said in his section on coats of arms in Book IV, when he was discussing figural representation said that “we have always to imitate Nature as far as we can.”79 This belief carried over to Serlio’s views on architecture. As either stones in ruin or segments of stone in a stonecutter’s yard, the elements portray a system for understanding design in architecture, one accessible to all who value empirical investigation of stones’ Natural forms. By having this cartouche of classical fragments, including carved and uncarved stones, physically intrude into the modernised composition of a

Renaissance aedicule – in a book on new forms of Figure 10 Meander details, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architecture – Serlio was emphasising that the architect architettura, 1537. needed a thorough understanding of the actual objects of architectural construction and antiquity and their derivation from Nature, to apply classical theory to new design.80

101 2.2.5 The Greek meander

The lower ledge of the aedicule frames a plinth stone that incorporates a visually dominating squared Greek meander pattern on its elevation.Figure 10 This pattern conforms to the geometry of the ionic spiral but does this through squared geometry, with lines turning into and out from the central point of each square using only lines at right-angles to one another. This Greek emblem, reinforced by use of the Greek wave-meander on the fascia of the pediment and the cornice of the columns, suggests an incongruity between this and his text’s focus as stated in its title – the reinterpretation of the architectural designs of Roman antiquity. The scale and dominance of these decorative patterns in the context of the whole composition suggests that these elements may conform to the

Venetian absorption with classical Greek antiquity through fragments plundered from voyages along the east coast of the Adriatic Sea and reused out of context in new buildings.

The distinctive origin of these elements for Serlio’s frontispiece is not known for certain.

Even though Greek in origin, similar designs as to these decorative elements of the frontispiece can be seen in antique Roman buildings of the Forum in Rome. The wave meander on the fascia can be seen in Serlio’s detail in Book

III, Il terzo libro, folio LXXXV, of the Temple of Mars in Rome that he names the Basilica of the Forum Transitorium, and it is depicted in detail on folio LXIIv of his Regole generali di architettura.81 Figure 11 As well, this building also has a

Figure 11 Detail: Temple of Mars squared meander similar to that of the aedicule but used in a Transitorium, Rome, the author. decorative manner in its ceiling carving. Serlio had also used both meander emblems as frieze elements in Regole generali di architettura, folios LXXIIIr and v stating, “In addition to the design of this ceiling, many other inventions can be seen on the following pages –

102 different types of compartition (compartimenti), varied friezes and other things, for the most part taken from antiquity – so as to enrich with inventions (invenzione) those who may be poor in them.”82 In the past Serlio used these meander elements in a series of illustrations, designed for Agostino Veneziano in 1528. These were portrayed there as decorative elements on the base of the Corinthian and Ionic Orders.83 Figure 12 & 13

However, in the frontispiece the squared Greek meander moved away from being used as a small decorative element to an element of a much larger scale. It appears to have been transposed into the aedicule from another location.

Figure 12 Agostino Veneziano after Sebastiano Figure 13 Agostino Veneziano after Sebastiano Serlio, Corinthian Bases, 1528. Bartsch XIV, No. Serlio, Ionic Bases, 1528. Bartsch XIV, No. 532. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ 529. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ CanadianThis scale Centre alerted for Architecture the viewer to it being significant and Canadianhaving Centrespecific for Architecturemeaning. It initiates questions of the priority that Serlio developed for specific emblems of Greek origin even though in the text of Regole generali di architettura he speaks of the antiquities of Greece only once, in reference to the Composite Order.84 He said, “The ancient Romans made this out of a combination of the Ionic and the Corinthian – perhaps because they were unable to outdo the creations of the Greeks, the inventors of the Doric in the imitation of a man.”85 It is only in Book III that he discusses the close proximity of Greek antiquities to the consciousness of the Italian Renaissance architects especially those located in Venice.

Here, he said, “It is true that to our eyes the things of the ancient Romans are wonderful.

However, anyone who could have seen the buildings of the Greeks – which have by now

103 all disappeared and many of those spoils adorn Rome and Venice – would perhaps say that they surpassed those of the Romans.”86 Serlio may have heard sentiments such as these from friends such as Marco Grimani who had travelled to Greece.87 Earlier in the book, Serlio had commented that the columns in the portico of the Pantheon in Rome had come from the “portico of one hundred columns” in Greece but he made no comment on the use of Greek fragments in Venice.88 While meanders we certainly in evidence in the architecture of Venice, these elements where often part of the carving found on fragments brought from other locations and incorporated into Venetian buildings.

Recent scholars have commented on the peculiarly Venetian understanding of its own past at this time and its history as a major and vibrant seaport endowing it with a distinctive relationship with territories around it and their historical pasts.89 Having had no original

Roman buildings in ruin on the island of Venice, the Venetian understanding of antiquity was fabricated and mythologised through fragments of architecture and sculpture plundered and reused as parts of its architecture. Patricia Fortini Brown has described

Venice as a “creation ex novo: an amalgamation of people and building stones, all of which came from somewhere else.”90 She suggested that this did not produce a ‘melting- pot’ of culture or aesthetic value; it produced an accumulation. She continues that it was

“an empire of fragments, it drew its strength from the diversity of its constituent parts.”91

Deborah Howard has analysed further the impact of the Islamic world on Venetian culture calling attention to Greece as a “crucial zone of mediation between Venice and the Levant, offering stopping points on the eastward voyages and providing a vital colonial foothold” to

Venetian trade.92 These studies reinforce the strong level of interaction between Venice and its geographical region and the contribution of cultures outside Italy to the development of Venetian attitudes.

104 This recognition of discordant juxtapositions in Venice, affirms the difficulties encountered by the architects and patrons alike in understanding the Venetian sense of its own past.

Three of Serlio’s house designs that he included in his Regole generali di architettura, were designed for Venice and he was at pains to suggest how these new designs could conform both to Roman classical ideals and to the historical context of Venetian architecture.93 The Greek meanders of the frontispiece focus the reader’s attention on the type of idiosyncratic environment of the historic buildings of Venice, most significantly the fabric of S. Marco where stones such as this can be seen embedded in the walls. This juxtaposition of gigantic and human scale with plundered elements in the walls was a feature of Venetian architecture that has been transposed into Serlio’s frontispiece in the discordant scale evident in a comparison of the squared Greek meander plinth with the surrounding aedicule.

2.3 Interpreting the portrayal of the architect of sixteenth-century Italy in Serlio’s frontispiece

Each of the five elements have been analysed separately for their contribution to the frontispiece’s narrative about the architect. Although each element has a unique meaning that can be interpreted, there is also support for the contributions that each makes in interaction with the others to build an allegorical narrative. Serlio’s representation of an aedicule establishes the scene, represented through perspective techniques, as the opening to a garden, a conceptual space in the discipline of architecture for open and questioning dialogue within. For Serlio, the freedom to speculate and innovate in architecture was both pleasurable and potentially perilous. In his Regole generali di architettura he spoke of a “diversity of invention [that] sometimes leads architects to conceive things which he would perhaps never have imagined” but conversely he also

105 reiterated the responsibility of the architect to be master of his design through good judgment and mastery over the crafts.94 For a Renaissance audience, the inclusion of herms, one represented as the robust older male aligned away from the title of Serlio’s book and the other a younger female figure aligned to his title, portrayed concepts that were both idyllic and disturbing in their derivation. Serlio’s herms and the mascaron bring together concepts of boundary and the extension of variety in nature with handcrafted inventions. This extension of variety in nature brought with it the disturbing features of the imagination represented by the mascaron as well as the more pleasing aspects suggested by the idyllic herm figures. These figures form a metaphor for the possibilities found in the freedom of those taking part in the dialogue of the garden. The suggestion that the Book’s text could be represented as a garden of speculative thought freed from the constraints of authoritative doctrine, enabled the individual architect, to evaluate and question the relevance and appropriateness, of Vitruvius and other authorities for modern design, by personally examining and studying the ruins. By questioning the past in this manner the architect could proceed to designing new, expressive and more currently relevant architectural forms.

Serlio recognised that inherent in this new freedom was the potential for making mistakes and innovation based only on a ‘wilfulness’ that could result in what he termed architectural ‘licentiousness.’95 For Serlio, the student-architect was made aware that any theoretical propositions could be flawed and that only through his own practical involvement and debate with knowledgeable and experienced others could he develop his personal giudicio and recognise these flaws. In one comment he affirmed, “This is always left to the judgment of the architect.”96 For Serlio it was the application of giudicio developed through experience and not just innate talent, that was the essential attribute for the architect and he develops this notion as an extension from Book IV to Book III. The

106 herms and mascaron set up expectations for the reader as they begin an engagement with

Serlio’s text. They also alert the architect to question, through his own empirically derived knowledge and experience of practice, Vitruvian authority and the dictates of the authorities and their social milieu. At the same time, the metaphor of the garden suggests the need for thought unfettered by fear and the constraints of enforced institutional conformity.

The inclusion of the classical fragments reinforces Serlio’s stance that both sciographia and scenographia are necessary ‘tools’ of an architect’s speculative thought. As well, by separating them from the rest of the composition in a cartouche, Serlio voices concern with the humanist’s emphasis on the return to the classical through Vitruvius alone as ‘the’ authority for . This need for a broader field of investigation is reiterated many times throughout Serlio’s treatise and an example may be taken from his discussion on the projection of the capital of the Doric order. Serlio said,

Despite the fact that here the projection of the capital is far removed from the writings of Vitruvius in that it is plumb with the plinth of the base, nevertheless because I have seen several ancient examples of this sort and have had some built myself, it seemed to me a good idea to set it down in a figure for the pleasure of anyone who might want to use it. Although scholars who have simply studied Vitruvius without having handled ancient things in any other way would say this opinion is wrong, if they were to consider the abacuses of Corinthian capitals, whose projections are plumb with the plinths of the bases, they would not condemn such a projection so readily.97

Rather than depict the classical fragments in an idealised scene of a garden of a building now in ruin beyond the aedicule, a reference that might have given undue prominence to

Classical Rome, or ignore a fundamental aspect of understanding architecture through empirical observation and study, Serlio presents us with a composition focused on one of the dilemmas of the new architecture. This was a dilemma that characterised questions of how to resolve the inconsistencies between treatises about antique practices and the

107 actuality of buildings from and resolution of these inconsistencies whilst retaining the ‘good’ of the Classical for the present needs of architecture.

In the frontispiece, with allusions to the garden as a location of speculative thought and unfettered by conformity to authorities, the depiction of a stone decorated with a Greek meander represented specifically Venetian ways of understanding the past, opening the possibility of a new character for Venetian architecture that acknowledged the unique history and culture of the Venetian Republic. This importance of the Venetian context in

Serlio’s frontispiece is reinforced in the dedication to Ercole II, Fourth Duke of Ferrara and the inclusions in his Book of designs specifically for Venice. Serlio comments in his dedication on how important the Doge’s building program was to him. He said:

In Venice I have received every possible benefit, both spiritually and worldly. The Doge, master Andrea Gritti, a Prince never sufficiently praised, has brought the following men to the service of his illustrious Republic, and they are making this city, with its noble and beautiful constructed buildings, as marvellous as God made it impressive by the nature of its site: Antonio Abbondi, a reliable man with regard to the style of the buildings customary in the city; Jacopo Sansovino, the famous sculptor and architect.98

Myra Rosenfeld has suggested that one of the reasons for Regole generali di architettura’s publication prior to that of Books I and II, could have been the Doge Andrea Gritti’s priority to rebuild the urban areas around the Rialto after the war with the Turks.99 Rosenfeld suggested that Gritti had expressed his idea for building the “new Rome” in Venice and employed Jacopo Sansovino as architect. The printing of the frontispiece to Serlio’s

Regole generali di architettura, with its allusions to Venetian practices coinciding with the construction of Gritti’s proposal, could be interpreted as reinforcing Serlio’s support for

Gritti’s desire for Venice. The frontispiece illustration presented the idea that a specifically

108 Venetian way of thinking had to be upheld for the city’s rebuilding to maintain a uniqueness that would rival rather than copy the aspirations of the city of Rome.100

In the frontispiece, allusions to concepts of garden as an intellectual terrain, notions of warning, concepts of the natural and of the importance of empirical knowledge, suggestions of specifically Venetian understandings of antiquity, notions of copia, and possible allusions to the iconography of his patron Ercole II d’Este, form a converging of ideas that can be interpreted for their portrayal of what the social figure of the architect should be. By imaging architecture as an intellectual terrain with architects and others coming together as a group to actively discuss and formulate the fundamental new requirements of their discipline, the architect becomes a member of an intellectual group, a group able to discursively change and formulate new rules for architecture and the boundary for their discipline. This attribute was an initial formation in the professionalisation of the practices of the architect.

Elements of this understanding of the status of the architect had been evident in

Cesariano’s allegory of his life with his plea for recognition of his specific attributes as being those required by an architect even one needing to rise from a position of lower status to the higher status usually afforded to architects by birth position or family influence. Serlio extended this requirement of specific ‘attributes’ to a requirement for specific ‘judgment.’ He showed how this term architect could be applicable and accessible to those of lesser social classes, through specific effort applicable to all architects: empirical investigation, study of the ancients and continuing scrutiny of modern architecture for its conformity with ‘good’ architectural practice and its fulfilling the needs of society and situation. However, Serlio reinforced through the iconography of his frontispiece that this personal development could not be acquired in isolation. For Serlio, the architect became a member of society’s new ‘intellectual’ classes, where debate and

109 resolution of conflict were necessary components of authoritative engagement in an active social life. Serlio’s questioning of the ancients, his creativity with architectural orders and the examination of antiquities and contemporary buildings together focus on an attitude of reform for the social figure of the architect. Previously, an architect’s status was based on

‘God-given’ talent and birth ascription but now others had access. In Regole generali di architettura Vitruvian rules for architectural speculation continue to be transformed through the application of a personal and educated judgment. The frontispiece portrays Serlio’s architect as enmeshed in the paradoxes of having to deal with a visibly pagan architecture from antiquity and its transformation for a christianised but also humanised present. This presentation of the accessibility of architectural knowledge and the development of personal intellectual thought through debate and resolution was a confronting concept for the orthodox Roman Papacy-dominated sixteenth-century Italy.

The impact of these ideas from the frontispiece is further reinforced in the text of Regole generali di architettura with Serlio’s discussion of the new architectural types as specifically representative of the Renaissance. Serlio’s production of a typology of housing designs, even though defined by their combinations of classical elements, portrayed the design act as innovative with the potential for ‘licentiousness,’ that is, having a complete disregard for prescribed rules. In Serlio’s terms the architect has been given the intellectual freedom to create ‘bad’ design by mixing orders in invention in inappropriate ways. However, he could also understand the ‘monstrous’ act of mixing elements in an appropriate manner. Discussing this positive mixture for new invenzioni

Serlio had said “From this is to be created this monstrous, by which I mean mixed, form.”101 For Serlio, design is not completely governed by clear given rules, but rules always contingent on the particularities of each project. For Serlio design is an act that, through judgment, must bring together and resolve the inconsistencies of the Classical and

110 bestial orders from the past with the new functional and specific requirements of

Renaissance architecture – an architectural practice requiring both intellectual and practical endeavour.

This reading of the frontispiece provides an interpretation for Serlio’s writing that is in conflict with a popularly accepted view expressed by some reviews. Mario Carpo, for example, suggests that Serlio proposed a ‘short-cut’ to design by presenting models for less educated and/or less talented architects to imitate, thus meeting the demand for increased numbers of designers required by the Renaissance’s phenomenal growth in architecture.102 By making such a statement Carpo repeats the sentiments of Lomazzo in his 1584 critique of the impact of Serlio’s teaching in his Trattato dell’art della pittura, scultura, et architettura.103 Following Lomazzo, Carpo’s interpretation saw Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura as a pattern-book for lesser architects that interpreted Serlio as having the very attitude that he emphatically warned against in his frontispiece and text.

By using the term monstrous, Serlio is unconditionally warning that the design act is not a simple one, and that while there may seem to be easy models to follow there are no definitive rules for success in any given situation.104

The frontispiece is clear in its message that the sixteenth-century Italian architect could not design new and appropriate architecture without prior knowledge of the traditional mediated by empirical investigation, and the application of this only after reflection on its appropriateness for the present situation. Experience was fundamental for the capacity to form judgments of worth. It was derived not only through the experience of building and scrupulous evaluation of newly built work, but also through drawing and illustrating design concepts as accurately as the technology of the day permitted. Serlio visually represented

Leon Battista Alberti’s concept for the Italian architect. Specific to Serlio’s imaging of the sixteenth century architect, social role and privilege relied on his intellectual education

111 through investigation and debate. Cesariano, in his 1521 illustration of the allegory of his moment of becoming the public figure of an architect, had requested forgiveness for his lowly beginnings.105 In the frontispiece to his Regole generali di architettura, Serlio’s architect, regardless of his status by birth-ascription, was an intellectual who thought independently, and was educated in the crafts and intellectual pursuits that freed him from the bounds of common social misconceptions enabling him to advise his patrons and contribute to the social, rhetorical, creative and managerial requirements of the life of a court and as a consequence was accorded an elite social status. The boundaries and constraints of debate delineated architectural knowledge and its practical application, a hallmark of the emerging Italian professions.

1 Sebastiano Serlio’s Book IV, Regole generali di architetura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, printed by Francesco Marcolini in Venice during 1537. This study uses the edition, Sebastian Serlio, L’architettura, I libri I-VII extraordinario nelle prime edizione, Paolo Fiore, ed., Milano: Polifilo, 2001. Translations are taken from Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks translated edition, Sebastiano Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, trans. and eds., Vol., I, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. 2 In his dedication to Ercole II d’Este, Fourth Duke of Ferrara, Serlio stated that the reason for publishing Book IV first was the confluence in symbolism of its number with the name of the Duke. Serlio says, “Do not be puzzled that I have begun with this book, because since there are seven planets and since you have the name of the fourth, the sun, I thought it would be fitting to begin with the fourth book under your name and protection,” folio IIII. Later in his life, in Book I, Serlio was to provide another reason for the order of printing of the books. Folio IIv of Book I, suggests that it was that the illustrations of Books IV and II were attractive and would be more appealing than those on geometry and perspective. Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996. William Dinsmoor provides an extensive account of the history of usage of this frontispiece after its use by Serlio. See William Dinsmoor, “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” Art Bulletin, 24, 1(1942), 66, fn 61. The claim that this is the first frontispiece in an architectural treatise is reinforced both by the work of Francesco Barberi and earlier writers who, while not specifically distinguishing title pages from frontispieces, saw a significance to Serlio’s illustration. Barberi isolated Serlio’s frontispiece to the Regole generali di architecttura, as developing a perspectival approach to frontispieces where sculpture and drawing marry. Francesco Barberi, Il frontispizio nel libro italiano

112 del Quattrocento e del Cinquecento, Milano: Il Polifilo, 1969, Vol. I, 129. See also Alfred Johnson A Catalogue of Italian Engraved Title-Pages in the Sixteenth Century, London, Oxford University Press, 1936, vii, who suggested Serlio’s caryatids to be the first of their kind in frontispiece art. 3 See Serlio’s descriptions in Book IV Regole generali di architettura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, Venezia: Marcolini, 1537, fol. Vr. 4 For a discussion on the distinctive nature of Serlio’s books and their relationship to the final treatise see Alina Payne, The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 113-116. When Serlio’s Book III, Il Terzo libro si Sebastiano Serlio Bolognese, nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antiquita di Roma, e le alter che sono in Italia, e fuori d’Italia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540, was printed it was bound with Book IV. Books I, Il primo libro d’architettura, di Sebastiano Serlio, Bolognese, also titled Le premier livre d’architecture de Sebastian Serlio, Bolognois, mis en langue francoyse, par Iehan Martin secretaire de monseigneur le reverendissime Cardinal de Lenoncourt, Paris: Jean Barbé, 1545, included Book II Il Secondo libro di perspettiva. Serlio’s Book V, Quinto libro d’architettura di Sabastiano Serlio Bolognese, nel qual se tratta de diverse forme di tempij sacri secondo il costume christiano, & al mondo antico, Paris: Michel de Vascosan, 1547, and Libro Extraordinario libro di architettura di Sebastiano Serlio, architetto del re christianissimo, nel quale si dimostrano trenta porte di opera rustica mista con diversi ordini, et venti di opera dilicata di diverse specie con la scrittura davanti, che narra il tutto, Lyon: Giovan di Tournes, 1551. Serlio died some time in 1554 at Fontainebleau, see William Dinsmoor “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” Art Bulletin, 24, 1(1942), 76, fn. 108. The earliest copy of Serlio’s complete works (Books I-V) appeared in Venice from the press of Francesco de’Franceschi, in 1584. According to Dinsmoor, the manuscripts to the seven books were complete and spoken of in a letter by the Italian antiquary Jacopo Strada of Mantua. Jacopo purchased the manuscript to Serlio’s Book VII in 1550 on a trip to Lyon. The copyright privilege was sought in Paris on December 25, 1572 and in Vienna on May 30, 1574 but it was finally published in Frankfurt-on-Main in 1575. See Dinsmoor, “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” 1942, 79, and for discussion of an eighth book, 83ff. For discussions of a sixth book see Part II of the above paper, Art Bulletin 24, 2 (1942), 115-154, and Myra Nan Rosenfeld, Serlio on Domestic Architecture, (1978) New York: Dover, 1996. 5 Vitruvius, De architectura, translated by Fra Giovanni Giocondo as M. Vitruvius per locundum solito castigatior factus cum figures et tabula ut iam legi et intelligi possit, Venitiis: Ioannis de Tridino alias Tacuino, 1511; Cesare Cesariano, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece, Como, Gottardo da Ponte, 1521. See Alberto Jelmini, “Sebastiano Serlio. Il Trattato d’Architettura,” Doctoral Thesis presented to the Faculty of Letters, University of Freiburg, 1975, Locarno: Switzerland: Tipografia Stazione, c 1986.

113

6 Serlio had worked in Peruzzi’s workshop between 1515-1520 and had investigated ruins with him during the early 1520s. Serlio openly calls Peruzzi his teacher “Di tutto quello, che voi trovarete in questo libro, che vi piaccia, non darete gia laude à me, ma si bene al precettor Baldessar Petruccio da Siena.” in Sebastian Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, folio Vr, and Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 253. 7 Howard Burns suggests that Peruzzi’s method of examining antiquities to help clarify Vitruvius may have derived from Francesco di Giorgio who Peruzzi had known well. See Howard Burns, “Baldassarre Peruzzi and Sixteenth-Century Architectural Theory,” in Les traités d’architecture de la Renaissance, Jean Guillaume, ed., Paris: Picard, 1988, 215. 8 Richard Tuttle, “Sebastiano Serlio bolognese,” in Sebastiano Serlio: Sesto seminario internazionale di storia dell’architettura, Christof Thoenes, (1987), ed., Milano: Electa, 1989, 22-29. Tuttle also includes biographical notes on Serlio’s life. 9 A summary of recent research on Serlio’s life can be found in the 1996 “Preface to the Dover Edition,” of Rosenfeld, Serlio on Domestic Architecture, 1996, 1-8. The practical and didactic emphasis in the text of the treatise has led many historians including Christof Thoenes, Francesco Paolo Fiore and Myra Rosenfeld to see his books as illustrated manuals rather than theoretical expositions. 10 There is one exception to this claim that his books are illustrated manuals rather than theoretical expositions where in Book I, Serlio names Euclid as the source for discussion of theorems in geometry. Sebastian Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Premier livre de de geometrie, ãã iiiv. Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks have suggested that a number of Serlio’s phrases can be seen as Aristotelian or Neoplatonic in their derivations but Serlio does not call attention to his theoretical sources by naming them. Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 441 n. 211 and 455 n. 7 for example. 11 See discussion in Rosenfeld, Serlio on Domestic Architecture, 1996, 3. 12 See discussions of the influence of Giulio Camillo in Loredana Olivato, “Dal teatro della memoria al grande teatro dell’architettura: Giulio Camillo Delminio e Sebastiano Serlio,” Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura di Andrea Palladio, XXI(1979), 233-251, and Mario Carpo, Alberti, Raffaello, Serlio e Camillo, Genève: Librairie Droz, 1993. 13 In the text of Serlio’s Book IV, Sanzio Raffaello is discussed in relation to his design at Monte Maria, VIIIr, Baldassare Peruzzi discussed for his invention of the use of triglyphs above a lintel, XXIIIIv, Giulio Romano is discussed for his Palazzo del Te, XIv, Donato Bramante for his design at the Cortile del Belvedere in Rome, LVIv. In the text of Serlio’s Book III Donato Bramante is included with illustrations of the work for his work on S. Peter’s Rome, as well as the Tempieto, Rome, XXXVII-XLV, Baldassare Peruzzi for his continuation of Bramante’s ideas on Saint Peter’s Rome, XXXVIII, and Sanzio Raffaello for his loggia at Monte Mario, CXLVIII in Book III. Other architects are mentioned throughout the text but not as extensively as these.

114

14 In Trattato di Architettura written in Milan between 1461 and 1464, Filarete included a discussion on the architect in Book XV titled “A Continuation of the Golden Book: What Architects Need to Know,” see Antonio Filarete, Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known as Filarete, trans., John R Spencer, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, 197ff. For an examination of the rhetorical issues of Alberti’s treatise see Mark Jarzombek, On Leon Baptista Alberti: His Literary and Aesthetic Theories, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989. Richard Krautheimer, “The Panels in Urbino, Baltimore and Berlin Reconsidered,” in The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, Henry A. Millon and Vittorio M. Lampugnani, eds., London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 255. Francoise Choay, The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Renaissance Urbanism, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1997, 3-4. For a discussion of Alberti’s construction of his audience see A. F. Nagel “Rhetoric, Value, and Action in Alberti.” Modern Language Notes, 95, 1, 39-65 especially 53. See also Francesco di Giorgio Martini in the introductory sections of Book V of his undated manuscript Trattati di architettura civile e militare, Codex Saluzzianus 148 Biblioteca Reale in Turin, discusses the architect by paraphrasing Vitruvius. Betts dates the three copies of di Giorgio as appearing between 1475 and 1492. Di Giorgio was aware of Alberti’s treatise through its manuscript copy held in the library of Frederico da Montefeltro in Urbino. This treatise was seen to influence di Giorgio’s later copies of his manuscript treatise. See Richard Betts, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio, PhD Dissertation submitted to Princeton University, Ann Arbor, Mi: UMI Dissertation, 1981, 13. 15 See Thoenes, “Prolusione: Serlio e la trattatistica,” in Sebastiano Serlio, 1989, 14, 18. For further reading on Campagnola see William Ottley’s An Inquiry Into the Origin and Early History of Engraving, London: J. and A. Arch by J. McCreery, 1816, for discussion of Campagnola’s engravings. See also William Ottley, An Inquiry Concerning the Invention of Printing: in which systems of Meerman, Heinecken, Santander, and Koning are reviewed : including also notices of the early use of wood-engraving in Europe, the block-books, London: J. Lilly, 1863, for an early investigation of techniques. 16 See Emile Galichon, Domenico Campagnola: Pientre-graveur du XVIe siècle, Paris: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1864. Galichon lists Campagnola’s woodblocks with titles in French: Les Rois Mages en Voyage (signed DOMENICVS CAMPAGNOLA, not dated); L’adoration Des Rois Mages (not signed); Le Massacre de Innocents (signed DOMINICUS CAMPAGNOLA. M. D. XVII and in the margin at the base is IN. VENETIA. IL. VIECERI); Le Christ Guérissant un Malade (signed DO. CAP. 1517); Mise au Tombeau (signed DOMINICUS CAMPAGNOLA); Vierge Entre des Saints (signed DOMENICVS CAMPAGNOLA. MDXVII); Saint Jean-Baptiste (signed D. C.); Saint Jean L’évangéliste (signed DO. CAP.); Conversion de Saint Paul (not signed); Saint Jérome (first state signed DOMINICVS; second state DOMINICVS CAMPAG’); Le Vielleur (not signed); La Famille en Voyage (first state signed DNICS; second state DNICS CAMP.) with some others in

115 doubt. Galichon lists etchings with French titles as: Jésus-Christ Guérissant les Malades a la Piscine (signed DOMENICVS CAMPAGNOLA, 1517); Saint Pierre Guérissant un Estropié (signed 1517, DO. CAMP. H.); Le Reniemente de Saint Pierre (signed 1517. DO. CAMP.); La Résurrection (signed DOMINICVS CAMPAGNOLA 1517); La Pentecote (signed DO CAP); L’Assomption de la Vierge (signed DOMINICVS CAMPAGNOLA. 1517); L’Homme de Douleurs (signed DO. CAMP. 1517.); Vierge Entourée de Saints (signed DOMINICVS CAMPAGNOLA. 1517.); Saint Jérome (signed DOMINICVS CAMP. 1517 in the background); Décollation de Sainte Catherine (signed DOMINICVS CAMPAGNOLA with the date XDXVII at the base); Combat des Lapithes et des Centaures (DOMINICVS CAMPAGNOLA, 1517); Le Concert (with Giulio Campagnola); Le Jeune Berger (signed DO. CAP. 1517); Femme nue et Couchée (signed DO. CAMP. 1517); La Ronde (signed DOMINICVS CAMPAGNOLA. 1517). 17 Adam Bartsch, Le peintre graveur, Leipzig, Chez J. A. Barth, 1866, Seen in, Walter L. Strauss, ed., The Illustrated Bartsch, New York: Abaris Books, 1978-, vols., 24, 25. 18 See the next chapter for a discussion of Thoenes’s interpretation of the inscription DOM F II S. I suggest that these characters are too far removed from Campagnola’s name to easily be interpreted as a signature. The inscription also forms the basis of alternative interpretations offered. 19 The question of attribution of the illustrations has not been doubted. See Margaret McGowan’s discussion of praise for Serlio’s illustrations and praise for his capacity as their designer in France by Goujon, Jean Cousin and Philibert de L’Orme, in Margaret McGowan, The Vision of Rome in Late Renaissance France, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000, 88-89. 20 Volendo, Io Sebastiano Serlio da bologna, . . serenità publicare in stampa alcuni mei libri de architettura per me composti et figurati, et scritti in lingua volgaree. See, Deborah Howard, Sebastiano Serlio’s Venetian Copyrights,” Burlington Magazine, CXV, 845, (Aug., 1973), 512-516. For translation, see “Appendix One,” “Serlio’s Venetian Copyrights,” in Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 466-7. 21 Aretino’s letters to Serlio address him very differently and personally when compared with his addresses in letters to other architects and writers of the time. Aretino writes to architects including Michelangelo, Jacopo Sansovino and Giulio Romano but in a much more formal manner. Compare: “If you, both illustrious painter and architect,” Se voi pittore illustre e architetto unico…. Pietro Aretino to Giulio Romano. Venice, June 1542, with “you, dear companion” voi, compar caro”. Pietro Aretino to Sebastiano Serlio, 11 April 1542. Reprinted in Pietro Aretino, Lettere. Il primo e il secondo libro. F. Flora, ed., A. Del Vita, notes., Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1960, 884-58, and 49- 50. 22 Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, II. E l’autore; che con la modestia del suo procedere, dà lo spirito a le cose, da lui disegnate, e descritte, non poteva senza scemar a sé grado, & a l’opra fama, intitolarla ad altro Signore; che a Hercole Duca di Ferrara. Translated from the Italian by Flavia Marcello and Marta Fattori. See also Aretino, Lettere, 1960, 240-2.

116

23 Dinsmoor suggests that it was three years before Serlio’s name was included in the title. See William Dinsmoor “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” Art Bulletin, 24, 1(1942), 67. 24 A mascaron was a decorative motif popular in the Renaissance. See the exhibition catalogue, Ornament and Architecture: Renaissance Drawings, Prints and Books, Janet Adams et al, eds., Providence: Brown University, 1980, 18, and pls. 13, 25d, 26, 47. 25 See for example Mario Carpo, “The Making of the Typographical Architect,” in Hart and Hicks, Paper Palaces, 1998, 166. 26 For discussion of this attitude in Alberti, see Christof Thoenes, “Vitruvio, Alberti, Sangallo: La teoria del disegno architettonico nel Rinascimento,” in his Sostegno e adornamento : saggi sull’architettura del Riascimento : disegni, ordini, magnificenza, Milano: Electa, 1998, 161-175. See also Myra Nan Rosenfeld, "From Bologna to Venice and Paris: The Evolution and Publication of Sebastiano Serlio's Books I and II, On Geometry and Perspective, for Architects," Studies in the History of Art, 59, Center for Advanced Studies in the Visual Arts, Symposium Papers XXXVI, The Treatise on Perspective: Published and Unpublished, Lyle Massey, ed., Washington: National Gallery of Art Washington and Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 295-6. 27 Leon Battista Alberti, Ten Books on Architecture, trans., James Leoni, 1726, reprint Joseph Rykwert, ed., London: Alec Tiranti, 1965, 22. 28 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 380. Per tanto l’Architetto, che senza prospettiva. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, LXXv, 29 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 253. In parole tanto di prospettiva, che volendo egli, potrà aprir il suo con cetto in disegno visibile. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, Vr. 30 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 37. Et io, quale I mi sia, essercitai prima la pittura & la Perspettiva, permezzo delle quali a gli studii de l’Architettura mi diedi, de iquali son tanto acceso & tato me dilettando, che in tal fatiche mi godo. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book II, 25v. 31 In discussion with Rosenfeld she drew attention to the similarity between Serlio’s earlier designs for intarsia panels and the frontispieces to Books IV and III. For the attribution of the design of intarsia panels see Richard Tuttle, “Sebastiano Serlio bolognese,” in Sebastiano Serlio: Sesto seminario, Thoenes, ed., 1989, 22-29. For a description of his earlier work see Sabine Frommel, “La Vita,” in her Sebastiano Serlio architetto, Milano: Electa, 1998, 13-32. 32 Rosenfeld, “From Bologna to Venice and Paris,” 2003, 296. See also, Christof Thoenes, “Vitruvio, Alberti, Sangallo,” 1998, 161-175. 33 See also discussion in Rosenfeld, “From Bologna to Venice and Paris,” 2003, 296. 34 Thoenes, “Vitruvio, Alberti, Sangallo,” 1998, 162ff. 35 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 252. Ne tenendola sepolta ne le tenebre del mio terreno. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, IIII.

117

36 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 5. Toutes fois ie ne parleray des speculations ainsi qu’a faicit Euclides, mais tant seulement produiray certaines fleurs cueuillies aux campagnes fertiles de luy, & d’autres bons autheurs. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book I, ãã iiiv. 37 Aloisio Piravano 1521, “Oratio” in Cesare Cesariano’s translation of Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitrivuio Pollione, 1521. Quanto cognosciamo nulla essere generatione di homini: quale da li floridi Vitruviani Viridarii non possa qualche sapido fructo decerpere. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 38 For an analysis of Ercole d’Este’s duchy see Thomas Tuohy, Herculean Ferrara: Ercole d’Este, 1471-1505, and the Invention of a Ducal Capital, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, especially his section on the garden p.79ff. 39 For a discussion of the friendship between the three and their influence on each other’s work see John Onians, Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988, Chapter XX. 40 Myra Rosenfeld lists Pietro Aretino, Lorenzo Lotto, Jacopo Sansovino, Achille Bocchi and Alessandro Cittolini as part of a circle of sympathizers to Protestantism and to Luther’s teaching. See Rosenfeld, “From Bologna to Venice and Paris,” 2003, 282. See also Scipione Casali, Gli annali della tipografia veneziana di Francesco Marcolini / compilati da Scipione Casali. Prima integrale e fedele ristampa dell'unica rara edizione del 1861, A cura di Alfredo Gerace. Introd. di Luigi Servolini, Bologna: A. Gerace, 1953, v-vi. 41 See Amedeo Quondam for confirmation of this in his analysis of Aretino’s dialogue, in “Varietà: Nel giardoni del Marcolini un editore veneziano tra Aretino and Doni,” Giornale storico dell letterature italiane 157, 4(1980), 75-112. 42 See Quondam, “Varietà,” 1980, for this analogy. 43 The printing industry in Venice had been a commercial enterprise from the start, see E. P. Goldschmidt, The Printed Book of the Renaissance: three lectures on Type, Illustration, ornament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950, 7. See also Horatio Brown, The Venetian Printing Press 1469-1800, : Heusden, 1969 and also Leonardas Gerulaitis, Printing and Publishing in Fifteenth-Century Venice, Chicago: American Library Association, 1976. 44 Agostino Veneziano had published a series of herms in 1536, The Hermae, an engraving from this series can be seen in Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (26.50.1[61]). Serlio’s herms differ from these earlier designs in their free moving characteristics. See Veneziano’s herm illustrations in Adams et al., Ornament and Architecture: Renaissance Drawings, Prints and Books, Rhode Island: Brown University, 1980, 19, and XXXIX. See also described in Adam Bartsch, Le peintre graveur, Leipzig, Chez J. A. Barth, 1866, XIV, 387-90, cat. nos. 541-52. 45 Mascaron were popularly depicted in Renaissance art. See examples from Agostino Veneziano, Panel of Ornament dated 1530 at the , Washington, D.C., (I,5M978). This can be seen also in Adams et al., Ornament and Architecture, 1980, 18 and XVI.

118

46 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 320. Ad huomini letterati,& di vita quieta, and illustrations on XLVv. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, folio XXXVIv and XLIIv. 47 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 363. Et chi dubbita, che tal volta questa inventione non fusse al proposito per ornare un aporta : appoggiando queste simili colonne al muro, & massimamente per la porta d’un giardino, ò per luoghi di Triomphi. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, folio LXv. 48 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 90. Senza rispetto nelle Satyre antiche erano quasi mostrati a ditto glihuomini viciosi & mal’viueti. Perho tal’licentia si puo compredere che fusse concessa a personagi che senza rispetto parlassero, come saria a dire gente rustica. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book II, 69v. 49 These figures were given a status in architecture similar to the Caryatids and Persians of Vitruvius while deriving different meaning. These figures were illustrated in both Fra Giocondo’s and Cesariano’s translations of Vitruvius although caryatids and Persians were not popularly used in Renaissance architecture. See Vitruvius, De architectura, translated by Fra Giovanni Giocondo, 1511, or Cesariano’s translation of Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione de architectura libri dece, 1521 for illustrations. 50 Vitruvius, De architectura, I.I.5. See, Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, trans., and commentary, Ingrid Rowlands and Thomas Noble, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 22. 51 Vitruvius, De architectura, I.I.6. See, Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, trans., Rowlands, 1999, 22. 52 George Hersey, “The Classical Orders of Architecture as Totems in Vitruvian Myth,” in Umanesimo a Roma nel Quattrocento atti del convegno, Paolo Brezzi, ed., Roma: Instituto di Studi Romani, 1984, 213-214. Further representations of herms and terms occur as surrounds for fireplaces and doorways later in Serlio’s Regole generali di Architettura, 1537. 53 Margaret D’Evelyn, Word and Image in Architectural Treatises of the Italian Renaissance, 1995, 337. 54 Rykwert suggests this is a corrupted form of Hyginus Gromaticus’ De const. Limit., see Alberti’s On the Art of Building in Ten Books, 1988, 384 n.21. 55 Mentioned in Janet Adams’ entry on ‘terms’ in Adams et al., Ornament and architecture, c1980, 19. Also in Alberti, Ten Books on Architecture, trans., James Leoni, 1965, 89 and in Rykwert’s, et al., 1988 translation of Alberti’s On the Art of Building in Ten Books, 1988, 384, n.21 it is suggested that Nigrigeneus was the corrupted form of Hyginus Gromaticus, De const. limit., 134, II, 17-21, found in Corpus Agrimensorum Romanorum, ed. C Thulin, Stuttgart: Teubner, 1971. 56 Mentioned by Margaret D’Evelyn. My interpretation of Alberti’s text does not go as far as Margaret D’Evelyn who sees Alberti making a more significant association between the figures and

119 notions of the comic and to Greek Comedy. See D’Evelyn, Word and Image in architectural Treatises, 1995, especially her chapter on Serlio. 57 Alberti, Ten Books on Architecture, trans., James Leoni, 1965, Book IX, iv, 193. 58 Joseph Rykwert refers this association to an Aristotelian division of genre later made famous by Serlio in his depiction of stage sets in Book II. Refer to Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, trans. Joseph Rykwert et al., 1988, 408, fn 58. See also Alberti, Ten Books on Architecture, trans., James Leoni, 1965, IX.iv., 192. 59 See, Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 254. Ho voluto nel principio di questo libro imitare I Comici antiqui, alcun de quali volendo representar una Comedia, mandava uno suo nuntio innanzi, che in succinte parole dava noticia a i spettatori, di tutto quello che ne la Comedia si havea da trattare. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, Vv. 60 D’Evelyn, Word and Image in architectural Treatises, 1995, 174-5. 61 D’Evelyn, Word and Image in architectural Treatises, 1995, 173-5. 62 D’Evelyn, Word and Image in architectural Treatises, 1995, 173-5. She suggests that: “by associating the first-published General Rules of 1537 with the tone and rhetorical structure of comedy - introducing the five orders as expressive actors in an ancient drama - Serlio gives an overarching shape and meaning to a body of technical material.” 63 For Serlio’s broad use of Alberti’s text, see Jelmini, Sebastiano Serlio. Il Trattato d’Architettura, 1986, 144-152. 64 For Agostino Veneziano, engraving, The Hermae, 299 x 124 (O/B, XXVI.302 [229]), Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (26.50.1[61]) see Adams et al., Ornament and architecture, c1980, 19, and plate XXXIX. Janet Adams suggests that the last known works of Agostino Veneziano are dated 1536, see p. 16. The second reference is to the frontispiece of M. Tullii Ciceronis Opera omnium quae hac tenus excusa sunt, castigates sima nunc primum in lucem edita, Venezia: Caeantonii Giuntae, 1537. 65 During 1520s, Serlio had designed illustrations later engraved by Veneziano including a series of column capitals, bases and perspectives. In this project’s application for copyright privileges, Serlio is named “professor di Architectura” and Veneziano “tagliator di bullino” or cutter of the engravings. For information on Serlio’s association with Veneziano see Dinsmoor, “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” 1942, 64ff and Howard, “Sebastiano Serlio’s Venetian Copyrights,” Burlington Magazine, 1973, 512-516. This collaboration is also mentioned in Brown, The Venetian Printing Press 1469-1800, 1969, 103. 66 Nicole Dacos, La découverte de la Domus Aurea et la formation des à la Renaissance, London: Warburg Institute, 1969. 67 See Onians, Bearers of Meaning, 1988, 290-292. 68 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 281 and Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XIXr.

120

69 See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XXXVIv and XLVv. See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 320, 338. 70 Onians, Bearers of Meaning, 1988, 299. 71 Dinsmoor cited Johnson for having recognised that Serlio was the first to bring bunched fruit elements and the herm frame together. See Dinsmoor “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” 1942, and Alfred Forbes Johnson, A Catalogue of Italian Engraved Title-Pages in the Sixteenth Century, 1936. 72 For Veneziano’s print see Adams et al, Ornament and Architecture, 1980, 18 and XVI. 73 See Janet Adams entry for Veneziano in Adams et al, Ornament and Architecture, 1980, 18. Giovanni da Udine’s painting in the loggia of the Vatican is commented on by Giorgio Vasari in his treatise Le vite de piu eccellenti architetti, pittori, et scultori italiani, 1568. Refer to Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters sculptors and Architects, trans., Gaston du C. de Vere, London: David Campbell, 1996, VII, 490. 74 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 274. Bella cosa è, ne l’Architetto l’esser abbondante d’inventioni, per la diversità de gliaccidenti, che occorreno al fabrica. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XVv. 75 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 302 and 316. Di questa sequente figura il giudicioso Architetto si potrà acommodare a diverse cose, & trasmutarla secondo gliaccidenti che gli occurreranno. Book IV, XXXVIv Anchora che il giuditioso Architetto, havendo veduto tante inventioni, ne le cose passate di quest’opera Dorica, sopra servendosi di quelle, accommodarsi a diversi ornamenti per li camini, dove si recercarà l’opera Dorica. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XXIXv. 76 This is contrary to the appeal made by Leon Battista Alberti when he said “The difference between the drawings of a painter and those of the architect is this: the former takes pains to emphasise the of objects in paintings with shading and diminishing lines and angles; the architect rejects shading, but takes his projections from the ground plan and, without altering the lines by maintaining the true angles, reveals the extent of each elevation and side- he is the one who desires his work to be judged not by deceptive appearance but according to certain calculated standards.” See Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting, trans., John Spencer, London: Routledge, 1956, 34. See also Wolfgang Lotz, Studies in Italian Renaissance Architecture, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1977, 4-5, 39-40 and Samuel Edgerton, The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective, New York: Basic Books, 1975. 77 “Sciografia – which means the receding sides.” See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 253. The term sciografia derives from Greek sources. Skia in Greek means ‘painted shadows’. See also Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 175.

121

78 There are many examples of trace drawings still in existence. These drawings were at 1:1 scale and were used directly on the stone to trace the profile of a cut. 79 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 390. Sempre imitare la natura, quãto piu potemo. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, LXXVv. 80 This presents a very different proposition to that interpreted by Mario Carpo for Regole generali di architettura. Carpo believes that Serlio formalized an easy method of imitation to be used by ‘modern’ architects, a ‘short-cut’ for design. This would mean that architects no longer had to study the ruins or use empirical systems of evaluation but rely on Serlio’s ‘models.’ However, in the frontispiece Serlio is at pains to present an alternate idea. See Mario Carpo, “The Making of the Typographical Architect,” in Hart and Hicks, Paper Palaces, 1998, 166. 81 Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 175 and 366, and Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, LXXXVr. 82 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 381 and illustrations 387 and 388. L’essempio di questo si vedera ne la sequenta carta, oltra molte altre inventione, & diversi compartimenti è fregi variati, & altre cose, tolte la maggior parte da l’antiquita, per arichir d’inventioni quelli, che ne saranno poveri. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, LXXI with illustrations LXXIIII and LXXIIIIv. 83 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 388 for the garden mazes and 366 for the column base and Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, LXXIIIIv and LXIIv. The examples carried out with Veneziano see Howard, “Sebastiano Serlio’s Venetian Copyrights,” 1973. These bases are very differently conceived to those proposed for a depiction of the Orders in Regole generali di architettura. Serlio’s project with Veneziano seems to be a more decorative rendering of actual examples of the Orders found throughout their travels in Italy. 84 He may have known about or seen Greek antiquities through the illustrations of Ciriaco d’Ancona whose recording of Greek antiquity had been seen and transformed in the sketchbook of Giuliano da Sangallo, Codex Vaticanus Barberinus latinus 4424. Ciriaco’s trips to Athens and other parts of Greece are recorded in E.W. Bodnar, “Athens in April 1436,” Archeology, XX (1970), 96- 105, 188-199, also see Gianfranco Paci and Sergio Sconocchia, Ciriaco d'Ancona e la cultura antiquaria dell'umanesimo, : Diabasis, c1998 and Beverley Brown and Diana Kleiner, “Giulio da Sangallo’s Drawings after Ciriaco d’Ancona: Transformations of Greek and Roman Antiquities of Athens,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XLII(Dec., 1983), 321-335. 85 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 364. La quale i Romani antiqui, forse non potendo andar sopra a la invention de Greci trovatori de la colonna Dorica, ad imitatione de l’huomo. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, LXIv. 86 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 244. Veramente le cosa de gliantichi Romani sono meravigliose a gliocchi nostri : ma chi potesse vedere le cosa de i

122

Greci, le quail hormai sono tutte estinte, e de le cui spoglie Roma, e Venetia ne è molto adorna; forse che superariano le cose de i Romani. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, CLIIII. 87 See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Introduction, 11 and Francesco Paolo Fiore “Introduction” in Sebastiano Serlio, Architettura Civile, Francesco Paolo Fiore, ed., Milano: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1994, 501, n, 4 and Deborah Howard, Venice & the East: the Impact of the Islamic World on Venetian Architecture 1100-1500, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000, 232, n 51. 88 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 190, 191. Ma bene è il vero che in Grecia si trouvava un portico di centro colonne & alcuni vogliono dire, che le colonne del portico del Pantheonfussero di quelle. See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, CI. 89 See Fortini Brown, Venice and Antiquity, 1996. Also Deborah Howard, Venice & the East, 2000. 90 Fortini Brown, Venice and Antiquity, 1996, 286. 91 Fortini Brown, Venice and Antiquity, 1996, 286. 92 Deborah Howard, Venice & the East, 2000, xii. 93 See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XXXIIIv – XXXVIv and in Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 310-316. 94 See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, Xr. La diversità de l’inventioni fa tal’horprender partito a l’Architetto di cosa, che egli non hebbe forsi mai in pensiero. See the comparison between these sentiments and those expressed on fol. LXIXv. 95 For more analysis on Serlio’s use of ‘licentiousness’ see Mario Carpo, “The Making of the Typographical Architect,” in Hart and Hicks, Paper Palaces, 1998, 158-169. 96 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 269. Laqual cosa sempre se riserva al giudicio de l’Architetto. See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XIIIr. 97 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 284. Et ben che la presente proiettura del capitello, si alontani molto da i scritti di Vitruvio per esser perpendicular al Plintho de la Base non dimeno per haverne io venduto alcuni antiqui & ancho ne ho fatti porre in opera di tal sorte, mi è parso metterlo in dissegno, a complacentia di che se ne vorrà servire, benche li studiosi di Vitruvio solo senza haver manegiato altrimenti le cose antique negarano questa opinione ma si voranno haver riguardo a li abachi de i capitelli Corinthij, la proiettura de i quali e perpendicular a li Plinthi de le Basi non dannaranno cosi facilmente tal proiettura. See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XXIr. 98 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 251. In Venetia ricetto di tutto il ben humano & divino, il Serenisiom & nó moi apieno lodato Principe, messer ANDREA GRITTI , ha códotto al servigio de la sua inclita Republica questi singular huomini, che cosi fanno stupenda questa Città di nobili, & d’artificiosi edifici come la fece Dio mirabile di natura & di sito, Antonio abondi util’huomo per la maniera de le fabriche usate ne la Città; Iacopo Sansovino famoso Scultore, & Architetto. See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, III.

123

99 Rosenfeld “From Bologna to Venice and Paris,” 2003, 285, see also Manfredo Tafuri, “Renovatio urbis: Venezia nell’eta di Andrea Gritti, 1523-1538, Roma: Officina edizioni, 1984, 17, 20-22, 29, 46-47 and 54 as documented in Rosenfeld above. 100 The concept of the rebuilding of Rome had been one aspired to generally in the politics of Italian city-states and republics. See Alina Payne’s comments on Raphael in Alina Payne, The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 28-9. 101 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 338. Da lequal si trarà questa forma monstruosa, o mescolata, che voglian dire. See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XLVv. 102 Carpo, “The Making of the Typographic Architect,” 1998, 166. See also Myra Nan Rosenfeld, “Sebastiano Serlio’s Contributions to the Creation of the Modern Illustrated Architectural Manual,” in Sebastiano Serlio, Christof Theones, ed., Milano: Electa, 1989, 102-110. 103 Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo, Trattato dell’arte de la pittura di Gio. Paolo Lomazzo, Milanese pittore, Milano: Paolo Gottardo Ponte, 1584, 407. Sabine Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio architetto, 1998, 24 also lists criticisms of G. Philandrier, In decem lobros M. Vittruvii Pollionis de architectura annotations, Roma: Apud Io. Andream Dossena Thaurinen, 1544, 137 and L. Lippi (1606-1664), Il Malmantile racquistato, Venezia: Antonio Zatta et figli, 1748, 656, citing Hubertus Günther, “Studien zum venezianischen Aufenthalt des Sebastiano Serlio,” Münchner Jahbuch der bildenden Kunstgeschichte, XXXII(1981), 42, for these references. 104 See Serlio’s comment on the monstrous act of design in, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 338. Da lequal si trarà questa forma monstruosa, o mescolata, che voglian dire. See Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XLVv. 105 See the case study on the allegorical illustration of Cesariano in the previous chapter. Cesariano’s translation of Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece, 1521, LXXXIVv.

124 CHAPTER 3

The ‘Architect’ perceives architecture as the resolution of the ‘Natural’:

Sebastian Serlio’s frontispiece to Book III, Il terzo libro nel qual si

figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma.

This chapter focuses on Sebastiano Serlio’s Book III, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma the content of which described antique and Roman ruins and included illustrations depicting them as if reconstructed.1 I stated in the introduction that each chapter of this study, although investigated in chronological order, would be a discrete case study because my aim is to locate different or similar attributes of the architect in the frontispieces investigated without any attempt to impose on these a notion of progressive development. However, because the previous chapter focused on Serlio and his first frontispiece and this chapter focuses on a frontispiece to Serlio’s second published treatise, many arguments here rely on information stated in the previous chapter. This chapter investigates whether in this second frontispiece Serlio retains his basic concept of the architect, or whether he emphasises or extends this concept, or, perhaps, more radically, changes his earlier propositions.

The text of Serlio’s Il terzo libro forms a theoretical pairing with that of Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura and it was common for them to be bound together after the printing of Il terzo libro in 1540.2 Basic to each of the texts is Serlio’s suggestion that an education suitable for the architect relies not only on knowledge of antique authorities, the orders of architecture and their relevance for new architectural design, but also on a thorough examination of extant examples of architecture from antiquity.

125 The focus of the text of Regole generali di architettura, the first of this pair printed, was on how the architect could design architecture relevant for the new requirements of sixteenth-century Italian building design whilst at the same time adhering to the precepts of ‘true’ Classical design.3 In Il terzo libro, Serlio examined and described the remains of architectural antiquities including Roman buildings from districts of Rome,

Naples, Verona and the Venetian territories, and also some from ancient Egypt. In Il terzo libro, to clarify his notion of transference of architectural form from antiquity Serlio not only included descriptions of many of these he had reconstructed in illustration, but also included descriptions with comments and illustrations of new buildings by

Bramante, Raffaello, Peruzzi and others of his contemporaries and near- contemporaries.

3.1 Investigating changes in Serlio’s context between 1537 and 1540 during the interval between the printing of Book IV and Book III:

As discussed in the previous chapter, the preparation for each of Serlio’s books on architecture was well underway prior to the printing of his Regole generali di architectura in 1537. However, the frontispiece may have been conceived closer to the time of its book’s printing. If this were so, certain changes in Serlio’s circumstances would be significant for depictions in the iconography of the frontispiece of Il terzo libro.

The primary change in Serlio’s societal context between the printing of Book IV, Regole generali di architettura and the printing of Book III, Il terzo libro was his growing patronage from French sources. Il terzo libro is dedicated to the French King, François

I, who had agreed to pay Serlio three hundred gold scudi for his labour of writing.4

Serlio’s introduction to this patron had come through Georges d’Armagnac the French

Ambassador in Venice from 1536-1539. D’Armagnac’s secretary, Guillaume Philander, had been a pupil of Serlio’s.5 As well, Serlio had given architectural advice to Lazare de Baïf, France’s ambassador to Venice prior to D’Armagnac.6

126 Serlio’s French support was not only direct from the court of François I but also from

Italian households with French allegiances. These included the Duke of Urbino,

Francesco Maria I della Rovere and his ambassador to Venice, Gian Giacomo

Leonardi. After Francesco Maria della Rovere spent a year in Venice, he confirmed his friendship with Serlio by inviting him to his court in Urbino during 1537.7 Serlio’s circle of close friends also had ties to the French court of François I. When money was not quickly forthcoming from the French King for payment promised for his Il terzo libro under patronage, Pietro Aretino in 1539 wrote in his defence interceding via Lazare de

Baïf who had returned to France by this time. He recommended Serlio as an

“outstanding architect with a good name as a keen observer of architecture.”8 Aretino continued with this declaration, “Thus it would be worthy of your goodness to speak on his behalf to His Majesty – who, in his clemency, accepted one of his books and, in addition to naming him superintendent of royal buildings, promised him 300 scudi for expenses.” Manfredo Tafuri and Mario Carpo have each claimed that Serlio’s attachment to the court of François I, which was, by 1541, through Marguerite de

Navarre, resulted in part from Serlio’s concerns about corruptions in the Catholic

Church of Rome.9 Both Tafuri and Carpo suggest that Serlio was critical of the corrupt practices of the Church of Rome and the climate of oppression in Rome. It appears that the French were more accommodating of Serlio’s views and Serlio could have considered a move there to be propitious for future work, an important additional consideration for the interpretation of the frontispiece of Il terzo libro.

127 Figure 14 Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture

128 3.2 Describing the frontispiece to Serlio’s and analysing its component images:

The frontispiece to Serlio’s Book III is a landscape of ruins visualised in perspective and dominated by a rusticated portico with building elements, apparently from ancient

Roman ruins, littering the ground. These items include broken fluted column segments, bases, entablatures, and cornice pieces and, together with the composition of four planes of rusticated arched pillars, they scenographically form the setting of the frontispiece.10 Figure 14 An allegorical personification of Architettura, holding compasses and measuring devices in her hands, stands in the niche of the central pier of the composition. Between the title-plaque of the frontispiece and the scene below, there is a lemma or statement “Roma quanta fuit ipsa ruina docet” (How great Rome was, the ruins themselves reveal) inscribed on a single plinth-stone.11 Above this composite scene there are two putti holding a strap work plaque displaying the title of the book and as this appears to be the sole purpose of the putti they will not be analysed separately as they are not part of the narrative of the frontispiece.12

Interpretation of the frontispiece for its representation of the architect brings together an iconographic reading of its emblems and composition in the light of the politicised context of patronage and religious debate surrounding Serlio at the time. Investigation of the frontispiece will separate the component elements for analysis followed by an interpretation of what the narrative of the complete image contributes to knowledge about the sixteenth century architect. Six component elements of the frontispiece are investigated for their contribution to the narrative of the frontispiece. These include: the lemma, the portico of rusticated arches, perspectival construction of the scene, the classical fragments depicted throughout the scene and their relationship to the rusticated portico, the depiction of Architettura in the niche of the portico, and finally the letters ‘D.O.M,’ ‘F.IL,’ ‘S.’

129 3.2.1 The Lemma

The lemma to the frontispiece “Roma quanta fuit ipsa ruina docet” (How great Rome was, the ruins themselves reveal) is significant for the interpretation of the frontispiece.

To add a lemma to an allegorical painting or illustration was a technique that probably developed from the medieval practice, especially with paintings, of using a titulus, an accompanying poem or statement to aid a ‘viewer’s’ interpretation of the painting.

Interpreting this statement was often rhetorically demanding in itself, being a composition in metre similar to a psalm. It was placed besides a painting and read while observing the work of art itself.13 Svetlana Alpers has suggested that the titulus corresponded to the practical function of a dialogue, one that was anecdotal and synoptic in its commentary of complex ideas.14 The lemma performs this role for

Serlio’s frontispiece as it was not a direct summary or title for the frontispiece but reveals the most relevant philosophical thought underlying its composition and narrative. As such, the reader of the image was made aware that reading the narrative implicit in the frontispiece illustration required attentiveness to the text of the lemma in combination with other visual clues in the frontispiece.

With the statement, “How great Rome was, the ruins themselves reveal,” (“Roma quanta fuit ipsa ruina docet”) Serlio brought together ideas associated with the authority of antiquity and the current didactic function for its ruins. It was a statement that seems consistent and conforms visually to propositions in both the rusticated portico and the fragments of classical ruins of the frontispiece but it extends the reader’s questioning of the image. Without this lemma, the portico and ruins could represent a scene of ruin where, inevitable in their decay, the ‘beauty’ of the architectural antiquities has been lost.15 Without the lemma the suggested didactic purpose of the frontispiece could be too obscure even if the illustration were analysed further for consistency with the book’s content. The lemma presented the notion that the reader should attend to the didactic function of the frontispiece’s elements, and to

130 do this, would need to engage in a dialogue with the visual aspects of the frontispiece in an attempt to clarify its meaning. Believing the meaning of the lemma could be tied to the meaning of its original source, Christof Thoenes, and Vaughan Hart with Peter

Hicks, in two separate projects have investigated potential sources for the lemma of

Serlio’s frontispiece.

During 1987, Christof Thoenes suggested a source could be an inscription on a painting of a fifteenth-century map of Rome located in Mantua. This map had a lemma that, whilst similar, implied a different purpose for Rome’s ruins to that of Serlio’s Il terzo libro.16 Evidence to support Christof Thoenes attribution of the source of Serlio’s lemma to the map of Rome in Mantua is supported by Serlio most probably having knowledge of the map. The map is anonymous and represents Rome as it was during

1478-1490.17 Amato Pietro Frutaz suggested that it had been located originally in

Rome but with the defeat of the French army after a battle with Rome in 1495 it had been lost in transit while being delivered to the house of Cardinal Giovanni La Balue.18

Order for this relocation had been made in 1490 at the request of Charles VIII, King of

France. Evidence for this has been taken from a letter Charles VIII wrote to Cardinal

Giovanni La Balue in March of 1490. Frutaz suggested that this map could have been one in a group of maps that the marchesa of Mantua, Isabella d’Este, had been searching for in 1523. Relevant to her search, the Mantuan Ambassador in Rome confirmed in a letter of 1532, that it had still not been found.19 No more is known of the map’s whereabouts until 1539. Frutaz concluded that it was sometime after 1538 that the map was finally transported to the Ducal Palace in Mantua.Figure 15

In his analysis of the lemma of Serlio’s Il terzo libro, Thoenes compared the Latin of the lemma on the Mantua map with that of Serlio’s frontispiece and commented that specific differences in their rhetoric produced different meanings for the phrase. The

131 Mantua map’s inscription Quanta ego iam fuerim sola ruina docet translated as “How

Figure 15 View of Rome, fresco in the Palazzo Ducale, Mantua, image from Margaret Aston, The Panorama of the Renaissance, London: Thames and Hudson, 1996, 56.

much I once was, only the ruin teaches,” with Rome being the subject because of the statement’s location on a map of Rome. This statement has a notion of regret for a glory that has now gone. A more direct translation suggests its melancholic tone, “How great I once was only ruins can tell.”20 Thoenes’s discussion of the statements drew attention to the difference between the terms sola and ipsa when comparing the statement on the map with the statement on Serlio’s lemma. He translated the statement, Roma quanta fuit ipsa ruina docet, on Serlio’s lemma, as, “Rome as it was: the ruins themselves will teach us.”21 He suggested that the word ipsa in Serlio’s frontispiece isolated and referred to the ruins, that it was the ruins themselves that could tell/teach/inform. In the statement on the Mantua map he suggested the word

‘sola,’ referring also to the ruins, gives the statement a meaning of regret. However, it is ‘iam’ in the Mantua map that is the statement of regret and the primary difference with the inscription on Serlio’s lemma is that the sentence on the Mantua map is structured in the first person with Rome herself to be regretful of the destruction that time caused.22

132 If Serlio is drawing attention to the map located in the Palazzo Ducale, or to its inscription, a map finding its way to Mantua late in the preparation of Il terzo libro, then investigation would have to question what possible further meaning could be derived from it for the frontispiece.23 The Mantua map has important attributes that can be interpreted as influence of patronage for Serlio’s book. In the Mantua map, below the representation of the city of Rome, there are two symbolic medallions: the first stands on a pedestal and shows the mythical origin of the city with the she-wolf and her adopted cubs, Romulus and Remus.24 The second medallion is placed above a tree, half of which appears to be a palm, symbolic of glory, and the other half a bay tree that is symbolic of victory and honour. The leaves of the bay, in Roman times, were made into the laurel crown presented ceremoniously and worn by a victor. This second medallion shows Christian Rome with the peoples of “Hispaniae, Scotia, Britannia,

Gallia, Aphrica, Asia, Germania” kneeling facing towards a holy figure. On the

Figure 16 Title page, Giovanni Battista de Rossi, Piante iconografiche e prospettiche di Roma anterior al Secolo XVI, Roma: Salviucci, 1879, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture medallion, the image of vast empires of Christian Rome is being upheld by the symbolic glories of ancient Rome depicted by the palm/bay tree. Around the medallion of Christian Rome is the phrase “Princeps provinciarium domina gentium” (Prince of the territories, queen/sovereign of the people) and above it is a ribbon with the words:

133 “Quanta ego iam fuerim sola ruina docet” (How great I once was only ruins can tell).25

Figure 16

If Serlio was referring in his frontispiece to this map, with its portrayal of Gallia, he may have been making an ‘appeal’ to François I, portrayed as “le roi très chrétien” (the most

Christian King) in the iconography of the sovereign. Serlio had made an allusion to the title ‘Al christianissimo re Francesco’ in his “Dedication” in the paratextual material of Il terzo libro.26 Serlio’s intermediary in forming the patronage of François I, a strict

Catholic, was through François sister Marguerite de Navarre who had supported

Protestant causes. The map’s medallions included symbols referring to emblems of

Rome’s Catholicism as well as the heritage of France. One of these emblems located between the two medallions was the representation of Aeneas fleeing Troy with his father on his shoulders. The myth of Aeneas featured strongly in the political iconography of France and supports that Serlio’s allusion to a theme of the map could be seen as attempting a link to the French court of François I.27

However, the incongruity of this explanation is the map’s location in the Palazzo Ducale of Federico II Gonzaga at a time when Federico, during the previous twelve years, had been at war with or in strained relations with François I, the French King. Federico II

Gonzaga, whose mother was Isabella d’Este, was fifth Marchese and elevated to the title of first duke of Mantua in 1530. He had lent military support to the Holy Roman

Emperor, Charles V, against François I, King of France, during the early 1520s and during the 1530s was negotiating a marriage with a member of Charles’s court.

However, Federico was known to shift allegiances many times in his sovereignty.28

Mantua was located at a distinctive political crossroads in the movement of armies between France, Milan, Munich and Venice and the Gonzagas had been involved in the support of both French and Imperial armies at different times. From 1528 to his death, Federico II had avoided active engagement with the military aggressions local to his duchy and focused on building up the display of magnificence in his court and city.29

134 He was known to appreciate Roman art both from antiquity and recent times. This was evident in his patronage of Giulio Romano for the design of his Palazzo del Te, built during 1527-1534, and the extensions to the Palazzo Ducale including the

Appartamento de Troia built between 1536-8. Federico’s interest in Roman artefacts would explain his acquisition and display of the map in the saletta delle città.

Serlio had included homage to Giulio Romano and Federico II Gonzaga in his dedication to Book IV, Regole generali di architettura, and mentions Romano’s work in

Books, II, III and IV. Sabine Frommel has suggested, based on a letter of Ambassador

Agnello written in February 1533, that it was at this time that Serlio made contact with the court of Federico II Gonzaga in Mantua.30 Whether these contacts continued with visits until after 1538 when the map was placed in the Ducal Palace is not known. It is most likely that Serlio would have travelled through Mantua on a number of occasions because it was an important city during the sixteenth century located at crossroads between Munich, Milan and Venice. However, Serlio, with his patronage from the

French François I, would have understood the inappropriateness of making an allusion in his frontispiece to the court at Mantua and Federico II Gonzaga.

Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks in their translation of Serlio’s books in 1996, without commenting on Thoenes attribution, suggested the source of the lemma to be a statement in Francesco Albertini’s, Opusculum de mirabilibus novae & veterris urbis

Romae published in 1510, where he makes this statement, in the first paragraph of the

Miribilia’s Book III on the new city.31 A number of incidents in Serlio’s life support the probability that the sentiment expressed in Serlio’s lemma reflects attitudes expressed in the source suggested by Hart and Hicks rather than that suggested by Thoenes.

Examining the source suggested by Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks provides a closer relationship between the Latin phrase and the intention of statements in both Serlio’s and Albertini’s texts. The paragraph from the Mirabilia is headed De nova Urbe and says:

135 Sixtus the Fourth, most excellent & greatest Pontiff began to restore the City. Firstly, he demolished the partly destroyed colonnades/piazzas and widened the city’s streets and squares and smoothed them with paving. He rebuilt many churches, demolished to their foundations, in their original form. And truly his successors will have to undertake great effort to imitate him. Finally, your holiness and the followers of Sixtus himself, in a short space of time, will overcome : certainly the work itself will clearly demonstrate the reality of things: that the city can deservedly be called new. Many muses differ from that former time. So how great Rome was the ruins themselves teach us. (Nam quanta Roma fuit ipsa ruina docet).32

This section of the text on the new city conforms to the rhetorical nature of Serlio’s use of the statement in that the Mirabilia is not simply a description of the antiquities of ancient Rome but is also a guide to the new Rome as renovated by the della Rovere

Popes (including Sixtus IV and Julius II). Like Serlio’s Book III, although it explores much of the new building work that has been carried out in the city, it includes references to the old as well. The statement “How great Rome was, the ruins themselves reveal,” is acknowledging that even from the ruins of Rome there was still much that could be learnt about how its buildings contributed, in their time, to the continuing greatness of the city. This quotation directs the reader to the didactic purpose of Il terzo libro and without knowledge of this the narrative of Serlio’s frontispiece would be difficult to comprehend.

The inference of similar intention in the two texts is strengthened by the probability of

Serlio’s knowledge of Albertini’s Mirabilia. There are a number of occurrences that support the suggestion that Serlio had prior knowledge of the Mirabilia. Peter Murray has documented that Francesco Albertini was a canon of S. Lorenzo in Florence from

1499, and had a thorough grounding in the arts.33 He had moved to Rome in 1502, and with the support of his friend, artist Fazio Santoro, had carried out investigations of

Roman ruins and their inscriptions, an investigation that was to become the subject of his Mirabilia.34 It was in 1506 that Cardinal Galleotto della Rovere asked Albertini to

136 produce the guide to Rome. Murray provides a reason for Albertini’s inclusion of new architectural and urban works that is taken from the preface of Albertini’s book. He says,

In the Preface . . . Albertini tells us that Cardinal della Rovere, [Galleotto] the nephew of Julius II, complained to him about the fables in the Mirabilia . . [as a ] result Albertini reworked the part concerning ancient Rome and added the important section on the new city which was, at that moment, taking on a new life under the aegis of Julius and Bramante.35

It is significant that this guide to Rome was reprinted in Rome in both 1515 and 1523 as it has been suggested that shortly after this period Baldassare Peruzzi and

Sebastiano Serlio were in Rome to study and draw its architecture including the antiquities and new buildings by Bramante and Raffaello.36 It is likely that Serlio or

Peruzzi had acquired a copy of the Mirabilia while in Rome because of its popularity and exegesis on the city, its new buildings and its antiquities.

A second incident that may explain Serlio’s knowledge of the Mirabilia was his friendship with the della Rovere household in Venice in 1536 during the year long stay with Francesco Maria I della Rovere in Venice. The della Rovere connection with

Albertini and the development of his book makes it most likely that the Mirabilia would have been an important item in the library of the household. During 1537 Serlio had also accompanied della Rovere to Urbino.37 Della Rovere, who by 1537 was Duke of

Urbino, had, in 1510 while he was in exile, received the bequest of the palazzo of Fazio

Santoro in Rome. This bequest was of Santoro’s house and household contents including, presumably, his library.38 It would have been most likely also that Santoro, who had had a significant working relationship with Albertini, had been given a copy of the Opusculum de mirabilibus novae & veterris urbis Romae prior to his death that year.39

137 A third linking of Serlio and the Mirabilia can be suggested from his association with

Girolamo Gegna. According to Giorgio Vasari, Francesco Maria della Rovere’s architect Girolamo Gegna had a significant influence on Serlio and they had known each other for many years.40 Gegna had designed, between 1523 and 1525, decorations for the arrival of Elenora Gonzaga to marry Francesco Maria I della Rovere and had become court artist and architect by 1522. Serlio, later recommends the architecture of Gegna in Book II of his treatise.41 Again, this closeness to the della

Rovere court provided Serlio with opportunities to have direct contact with Albertini’s

Mirabilia even if he had not purchased a copy at the time he was finishing the preparation of his book.

Thus, a number of factors contribute to the probability that Serlio had used the Mirabilia as the source of his lemma. Most significant among these is his conformity to the rhetorical nature in the way the statement is formulated. Both texts reinforce the evidence that was already accepted in Rome: that it was the ruins of Rome that were a major didactic source for the desire in the Renaissance to return to the greatness of

Classical times. Rather than present regret with regard to antique Rome, Serlio portrayed his ruins didactic function, ruins still of worth as Albertini’s Mirabilia had documented. The ruins were presented as the key to revealing knowledge that was essential to the development of architecture in the mind of the architect.

Statements lamenting the demise of the Roman Empire or expressing dismay over the ruins of its architecture were also common in the sixteenth century. One example of this can be seen in Aretino’s letter in the front of Serlio’s Regole generali di architettura where Aretino introduced a melancholic dismay about the ruins of Rome:

The man who sees the proud ruins of Rome (the marvels of which testify that they were the habitations of the masters of the world) blesses the spirit of the ancients that is carved into the theatres and amphitheatres. I do not know how much the strident claims of the ancient writers would be believed were it not for the appearance of the awesome skill and ability, still discernable amongst the remains

138 of the columns, statues and marbles, although they have been brought low by time.42

However, unlike these sentiments, Serlio’s lemma makes a strong statement indicating that this is not the way to view Roman ruins. Through the lemma, Serlio stood firmly by his assertions of Book IV in its demand for personal examination of the ruins of classical antiquity as a requisite for understanding the limitations that the architectural theory of Vitruvius had for Renaissance architects and patrons.43

3.2.2 The classical portico setting.

Below the lemma, the setting used for the frontispiece is a rusticated portico in ruin that incorporated four planes of rusticated arches in perspectival view.Figure 17 The theme of rustication in the arches has been suggested as a development of the Porta Maggiore in Rome, which Serlio may have used as the prototype for his frontispiece because of its location in Rome.44 However, the rustication of the piers and the combination of finely tooled stone cornices with rusticated stone in the piers and

Figure 17 Classical portico detail, Frontispiece, arches, reflects more closely the stonework of the Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: amphitheatre at Pola, a building that Serlio illustrates Marcolini, 1540. in Book III and writes of in glowing terms.45 In the frontispiece, the front plane of arches is balanced precariously with only one and a half arches intact with the keystone of the left arch relying on the lemma’s plinth for its stability; in reality, such structural support is impossible. 46 Also the stones depicted in the foreground of this scene have not fallen from this rusticated structure and thus appear unrelated. In contrast to Serlio’s text, such inconsistencies in the composition support a conclusion

139 that this scene does not portray a natural representation of ruins in a landscape but a contrived composition of specific elements brought together for allegorical purposes.

The use of the rusticated portico as the major element in the portrayal of the narrative of this frontispiece is consistent with Serlio’s expressed fondness for rusticated construction in the texts of Il terzo libro and Regole generali di architettura. From analysis and comparison with these texts a more specific interpretation of the frontispiece can emerge. In Regole generali di architettura, Serlio’s book on new architecture, he had enthusiastically commented on rustic work and shown a strong fascination with rustication and the rusticated in architecture.47 He described it: “rustic work – that is, different bonds of roughly worked stones with several others a little more delicately cut . . . – was sometimes mixed by the ancients with Doric, sometimes even with Ionic and Corinthian work, nevertheless, since Tuscan work is really the roughest, least ornamented of all of the others, it seems to me that rustic suits and is more fitting to Tuscan work than to any other.”48 The first allusion to the rustic in Il terzo libro appears in the letter of dedication to François I. In the letter,

Serlio excuses himself for not including in his book the numerous examples of classical

Roman architecture in France and suggests that he is looking forward to experiencing it. A large part of this section of the letter includes a description of the Pont du Gard aqueduct outside the French town of Nîmes, a description which Serlio used not only to broaden an understanding of antiquities worthy of study but also at the same time to show that his writing had relevance for French audiences.49 Through his use of the rusticated portico in the frontispiece, Serlio could have been demonstrating his book’s relevance to François I, his potential patron for the book’s publication.

In Serlio’s terms rustication produced a visual representation of the ‘Natural.’ A definition of ‘Natural’ in Serlio’s terms can be gleaned from his descriptions of buildings and alerts us to his metaphorical purpose. In Regole generali di architettura he

140 described a design for a frame to an entry in a wall that mixes orders where he notes the differences between their natural and/or human-craft origins. He concluded,

Therefore it would not be faulty to have a mixture of rustic with one other style, symbolising by this partly the work of Nature and partly the work of human skill. The columns banded by rustic stones, and also the architrave and frieze interrupted by the voussoirs, represent the work of Nature, but the capitals, part of the columns and the cornice with the pediment represent the work of human hand.50

For Serlio the ‘rustic’ had all the characteristics of natural dilapidation that developed in

‘living’ rock with weathering and thus he could use it symbolically to represent the

‘Natural.’ In his writing, Serlio extended the idea of the ‘Natural’ to be an essential element of ‘decorum’ or appropriateness for such a mix of orders.51 He said, “The more this work is roughly yet skilfully hacked out, particularly the stones which encompass the columns and also the voussoirs, the more it will suit decorum of such an Order.”52

In the content of Il terzo libro, Serlio included only a few examples of rusticated antique work and none, apart from those briefly mentioned in his dedication, were from

Tuscany or France – two locations that may have been expected after his statements in the text stressing the rustic as most appropriate to mix with the Tuscan Order and considering the French, François I as his Patron. He included as one example of rusticated work, a theatre at Pola, which, during this time was a Venetian territory in

Central Europe. His second example was the Arena at Verona, and his third was an amphitheatre, again at Pola.53 Serlio’s descriptions of the Arena at Verona were used together with his earlier analysis of the Colosseum in Rome, to draw comparison with and support his preference for the amphitheatre at Pola. The purpose of these comparisons was to build up an importance for the rustic ‘style’ rather than comparing their value with the more commonly known antiquities in Rome. This comparison of the selected examples aided Serlio’s reconstruction of the building at Pola in the mind of the reader, a building that he illustrated on folios LXXV, LXXVI and LXVII of Book III.54

141 Serlio drew a distinction in favour of the simpler ornamentation at Pola by condemning the Colosseum, a distinctly Roman icon, but having characteristics of Germanic influence. The building at Pola was rusticated, including entablatures of finished stone that did not conform to an order, but built on ideas for the Tuscan order that Serlio had documented in Book III. He said,

The style of these parts of the entablature [at the lowest level of the Pola amphitheatre] is very different from those in Rome, as can be seen. I myself would never build cornices on my works like those on the amphitheatre in Rome, but I would indeed make use of these on the edifice at Pola because they are in a better style and better conceived. I am absolutely certain that the architect of the former was different from that of the latter, and was perhaps German, in that the cornices on the Colosseum have something of the German style about them.55

Hart and Hicks comment on Serlio’s clear distinction between compositional elements seen to reflect Nature and those reflecting the ‘hand of Man.’56 They draw attention to

Serlio’s design in Regole generali di architettura for a gateway where the smooth column shafts have been ‘interrupted’ by rusticated bands of stone.57 Figure 18 They suggest that this implies that rustication brings the composition of the building to a closer reflection of ‘Nature.’ Thus the more finely crafted, the closer the elements were to portraying the ‘hand of Man.’

Renaissance discourses on the relationship between ‘Nature’ and architecture concerned questioning whether materials were predestined to become part of architecture, thus fulfilling their Figure 18 Page XXIX, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, 58 ‘Natural’ role. Serlio’s distinction in the Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la frontispiece between the rusticated portico, as dottrina di Vitruvio, Venezia: Marcolini, 1537

142 close to ‘Nature,’ and the fragments of antiquity in the foreground of the image, as stones metamorphosed by the ‘hand of Man’ portray this idea. The depiction conceptually parallels a timeline of Natural metamorphosis from fragments of Egyptian architecture to the architecture of the present.59 Through the depiction of the rusticated portico perpendicular to the chronology of the antique fragments Serlio’s frontispiece calls attention to the necessity to judge whether the design of the architect’s building fulfils the role implicit in ‘Nature.’

3.2.3 The perspectival construction of the colonnade

Serlio’s frontispiece to Il terzo libro uses perspectival methods to compose the portico and classical fragments in the foreground of the scene.Figure 19 As discussed in the previous chapter, there many propositions presented on the purpose and relevance of perspectival representations by architect’s during the late fifteenth century and the sixteenth century.60

The scientification of aesthetic practices in the arts and changing convention of representation Figure 19 Perspectival construction, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di of the importance of the perceived relationship Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. between God and man and religious conformity were pertinent in this debate. Serlio made clear his position in the debate about an architect’s use of perspective in illustrations in the frontispieces to his Regole generali di architettura 1537 and his Il terzo libro 1540 by his use of perspectival technique as the controlling visual convention of frontispiece’s narratives.

143 Although Serlio’s Book II, Il secondo libro di perspettia, was not printed until 1545, the perspectival construction of these frontispieces corresponds to the technique of scenographia he describes in Book II, a technique most commonly used to portray backdrop scenes for theatre. However, Serlio’s message for the reader of the frontispiece to Il terzo libro has to be understood as stemming from aims different to those using scenographia for the theatrical scenes of Book II. His theatrical scenes use central point perspective for their depictions, a convention not followed in the frontispiece to Book III. The origins of the centralised perspectival view reflected conformity to notions of power, order and rule. Sixteenth-century sources of central perspectival views can be seen in the early representations of city view in the Città ideale panels at Urbino, and those fifteenth-century images now housed in Baltimore and Berlin.61 Figure 20

Figure 20 Città ideale panel, architectural perspective, known as the Berlin Panel, Berlin, Staatliche Museen. Seen in Hubert Damisch, The Origins of Perspective, trans., John Goodman, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1994, 176-7.

André Chastel has suggested that these city views were intended to valorise, in representational terms, the space of the city as an ideal form of beauty reflecting the solemness of civic and religious performative practices. He suggested that the aim of perspectival representation of symmetrical urban spaces, “In the end [was] a matter of using perspective to define solemn places, ennobled by forceful architectural references, Colissea, triumphal arches, temples . . . so as to suggest singular,

144 crystalline spaces set apart in the interior of the city, ideal for processions.”62 Rather than represent a geometrically controlled and symmetrical view of a Città ideale or his theatrical scenes as a reflection of ordered principle, Serlio presented his landscape of the frontispiece as dramatised and out of balance, with some structures precariously held without support and others depicted in ruin.

In the scene of the frontispiece, Serlio located the vanishing point for the perspective to the lower right segment of the composition and thus away from the singularity intended by us of a central point. By devising such a location for the vanishing point, Serlio split the composition of the frontispiece into thirds both vertically and horizontally, making an asymmetrical composition and taking the focus of the image away from its centre.

Serlio achieved compositional balance by developing three centres of interest along the horizontal axis of this perspectival construction. The first centre of interest, located significantly with the vanishing point on the right third of the image, is a collection of antique ruins including an Egyptian obelisk and pyramid of a more distant past. The second centre of interest is the allegorical personification of Architettura located to the left of the vanishing point, but placed centrally in the frontispiece on the same horizontal axis. The third centre of interest, located on the left of the horizontal axis of the perspective is the cornice and column shaft, showing ‘D.O.M,’ ‘F.IL,’ ‘S,’ inscribed, located in the second avenue of arches to the portico.Figure 21 This inscription does not face front in the composition but recedes with perspectival diminution, impelling a movement of the viewer’s attention in a circular manner, coming forward with the ruins from the vanishing point, crossing the front of the image to Architettura in the centre, and returning to the vanishing point via the inscription.

This implied circular movement suggests that the figure of Architettura or the discipline of architecture is the most dominant feature of this group being the point of change in the implied direction of travel from the vanishing point to its return. These three centres

145 Figure 21 Three centres of interest for the perspective construction, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. of interest can be interpreted as representing three conceptual divisions fundamentally influencing the architect in development of their judgment or giudicio. For Serlio, incorporated into the practices of the architect are the spiritual, the intellectual discipline of architecture and the corporeal understanding of the real world situations.

Interpretation of these will be carried out separately and interpretation made of their specific role in the narrative of the frontispiece in the last section of this chapter.

3.2.4 The collection of classical fragments.

A collection of classical fragments litters the foreground of the frontispiece and coincides on the right with the axis of the vanishing point producing an important focus in the frontispiece.

The fragments can be separated into three groups, the first aligns with the axis of the vanishing point, the second is located in the Figure 22 Classical fragments detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di foreground of the illustration and extends across Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540.

146 the frontispiece, and the third is on the left middle ground of the portico.Figure 22 The first group, located within the right hand set of arches of the portico and aligned on the axis of the perspectival vanishing point, can be seen as a group divided by chronology with the foreground including most recent fragments, the middle ground including a Tuscan column shaft, gutter, cornice and a pedestal, and in the distance a broken Egyptian obelisk and truncated pyramid.63 The second group of fragments in the foreground include, on the left, a Doric column base, to its right a Corinthian cornice, further to its right a segment from an Ionic or Corinthian fluted column shaft and in the far right a similar half-segment from an attached column.64 Behind these elements but in the same group there are, from right to left, a Composite capital with Ionic visible behind the column shaft, a Corinthian architrave, and a cornice similar to that depicted at the Temple of Mars (or, as alluded to by Serlio, the Basilica of the Forum

Transitorium).65 The third group of fragments on the left of the frontispiece located in the middle ground of the cross-vaulting of the portico is a section of a segment of a

Doric column shaft, and part of a Doric cornice bearing the epigraph: ‘D.O.M,’ ‘F.IL,’

‘S.’66

At first glance the combination of Classical elements can be recognised as being consistent with the sentiments of Aretino’s letter to Marcolini in Regole generali di architettura that introduced a sense of tragedy with his description of the “proud ruins of

Rome . . . brought low by time.” Egyptian obelisks had been brought to Rome and were in the social consciousness of what could be considered Roman. 67 Also the pyramidal tomb of Caius Cestius, a senior Roman magistrate who had died in 12 BC, was set into the Aurelian Wall of Rome. However, Serlio’s frontispiece does not portray Aretino’s despondency. In the foreground of the frontispiece Serlio transforms the image of fragments from a scene of tragedy and decay to one of renewed relevance by ‘correcting’ many of the fragments, thus continuing the didactic message of his frontispiece’s narrative. Unlike the ‘licentious’ antiquities often criticised in Il terzo

147 libro by comparison with Vitruvius, these fragments have had the ‘licentious’ faults of their origins removed and remodelled, to enhance their portrayal of ‘correct’ attributes.68

The most obvious and specific ‘correction’ Serlio makes is to the modillion cornice in the foreground of the image where he shows a design depicted without , a combination, which, whilst accepted by others as an appropriate design, was seen by

Serlio as ‘licentious.’ Illustrations portraying antiquities with ‘licentious’ faults were included in Il terzo libro and Regole generali di architettura and could be recognised in the text as such by sixteenth-century reader-architect giving him opportunity for developing judgment as he learned about the rigors of design and how to make ornaments that were both currently appropriate as well as true-to-classical.

In the content of Il terzo libro, Serlio presents a debate staged between real fragments and Vitruvius’ teaching. It is in the discussion of these fragments from antiquity that

Serlio was able to raise issues of the undesirable ‘licentiousness’ in design, an idea that was contrasted to Serlio’s notion of ‘licence:’ a reliance on self-determination based on thorough research and experience and used with a developed personal giudicio. The issue of ‘licentiousness’ with regard to detailing of the modillion cornice is raised in Il terzo libro on folio 99v where Serlio discussed cornices from the Arch of

Titus. He said,

The part marked B is the final cornice, frieze and architrave. This cornice, in my opinion, is licentious for several reasons: first it is too tall in proportion to the architrave; furthermore, there are too many members, particularly modillions and dentils, which, when they are on one and the same cornice are condemned by Vitruvius. Nevertheless, it is very well carved, particularly the cymatium above. If I had to build a cornice like this I would observe this order: I would make the cymatium smaller, the corona larger, the modillions as they are; I would not make the block carved, but I would carve the cymatium. I like this architrave very much.69 Figure 23

148 In this section Serlio raised the problem of finding a Roman architectural element that was in ruin, and although being imbued with all the authority of origin and source was, in his view, flawed in the execution of its design when compared to instructions in Vitruvius’ text. Vitruvius had argued that the origins of classical architecture developed from timber construction and thus the logic of the representation of the modillions and dentils was significant to the Figure 23 Page CVII, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: understanding a building’s design Marcolini, 1540. origin because they displayed timber constructional resolution. Vitruvius had stated,

“no one ever puts dentils under a mutule, because there simply cannot be common rafters beneath major rafters.”70 The modillion was a Doric representation of the mutule appearing from 150BC and logically should only exist on the face of the building that was at right angles to the one showing the dentil.

Serlio’s portrayal of the modillion cornice fragment transformed it as representing the

Arch of Titus by removing the dentil from this façade to favour a detail closer to that represented on the Basilica of the Forum Transitorium. In his text, Serlio clearly articulated the intention of what he had done,

However, in this case they should take my words in good part because my whole intention is to teach those who do not know and who think it is worthwhile listening to what I say, since it is one thing to imitate the state of ancient things exactly, but

149 to know how to make a choice of the beautiful according to the rules of Vitruvius and reject the ugly and badly conceived is something else.71

By scattering the fragments of the orders, Serlio contrasted these with the more resolved image of the rusticated portico. The decorum that the frontispiece represented in its combination of the rusticated portico with the ‘corrected’ classical fragments, brought together the ‘Natural’ and the ‘hand-of-Man’ with greater emphasis than if Serlio had used an image of the rustic portico on its own. Such decorum can be investigated through a comparison of the sources for these images, found throughout

Books III and IV. In Serlio’s terms, it is the consistency of these small ornamental components with Vitruvian ideals that enabled the Renaissance architect to understand that the underlying integrity of the Classical Orders was their being embodied with decorum.

In these classical fragments Serlio presents the active striving toward perfection by the architect – a state that he implied, lay mid-point between insufficiency and

‘licentiousness’ – and the development of a prudent giudicio. In Serlio’s terms, the classical fragments are each an example of the history of human-made forms and are contrasted with the metaphor for the ‘Natural’ of the rusticated portico. The fragments in the foreground, representing new design, display a resolution of geometry and proportion that reflected Renaissance notions of human order and perfection. The fragments in the distance show the extent of the history of the origins of architecture back to Egyptian sources, one then considered to be part of the Roman legacy. As a major focus of interest on the horizontal axis of the perspectival structure of the frontispiece, this chronology of fragments suggest the importance of an actual engagement with antiquities in the formation of personal judgment for the architect.

Just as Albertini’s Mirabilia, had included in a guide to the city of Rome a statement of

Rome’s new recreation by Sixtus IV, a recreation with particular cognisance of the origins of Rome, Serlio, in the frontispiece, directs the relevance of ideas gained from

150 antiquity, by showing a series of ‘corrected’ fragments with others of far distant origin.

He consciously demands that the architect, before copying Classical objects for use in contemporary architecture thinking them to be the ‘true’ origins of architecture, judges their appropriateness for the present and verifies their worth as origin.72 It was when faced with the dilemmas of past non-conformities that the sixteenth-century architect could invent while still retaining the essential characteristics of

Classical Order.

3.2.5 The allegorical figure of Architettura

The central focus of the horizontal axis of the perspectival construction of the frontispiece is a female figure of

Architettura.Figure 24 She is fully clothed in drapery and stands within a niche of the rusticated portico. Her eyes are downcast and she holds an upturned compass in one hand and a Figure 24 Architettura, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si square and measuring staff in the other. These instruments figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. were typically used for measurement and documentation in

Renaissance architectural and artistic practices. Their location in the frontispiece calls attention to their role in measuring and analysing architectural ruins from antiquity. A more specific understanding of the attributes assigned by Serlio to Architettura can be elicited through a comparison with a similar personification used in Gianbatista

Caporali’s titlepage to his translation of the first five books from Vitruvius’ De architectura printed in Perugia in 1536, four years prior to Serlio’s frontispiece. It can also be analysed in comparison with a depiction of another similar personification on a commemorative medal cast in 1506 in honour of Bramante.73

151 In Caporali’s title-page, Architettura is centrally located above a triumphal arch with an emblem of one discipline of the quadrivium of the arts allocated to each of the four corners of the frame. Caporali’s depiction of

Architettura portrayed her as Justice having rational judgment over a quadrivium of

Mathematica, Musica, Litteratura,

Pittura.74Figure 25 She is fully clothed with covered arms (a sign of theoretical pursuit) gazing outward from the image with compasses emerging from her head. She is seated facing forward and has her legs in a Figure 25 Title page, Giambattista Caporali, pose similar to the personification of Sol Iustitae Vetruvio in vulgar lingua rapportato, Perugia: Stamparia del conte Iano Bigazzini, 1536. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for 75 by Albrecht Dürer. She holds a measuring Architecture. rod in her right hand. Her left hand rests on the Roman capital ‘A’ located on a plinth.

From her left hand a plumb bob drops in the symmetrical centre of the ‘A’ and falls vertically to the pedestal below.76 At the base of the Caporali title page, in the pedestals of the triumphal arch, there are illustrations of two sets of tools. On the reader’s left are the tools of the architect – plumb bob, compass with points to the ground, square and measuring rods. On the reader’s right are the tools of the building trade including shovel, hoe, pick, trough and hammer.

The depiction of compasses emerging from Architettura’s head and the gaze forward suggests that the type of pursuit undertaken by Architettura is theoretical and contemplative in nature. It is not the tools that inform her practice but her knowledge, higher inspiration and judgment that inform what she is to practise with her tools.

152 In comparison, a coin cast in commemoration of Bramante’s work on St Peter’s Rome, confirms the significance of the location of the compasses and tools for the figure of Architettura and the direction of her gaze. On Bramante’s coin

Architettura, a personification Figure 26 Commemoriation coin celebrating Bramante’s work on S. attributable in part by the Peter’s Rome, Caradasso, Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello. See entry 285 by C.L.F. “Caradosso (Christoforo Foppa) Commemorative Medal in Honour of Bramante, 1506,” in, The depiction of Saint Peter’s in Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, ed., Henry Millon and Vittorio Lampugnani, London: the background, a building Thames and Hudson, 1994, 602. partly designed by Bramante, is depicted with upturned compasses in her left hand, ruler in her right and plum-line at her feet.Figure 26 She looks toward her compasses signifying the heightened importance of the compass with their points directed open and upward to the sky representing higher intellectual pursuits. The more practical or

‘scientific’ concerns of architecture symbolised by the ruler and plumb-line are in opposition to elevated position of the compasses on the other side of the figure. The coin, attributed to Caradasso, has the inscription BRAMANTES ASDRVBALDINVS on the recto, and FIDELITAS LABOR around the figure of Architettura.77 The image of St

Peter’s included in the background of the Bramante coin had been copied by Agostino

Veneziano in an engraving. Serlio who had worked with Veneziano during projects in the 1520s may have known the coin and understood its message.78

Again, the depiction of the compasses held high and open to the influences of the divine reinforced by the gaze of Architettura skyward suggests that it was the knowledge, higher inspiration and judgment that were the attributes of the architect.

Both Caporali’s and Caradasso’s conceptualisations for the representation of

Architettura were consistent with a widely known attitudes of Michelangelo Buonarroti

153 evident at the time. Michelangelo was documented as having said that for an understanding of beauty, the artist or architect should have “compasses in his eyes,” meaning that design comes from a God-given talent emerging as rational intellect rather than as a result of empirical study or practice of craft.79

Between 1530-1540s Michelangelo also wrote of the rationality of the intellect in a verse written while associated with the Florentine Academy by Benedetto Varchi.

Michelangelo wrote, “The soul, the intelletto entire and whole, ascends more free and loose through the eyes to thy [God’s] lofty beauty.”80 Through this type of verse the intellect was given pre-eminence over all practices or artistic endeavour because of its relationship with the spiritual. Michelangelo tied this pre-eminence of the intellectual in the artistic act by suggesting the pre-existence of a relationship between the creative intellect and Nature saying that, “the best artist has no concept which some single marble does not enclose within its mass, but only the hand which obeys the intelletto can accomplish that.”81 The compasses emerging from the head or the eye in illustrations depicted the virtue of perfecting judgment specifically through the power of intellectual reason inspired through a divine force.

Serlio’s frontispiece is distinctively different in its positioning of the compasses and produces distinctive meaning in comparison.82 The most significant difference is the location, inclination and composure of the compasses in the images, the direction of gaze evident in Architettura and the tools provided for her practice as architect.

Serlio’s Architettura rests her compasses, turned upward in her hand on her shoulder in a relaxed posture, with the points of the compasses directed to the scenery of the portico. Having the compasses as such an important feature in the illustration reiterates the strength of Serlio’s idea, expressed in Book III, that specific architectural illustrations could allow, “the sensible reader [to] find all their proportions with a pair of compasses in hand.”83 Compasses, when associated with the hand, are instruments of an active craft. In Book III and previously in Book IV, Serlio focused on the problems

154 that have to be actively worked through in architectural practice, using the skilled hand as well as the trained mind. Book III’s focus on the best examples of the ancient and modern buildings of Rome directs this notion of active engagement to investigation of these buildings.

To Serlio, the classical rules of architecture of antiquity were not simply a dogma that an architect accepts without questioning but something that must be thoroughly investigated and evaluated before complete understanding develops and concepts can be put into practice. It was through the interactions of the intellect with these investigations that the architect could realise the inconsistencies of the past and create new designs suitable for the sixteenth century while cognisant of the essentials of the

Classical Orders. Curiously, the upward direction of the compasses, in pointing to the rusticated portico, does not mimic the Caradasso coin where they are portrayed open to the sky. In an earlier analysis of this chapter, I suggested that the portico’s rustication reflected the ‘Natural’ attributes of stone and that it was the role of the architect and sculptor to recognise the potentials of nature by understanding how stones might be transformed into architecture. Serlio’s placement of the compasses opened and directed to his symbolisation of the ‘natural’ suggests that Architettura’s embodiment represented this act. The other tools that she holds, the square and the measuring staff reinforce this idea.

Juxtaposed with this posture and the importance given to the compasses and their direction, for Serlio, Architettura’s face is partly covered by shadow and her gaze is downward looking forward to the ‘corrected’ ruins. For the Renaissance the darkened face gazing downward was associated with the personification of Melancholia an attribute represented in Albrecht Dürer’s depiction of Melancholia 1 during 1514.84 For

Renaissance audiences the representation of Melancholia referred to a belief that all outstanding men were melancholic.85 The outstanding characteristic of Architettura in this pose is embodied both in her ability to recognise the potential of Nature and the

155 capacity to practise perfection in design through a thorough knowledge of all aspects of the discipline. By illustrating Architettura in this manner, Serlio drew attention to an understanding of judgment developed through active study, empirical observation, analytical measurement and depiction, and away from the primacy of God-given talent as the single determinant of worthy architectural judgment.

3.2.6. The Inscription found on the classical fragments

The inscription ‘D.O.M,’ ‘F.IL,’ ‘S’, forms a third centre of interest on the horizontal axis of the perspectival composition of the frontispiece.Figure 27 These ‘letters’ are located on the crumbling classical cornice in the left middle ground of the portico and are separated as of three lines of text.86 The inscription can be read either as a fragment of classical text found on the cornice as it

Figure 27 Inscription was located in ruin or it can be seen to be a message detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo 87 libro nel qual si figurano, e specifically developed by Serlio in the form of an epigraph. descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, Christof Thoenes has suggested this inscription might relate to 1540.

Domenico Campagnola’s signature, claiming that Campagnola may have been the artist of the frontispiece. However, his claim is difficult to sustain. Thoenes translates the letters thus, “D.O.M (Diis omnibus manibus – Domenico?) F.I.I (fieri iussit?) – S.

(Serlio?).”88 However, Campagnola’s usual abbreviation for his name was Do. Cap or

Do. Camp, as argued in the previous chapter, making this claim for attribution unconvincing. Other simple extensions of the anagram such as Domitiani Filius

Sextus, while having some credibility, have no relationship to either the epigraphs left from antiquity or the discipline of architecture. As an epigraph, a common

Renaissance extension to ‘D.O.M,’ ‘F.IL,’ ‘S,’ would be DOMINE FILIUMQUE ET

SPIRITUM SANCTUM (God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) bringing a reference to the Christian trinity into the frontispiece. Such a reference would have to be examined

156 for whether it had a meaning for the whole frontispiece and what is its significance as a third centre of interest on the horizontal axis of the perspective construction.

Serlio’s possible purpose for this epigraph may have been to draw attention to the importance of the papacy and the Church of Rome to the role of the architect and architecture during this period of the Renaissance in Italy.89 Such a proposition could emerge from the context of its printing in Venice toward the end of 1540, a time leading up to the domination of Venetian politics by Roman and papist inspired Counter- reformation forces in the early 1540s. Pope Paul III created the Roman inquisition by papal decree on July 4, 1542 to counter some of the influences of popular departures from the Roman church’s structures of power, such as those that may have been symbolised with great subtlety in Serlio’s frontispiece. Manfredo Tafuri, Myra

Rosenfeld and Mario Carpo have suggested that Serlio’s departure from Venice for patronage in the French Court through the more sympathetic intercession of Marguerite de Navarre was consistent as a reaction to such a political stance and his sympathy for the Protestant cause and his difficulty in accepting certain practices of the Catholic

Church in Rome.90 On February 12, 1543, the Council of Ten of the Venetian Senate made it obligatory to obtain a licence to publish books, a law that had been introduced in 1526 but not enforced.91 Such epigraphs, as was used by Serlio, could have been dangerous and if recognised be the cause of the book’s banning. However, Serlio’s book was never banned.

The inscription could equally be a reference to François I, King of France, who Serlio had acclaimed as ‘Al christianissimo re Francesco’ in the dedicatory letter to Il terzo libro. This reference would bring the role of the patron into a primary position of importance in the consideration of the role of the architect. While this interpretation has some links with how the figure of Architettura and the collection of ruins may be interpreted – the foci of patron, architect, and the focus of the architects study and

157 inventione – it does not enable the range of values for the architect and their situation that Serlio had included in his text.

There is an alternative reading for the importance given to this inscription and its probable reference to the Christian trinity in the frontispiece that relies on the three centres of interest becoming metaphors for more abstract concepts. It is in the inscription ‘D.O.M,’ ‘F.IL,’ ‘S,’ rather than in the figure of Architettura that Serlio gives credence to the concept of the ‘spiritual’ or a notion of God-given talent, required as a source for development of judgment in the architect. In the frontispiece, Serlio presents through this notion of the ‘spiritual,’ a link between the three centres of interest along the horizontal axis of the perspectival construction of the frontispiece.

Rather than deny the necessity of God-given talent for the architect, Serlio presented the notion of its equivalence with the ideas represented in the other centres of interest on the horizontal axis. For Serlio, to make appropriate responses for Renaissance

Italian society, the architect’s giudicio must be guided by his God-given talent in all his activities but with this attribute qualified by the intellectual in investigations, cognition and formulation of architectural speculations, as indicated by Architettura’s examination of the architectural elements of the corporeal world residing in its antique ruins. This concept forms the basis of the frontispiece’s narrative and the importance given to the three centres including the inscription, Architettura and the chronology of antique fragments.

3.3 Interpreting Serlio’s sixteenth-century ‘architect’ in the frontispiece to Il terzo libro and comparing this with his architect of Regole generali di architettura

The frontispiece to Il terzo libro builds an allegory of the development of Serlio’s understanding of the characteristics of personal giudicio in the architect. It does this through the use of the lemma, the three foci of the perspectival structure reflecting the

158 three attributes of guidicio in the architect, and the depiction of the potential metamorphosis of ‘Nature’ in architecture portrayed in the rustic portico setting. The layering of narratives that this collection of images represents, suggests that Serlio, in his attempt to show the complexity of his discipline, could not rely on individual symbols or emblems. In the frontispiece, it is in the combination of emblems that transformation into a narrative with allegorical meaning occurs in the illustration.

For Serlio Roman antiquity is an important key to an understanding that the reintroduction of classical architecture is necessary for the sixteenth-century city to realise its potential in displays of magnificence. However, his demand of the interplay between antiquity and the new contexts of architecture is clearly a distinct Renaissance development. Vitruvius’ De architectura, although acknowledged as the authoritative classical text on architectural design, presented many difficulties of interpretation for

Renaissance architects and patrons. In comparison with other sixteenth-century discourses, the lemma of the frontispiece can be read as a positive ratification of the worth of the study of antiquity and the possibility of ascertaining its ‘truths’ in newly constructed buildings of Rome.

To reinforce this, the narrative in the frontispiece portrayed a dialogue between the image of the rustic portico in the landscape – the ‘Natural – and the classical fragments of Renaissance classical Orders – the ‘hand-of-Man’ – in the foreground.

Understanding these complementary concepts – the ‘natural’ and the ‘hand-of-Man’ – and debates about the relationship of these concepts in art and architectural texts of the Renaissance was an essential characteristic of the narrative of the frontispiece.

Leon Battista Alberti had led theoretical debate advocating the imitation of Nature postulating that buildings should reflect the corporeality of natural creation, particularly

‘ideal’ human proportions, achieving concinnitas, and harmony in built form.92 Erwin

Panofsky has suggested that this concept of the opposition of the Natural with the intellectual or the rational was a continuing active debate on art stemming from

159 Neoplatonic and Aristotelian sources. Yet in Serlio’s frontispiece Architettura emerges from the Natural with empirically informed practice and craft experience as her main attributes. In the ‘corrections’ to the fragments of the frontispiece, the image suggests that for Serlio, the human-made often portrayed the pitfalls and mistakes of

‘licentiousness’ rather than their embodying the rational and intellectual value of God- given talent. In the asymmetry of the composition Serlio presented a trilogy of concepts fundamental to being an architect. He presented an idea about God-given talent and spirituality that was not tied to the Church through the papacy or his lineage, a proposition that was radical even at this time of change and questioning of the Pope’s and Church’s authority just prior to the impact of the Counter-Reformation.

Emblems, such as Serlio’s Architettura, were expressions of intricately woven situations between politics, philosophy, religion and the social meaning of the city and its buildings, in sixteenth-century Venice, and more broadly across Italy. Manfredo

Tafuri has interpreted the building program or renovatio urbis of Doge Andrea Gritti as aligning architecture to the display of the Doge’s political power. He suggested that

Jacopo Sansovino’s work on buildings around Piazza San Marco explicitly represented the idea of a ‘new Rome’ and that Serlio was an active player in the new conceptualisation for the civic role of architecture.93 In the previous chapter, analysing the frontispiece to Serlio’s Book IV, Regole generali di architettura I suggested that

Serlio’s proposition for the architect was one that presented him as a member of an intellectual group, a group able to discursively change and formulate new rules for architecture specifically with reference to Venetian architecture. The frontispiece to Il terzo libro focuses to a much greater extent on the intricacies of understanding architectural design, and on the development of giudicio both for the architect and the patron. The messages from Regole generali di architettura and Il terzo libro are that for the development of giudicio the architect must be aware of the conceptual terrains of the discipline of architecture and know its complexities and contradictions, know how to

160 gain experience through empirical examination of antique ruins and antique texts but remain aware of the implications for architecture of the centrality of the struggle for domination in the religious and political society of the Italian Renaissance.

1 Sebastiano Serlio, Book III, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1540. 2 This assertion is contrary to that of Mario Carpo who suggested, “The architect who adopts the system of the Orders laid out in the fourth book no longer has any need of the Classical models provided in the third book.” The idea for a theoretical pairing between the books relates to necessity to evaluate examples from antiquity before true invention can occur. In Book IV Serlio is not presenting a set of rules for the architect to copy but a set of principles that may be transformed through invention to specific building types on specific sites. Direction for the architect in solving these problems comes from the knowledge and examples in Book III. See Mario Carpo, “The making of the Typographical Architect,” in Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Architectural Treatise, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, 168. 3 This of course was a topic of discussion in earlier treatises, significantly that of Leon Battista Alberti in his Prologue. See Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria, Angelus Politianus, ed., Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 1485. 4 Sebastian Serlio, L’architettura, I libri I-VII extraordinario nelle prime edizione, Paolo Fiore, ed., Milano: Polifilo, 2001, Book III, III, “Al Christianissimo re Francesco.” 5 Serlio’s dedication named Monsignor Rodez, Georges d’Armagnac who was Bishop of Rodez and French Ambassador to Venice from 1536-1539. Serlio cited d’Armagnac both in the dedication and the letter to the readers at the end of Book III. See Serlio’s Book III, 1540, fol. CLVI that also recognises Bishop Guillaume Pellicier of Montpellier who was French Ambassador to Venice from 1539-1542. See Sebastiano Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, trans. and eds., Vol., I, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, note 418 and 419 on page 447. 6 Sabine Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio architetto, Milano: Electa, 1998, 21. 7 Recorded in the autobiography of G.B. Beluzzi written between 1535-1541 as a conversation between ‘Titiano’ and ‘Bastiano architetto’. See Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio architetto, 1998, 18. She quotes in footnote 68, Occursse in questo tempo che I signor ducha stando a Venetia infirmò de sorte che morse de questa infirmatà; ma inanzi che infermasse, schrisse a mio messere che solicitasse le fontane, che sua signoria pensava venire I mese de setembre a stare allo Imperiale a solazo, e voleva menare certi gintilomini, sui amici, a stare con lui a solazo per mostrarli lo Imperiale, e fra li altri messer Titiano, Bastiano da Bolognia con certi altri valenti; e noi sapendo questo, solicitiamo I lavora assai. Frommel takes this quote from

161

George Gronau, “Diario autobiografico di G. B. Beluzzi,” in Documenti artistici urbinati : con una tavola fuori testo, Firenze: G. C. Sansoni, 1936, 17. 8 Cox-Rearick suggests that Serlio became a member of Aretino’s intimate circle during the late 1530s. Janet Cox-Rearick, The Collection of Francis I: Royal Treasures, Antwerp, Fonds Mercator, 1995, 93. See also F. Pertile and E. Camesasca, eds., Pietro Aretino Lettre sull’arte, Milano: Rizzoli, 1957-60, Vol III, 464-68. 9 See Manfredo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, trans., Jessica Levine, Cambridge Mass., MIT, 1995, 58-70, and also Mario Carpo, La maschera e il modello : teoria architettonica ed evangelismo nell’Extraordinario libro Sebastiano Serlio (1551), Milano: Jaca Book, 1993, 85ff. 10 See discussion of the term scenographia in the previous chapter. 11 Translation of the lemma is found in Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 435. 12 The symbolism of putti in Renaissance imagery is not clearly aligned with specific meaning. They occur in many different contexts and seemingly for idiosyncratic purposes. Unlike herms and terms they have no specific classical source in literature or painting. 13 Svetlana Alpers, “Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasari’s Lives,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXIII(1960), 197. 14 Alpers, “Ekphrasis . . .” 1960, 197. 15 This view would be consistent with the rhetorical analysis of Book III by Margaret Muther D’Evelyn who suggests the rhetorical framework used for Book III is that of the Tragic. In Margaret Muther D’Evelyn, Word and Image in architectural Treatises of the Italian Renaissance, PhD Dissertation submitted to Princeton University, Ann Arbor, Mi: UMI Dissertation, 1995, 173-5. 16 Christof Thoenes, “Prolusione: Serlio e la trattatistica,” in Sebastiano Serlio, ed., Christof Thoenes, Milano: Electa, 1989, 14. For more information on the map to which Thoenes refers, see Amato Pietro Frutaz, Le piante di Roma, Roma: Instituto di studi romani, 1962, 1, 151-5, 2 plates 167-9 and Giovanni B De Rossi, Piante iconografiche e prospettiche di Roma anteriori al sec. XVI, Roma: Salviucci, 1879, 104-113, 149-151, tavv. Vi-XII. The analysis of the map by Rossi is extended by Frutaz to include each inscription and the lemma. 17 Frutaz, Le piante di Roma, 1962, 1, 151 & 155. Its dimensions are 118x233. 18 Frutaz, Le piante di Roma, 1962, 155. 19 Frutaz, Le piante di Roma, 1962, 155. 20 Trans., Marcello/Fattori. 21 This translation differs from Hart and Hicks used earlier as it is taken from Thoenes’s translation from Latin into Italian. Thoenes, “Serlio e la trattatistica,” 1989, 14. 22 This translation carried out by Marcello/Fattori. This interpretation is in contrast to Thoenes who draws attention to the productive response to the ruins Serlio but sees it in the substitution of sola with ipsa as being the significant motivator for the difference.

162

23 There is no documentary evidence to support Thoenes claim of a link between the two statements but Mantua falls between Bologna and Verona and would not have been outside the interests of Serlio’s studies. Earlier in 1528 Serlio’s partner in illustrating ruins of Rome, Agostino de’Musi Veneziano was living in Mantua, at this time, which adds to the supposition that Serlio could have frequented the city. Serlio also admired the work of Giulio Romano in his discussion of Palazzo del Te in Book IV, XIv. 24 The inscription at its base is either the possible name of the artist as suggested by De Rossi, Piante iconografiche, 1879 or a reference to the overshadowing of the sun according to D. Gnoli, Mostra di topografia romana ordinata in occasione del Congresso storico inaugurato in Roma il 2 aprile del 1903, Roma, 1903. See Frutaz, Le piante di Roma, 1962, 152. 25 Frutaz, Le piante di Roma, 1962, 1, 152. 26 For a discussion of the term with regard to François I see, Colette Baune, The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France, trans., Susan Ross Huston, Fredric L. Cheyette, ed., Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991, Chapter 6, 172-193. 27 See Baune, The Birth of an Ideology, c1991, Chapter 8, 226-244. 28 M. J. Rodríguez-Salgado, “Terracotta and Iron, Mantuan Politics (ca. 1450-1550),” in La Corte di Mantova nell’età di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550, ed., Cesare Mozzarelli, Roberto Oreski and Leandro Ventura, Roma: Bulzoni, c1997, 15-59. 29 For an account of the Gonzaga court, their allegiances and the changes in Frederico’s ‘occupation’ see Rodríguez-Salgado, “Terracotta and Iron,” 1997, 15-59. 30 Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio architetto, 1998, 22. 31 Francesco Albertini, Opusculum de mirabilibus novae & veterris urbis Romae, Romae: Iacobum Mazochium, 1510. See also Peter Murray ed., Five Early Guides to Rome and Florence, Farnborough: Gregg, 1972, for its inclusion of a facsimile and short introduction. 32 Syxtus Quartus summus & maximus Pontifex cepit Urbem instaurare. Primus.n.obscuras porticus destruxit : ac vias & plateas urbis dilatavit & lateritio opere stravit : ecclesiasque multas dirutas a fundamentis in pristinam formam redegit. Successores vero ipsum imitari conatisunt. Postremo sanctitas tua & Syxtum ipsum cæterosque brevi temporis spatio superavit : opera enim ipsa dilducide veritaté rei demonstrant : ut nova urbs merito appellari possit. Multum camen differt ab illa prima antiquitate. Nam quanta Roma fuit ipsa ruina docet. Albertini, Opusculum de mirabilibus novae & veterris urbis Romae, 1510, Book III, par., 1(pages not numbered). 33 See Murray, Five Early Guides to Rome and Florence, 1972, “Introduction.” 34 For the friendship between Francesco Albertini and Fazio Santoro and their collaboration on artistic work see Gustina Scaglia, “The Anonymous not Cronaca’s Drawings: A Leucippidae Sarcophagus in Casa Fazio Santoro, other Antiquities, and Obelisks in Rome,” Palladio, 18(Dec., 1996), 5-18. 35 See Murray, Five Early Guides to Rome and Florence, 1972, “Introduction.” 36 Frommel, Sebastiano Serlio architetto, 1998, 14. Frommel suggests that although Serlio’s presence in Rome was not documented until April 1925, Peruzzi had been in Rome

163 from 1523. She suggests that Serlio could have visited Peruzzi during this time even though no evidence exists. 37 See evidence noted in footnote 5, of this chapter. Serlio favorably mentions Francesco della Rovere in Book II, and in Book IV. Sebastian Serlio, L’architettura, I libri I-VII extraordinario nelle prime edizione, ed, Paolo Fiore, Milano: Polifilo, 2001. 38 Scaglia, “The Anonymous not Cronaca’s Drawings,” 1996, 6, for a location of the Palace, and, 8, for discussion of Santoro’s bequest. 39 See an explanation of the closeness of their relationship in Scaglia, “The Anonymous not Cronaca’s Drawings,” 1996, 5-18. 40 Commented on by Hart and Hicks, Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 432, n. 15. Giorgio Vasari, Vite de’ più eccellenti Architetti, Pittori et Scultori Italiani, Firenze: Torentino, 1550, Lives of the most Eminent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans., Gaston Du C. de Vere, London: David Campbell, 1996, VII 199-206. 41 Serlio speaks of Gegna in Serlio, Il secondo libro di Perspetti, bound with Serlio, Il primo libro d’architettura, di Sebastiano Serlio, Bolognese, also titled Le premier livre d’architecture de Sebastian Serlio, Bolognois, mis en langue francoyse, par Iehan Martin secretaire de monseigneur le reverendissime Cardinal de Lenoncourt, Paris: Jean Barbé, 1545, 70r . 42 Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 250. Non altrimenti che si benedica l’animo de gliãtichi, scolpito ne gli teatri e ne gliãphitheatri, che vede la superbia de la ruine di Roma, la maraviglia de le ali testimoniano che furono le habitatiõi de i dominatori de llo universo. E nõ sò se si desse fede a quanto ne gridano le carte: non apparendo la terribilita del magistero che ancor si discerne ne le reliquie de le colonne, de le statue, & i marmi, abattuti dal tempo. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, II. 43 Alberti was passionate about first hand experience of the ruins in Book Six where he says, “No building of the ancients that attracted praise, wherever it might be, but I immediately examined it carefully, to see what I could learn from it. Therefore I never stopped exploring, considering, and measuring everything, and comparing information through line drawings, until I grasped and understood fully what each had to contribute in terms of ingenuity or skill; this is how my passion and delight in learning relieved the labour of writing.” Leon Battista Alberti, in On the Art of Building in Ten Books, trans., Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavenor, 1988, Book Six, 154-55. 44 Suggested in conversation with Myra Rosenfeld 2003. Christof Thoenes suggests other sources. He includes the frontispiece of Antiquarie romane which shows a male figure holding instruments in front of the Colosseum, Peruzzi’s Presentazione di Maria al Tempio which has a building on the left margin with a rustic portico similar to that used by Serlio, Sanmicheli’s Porta Nuova in Verona, the deterioration of the walls in Giulio Romano’s Lapidazione di S. Stefano, and architectural elements in foreground of Raffaelo’s Madonna della quercia. Thoenes, “Prolusione: Serlio e la trattatistica,” 1989, 16.

164

45 For the illustrations of this amphitheatre see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, LXXV-LXXVII. As with other components of the frontispiece the image is not a direct copy of the building but is transformed through Serlio’s own invention. 46 Serlio had used this system for ‘cutting’ an image in illustrations of Book IV, see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, 131v, 134v, 135r, 135v, 136r, each depicting the Tuscan rustic order. However, the frontispiece image is represented in obvious ruin and the suggestion is that it is truthfully depicted. 47 James Ackerman, “The Tuscan/rustic Order: A Study in the Metaphoric Language of Architecture,” Distance Points: Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991, 495-545. See also Marcello Fagiolo, ed., Natura e artificio: l’ordine rustico, le fontane, gli automi nella cultura del Manierismo europeo, Roma: Officina, 1981. 48 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 254. Che l’opera rustica, cio è di legature diverse grossamente abbozzata di pietre, & qualch’una anchora di queste, fatta con qualche piu dilicatezza per lo piacer . . . e tal volta stata meschiata da gliantichi ne l’opra Dorica, & talhor anco ne la Ionica, & ne la Corinthia. Niente dimeno, per esser veramente l’opera Thoscana la piu rozza, & meno ornata di tutte l’altre, a me pare, che la rustica si convegna piu, & sia piu conforme à la Thoscana, che ad alcun’altra. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, Vv. See illustration of the rustic with other orders for example in Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XIIr&v, XIIIIr, XVIIIr, XXVIIIr, and XLIIIr. 49 Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, III. 50 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, Book IV, 270. Il perche non sarà errore se d’una sola maniera, si farà una mescolanza, rappresentando in questa, parte opera di natura, & parte opera di artifice, percio che le colonne fasciate da le pietre rustiche, & ancho l’architrave fregio interrotti da li cunei, dimonstrano opera di natura, ma li capitelli; & parte de le colonne & cosi la cornice col frontespicio rappresentano opera di mano. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XIIIv. 51 For a discussion of Serlio’s understanding of decorum see Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, Glossary, 457 and also Mario Carpo, “The Architectural Principles of Temperate Classicism,” Res, 22(1993), 135-151. 52 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, Book IV, 270. Quanto quest’opera sarà abbozzata piu grossamente, ma con artificio però, serverà piu il decoro di tal’ordine & massimamente li sassi che cingono le colonne & ancho li cunei. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XIIIv. See also Carpo, “The Architectural Principles of Temperate Classicism,” 1993, 135-51. 53 Now in Croatia see Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 439, fn. 127. 54 Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, LXXIIII - LXXVII. 55 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 168. La maniera di questi corniciamenti è molto differente da quelle di Roma, come si puo vedere, & io per me

165 non faria tal cornice ne le mie opere : ma di quelle del theatro di Pola si bene me ne serviria : perche elle sono di miglior maniera, e meglio intese, e tengo per certo che quel fusse un’altro Architetto differente da questo, e per aventura questo fu Tedesco : percioche le cornici hanno alquanto de la maniera tedesca. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, LXXVIII. Serlio saw the more Northern styles of architecture such as German as corrupt in stylistic terms. 56 Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 458. See also John Onians, Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988, 282-286. 57 See their discussion of Nature in the ‘Glossary,’ Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 458. 58 The tradition of portraying the concept of the transformation of raw rock into architecture from the ‘Natural’ had been a tradition in painting influenced by the commentaries of Aristotle and stimulus from the milieu around the university of Padua during the mid-fifteenth century. While Platonic philosophy had presented ‘Nature’ as the practitioner of divine art it was Aristotle who had provided a specific interpretation for ‘Nature’ in art. Aristotle argued that the artist’s imperative was to bring to completion what ‘Nature’ could not complete, thus perfecting what was inherent in ‘Nature.’ See Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 199a 10ff. For commentary on nature in art see A. J. Close, “Commonplace Theories of Art and Nature in Classical Antiquity and in the Renaissance,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 30, 4(Oct., - Dec., 1969), 467-486; Edward Tayler, Nature and Art in Renaissance Literature, New York: Columbia University Press, 1964; and, Jan Bialostocki, “The Renaissance concept of Nature and Antiquity,” Studies in Western Art II, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963, 19-30. See also Jacob Wamberg, “Art as the Fulfillment of Nature: Rock Formations in Ferrarese Quattrocento Painting,” in La Corte di Ferrara e il suo mecenatismo, 1441-1598, eds., Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen e Daniela Quarta, Modena: Edizioni Panini, c1990, 129-149. 59 The frontispiece is illustrated in a manner similar to the illustration in Serlio, Regole generali di architetura, 1537, XII and brings together ideas of the Natural and the human handcrafting. 60 Samuel Edgerton, The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective, New York: Basic Books, 1975, xv-xvii. Edgerton calls to our attention the possible influence of Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli, author of a treatise on optics during the second half of the fifteenth century (della prospettiva, reprinted in Milano: Edizione Polifilo, 1991) and a person known to . See also James Ackerman, The Reinvention of Architectural Drawing 1250-1550: The Annual Soane Lecture, London: The Soane Museum, 1998. Ackerman comments, “in the majority of drawings before the mid-sixteenth century, the perspective rendering is casual and personal, and nothing can be measured from the drawings,” 4. 61 Hubert Damisch, The Origin of Perspective, trans., Nelson Goodman, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994, 170-171, 174-175, and 176-177 and together on 290. 62 André Chastel, “’Vues urbaines’ peintes et théâter,” in his Fables, Formes, Figures, Paris, Flammarion, 1978, vol 1, 501.

166

63 Serlio represented a selection of obelisks or ‘columns’ see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, LXI, LXIII, he depicted an Egyptian pyramid on XCIII but, it is reasonable to assume, he would also have known of the Pyramid of Caestius in Rome. 64 Doric column base, see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XIX; and moving right there is a Corinthian cornice, see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, Lv; and a segment from an Ionic or Corinthian column shaft, see profile Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XXXVIII and XLIXv. 65 Composite capital, judged by the angle of the see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, LXIII; a Corinthian architrave, see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, L; a cornice similar to that depicted at the Temple of Mars or the Basilica of the Forum Transitorium, see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, LXXXV top left of the image. 66 For Doric profile see Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, XXI. 67 There are many obelisks in Rome, the oldest dates from the fifteenth century BC. It came to Rome in AD357, brought there under the orders of Constantine II. 68 See the description of Bascilica of the Forum Transitorium in Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, LXXXIIII and illustration LXXXV. 69 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 196. La parte segnata B è l’ultima cornice, il fregio, e l’architrave : la qual cornice per mio parere è licentiosa per piu cagioni, prima è di troppo altezza a la proportion de l’architrave oltra di questo ci è troppo numero di membri, e massimamente i modiglioni; & denticoli che in una istessa cornice sono reprobati da Vitruvio: nondimeno è molto benlavorata, e massunamente la scima di sopra. Et havendo io a fare una simile cornice osservaria quest’ordine, io faria la scima minore, e la corona maggiore, I modiglioni come stanno, non ci faria il denticolo intagliato, ma il cimatio si bene, l’architrave di questa assai mi piace. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, CVI. 70 Vitruvius, Vitruvius: Ten Books on Architecture, trans., and commentary, Ingrid D. Rowlands with Thomas Noble, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 56, Book 4, 2, 5. 71 Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 196 and Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book IV, CVIv. See also Hart and Hicks Glossary under ‘conceived’ for Serlio’s reflection of Albertian and Vitruvian notions of ‘beauty’, 457. 72 The inclusion of ruins from Egypt and other locations could have been influenced by Albertini’s Mirabilia, the source of the quote for the lemma. Albertini had described antiquities in these locations. Albertini, Opusculum de mirabilibus novae & veterris urbis Romae, 1510. Book III. 73 Gianbatista Caporali, Architettura con il svo comento et figure Vitruvio in volgar lingua raportato per M. Gianbatista Caporali di Pervgia, Perugia: Stamparia del conte Iano Bigazzini, 1536, title page. The Bramante coin is held in Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello. Description of the coin can be seen in entry 285by C.L.F. “Caradosso (Christoforo Foppa) Commemorative Medal in Honour of Bramante, 1506,” in The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, Henry Millon and Vittorio Lampugnani, eds., London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 602.

167

74 See the printer’s marks of Agostino Bindoni and Benedetto Bindoni who between 1520- 1558 used the personification of Justice for their plate. The images are surprisingly similar with the addition in Caporali’s of the A on its pedestal and plum-bob. See Giuseppina Zappella, Le marche dei tipografi e degli editori italiani del Cinquecento: reportorio di figure, simboli e soggetti e dei relativi motti, : Editrice Bibliografica, 1986, vol II, 689. My allusion to a quadrivium of figures is in recognition that four figures seen as the composite of the arts did not necessarily reflect those included by Boethius in the first century BC. Boethius’s nomenclature was for the trivium to include Grammatica, Rhetorica, Logica, and the quadrivium as including Geometria, Musica, Astrologia and Aritmetica. Artists such as that involved with Caporali’s title page obviously used Boethius as a conceptual source for their images. 75 See Panofsky’s comments on Albrecht Durer’s Sol Iustitae, Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts, (1955) New York: Overlooker, 1974, fig. 82, 263ff and fn. 89. The similarity in the compositional structure of the figure in Caporali’s image and that of Durer’s cannot be missed. 76 There is similarity between the iconology of the ‘A’ in symmetry with plumb bob and the scales of justice in Durer’s illustration. 77 See Millon and Lampugnani, eds., The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to Michelangelo, 1994, 602. 78 Metternich and Thoenes have called attention to the similarity in Franz Wolff Metternich and Christof Thoenes, Die frühen St.-Peter-Entwürfe, 1505-1514, E. Wasmuth: Tübigen, 1987, 32, fig 27. 79 Michelangelo continuously reinforced the notion of creating with the intellect rather than the hand. See in a letter to a prelate of the court of Paul III, in Gaetano Milanesi, ed., Le letteri di Michelangelo Buonarroti, Florence, 1875, 489. Also see a letter to Giovan Francesco Fattucci on 450. 80 “L’anima, l’intellecto intero e sano Per gli ochi ascende piu libero e sciolto Al’ alta tuo belta . . “ Michelangelo Buonarroti, sonnet CIX, 8, translated in Robert Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961, 17. 81 “Non ha l’ottimo artista alcun concetto, Ch’ un marmo solo in se non circonscriva Col suo souerchio, et solo à quello arriva La man, che ubbidisce all’intelletto.” Michelangelo Buonarroti, quartrain LXXXIII, translated in Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, 1961, 16. 82 For a more extensive comparison of the location of the compass in the following centuries see Theresa Kelley, “Visual Suppressions, Emblems, and the ‘Sister Arts’,” in Eighteenth-Century Studies, 17, 1(Fall 1983), 28-60. See also Elizabeth Cropper, “Bound Theory and Blind Practice: Pietro Testa’s Notes on Painting and the Liceo della Pittura,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 34(1971), 262-275.

168

83 See Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Hart and Hicks, 1996, 196. Saria gran tedio, e confusione al scrittore, & ancho al lettore, se io volessi narrare a membro per membro tutte le parti de i corniciamenti, si come eglino sono stati misurati minutamente, i quai membri sono misurati a piedi, & a minuti, & arotti di minuti. Ma ben mi sono affaticato con ogni diligentia di trasportare talmente tutti i membri da grandi in questa forma; che’l prudente lettore con il compasso in mano potra trovargli le sue proportioni. Serlio, L’architettura, 2001, Book III, CVI. 84 See Durer’s woodblock of Melancholia 1 and discussion by Erwin Panofsky, Albrecht Durer, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1945 and Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy: Studies in the History of Natural Philosophy, Religion and Art, London: Nelson, 1923. Ideas about Durer’s Melancholia 1 are summarised in William Heckscher, “Shakespeare and the Visual Arts,” in Art and Literature, ed., Egon Verheyen, Durham: Duke University Press, 1985, 404ff.. 85 Klibansky, Panofsky and Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, 1923, 31. 86 The character of the letters is not clear in the F IL, but I have interpreted these as such even though the woodblock carving has resulted in the image ambiguously falling between I and L because the bottom of the final character on the line seems damaged in the carving of the block incorporating the curved element leading to the horizontal stroke of the L. Even so, the translation could remain. 87 I have carried out searches of collections of inscriptions and find no correlation in letters even though D O M is often included in antique fragments. See previous chapter’s discussion on this interpretation. See Émile Galichon, Domenico Campagnola: peintre-graveur du XVIe siècle, Paris: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1864. George Williamsons entry on Domenico Campagnola in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908 Online Edition, 2003 by Kevin Knight. The Catholic Encyclopedia cites William Ottley’s, An Inquiry Into the Origin and Early History of Engraving, London, 1816, as its source. 88 Christof Thoenes, “Prolusione: Serlio e la trattatistica,” in, Sebastiano Serlio: Sesto seminario internazionale di storia dell’architettura, (1987), ed., Christof Thoenes, Milano: Electa, 1989, 18, n37. 89 The use of inscribed letters in the Serlio frontispiece conforms to the Roman classical setting of the images rather than introduce iconography that could have appeared out of place. They also conform to the inscriptions or mottos found on printers mark. See Giuseppina Zappella, Le marche dei tipografi e degli editori italiani del Cinquecento: reportorio di figure, simboli e soggetti e dei relativi motti, Veneto: Editrice Bibliografica, 1986. Pictorial emblems of the time expressing notions of the ecclesiastic and the trilogy can be found in the more northern Cornelius Anthonisz’s, woodcut “The Prodigal Son Welcomed into the Church,” ca 1540-1550, Rijksmuseum-Stichting, Amsterdam, inv. OB 2303. Here Anthonisz portrays God the Father as the face of the sun in a circular disc, the Holy Spirit as the dove illuminated within concentric rays and Christ as the crucifixion. Seen in Roland Fleischer and Susan Scott, eds., Rembrandt. Rubens, and the Art of Their Time: Recent Perspectives, Pennsylvania: Penn State University, 1997, 91.

169

90 Seen in Rosenfeld, Myra Nan, "From Bologna to Venice and Paris," Studies in the History of Art, 59, Center for Advanced Studies in the Visual Arts, Symposium Papers XXXVI, The Treatise on Perspective: Published and Unpublished, ed., Lyle Massey, Washington: National Gallery of Art Washington and Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 282. See also Myra Nan Rosenfeld Serlio on Domestic Architecture, (1978) New York: Dover, 1996, 4. 91 Rosenfeld, “From Bologna to Venice and Paris,” 2003, 282. 92 See Alberti, On the Art of Building in Ten Books, Rykwert, Leach and Tavenor, 1988, 424 also for ‘Concinnitas,’ see, 421. 93 Tafuri cites the instances of the Basilica form for the new Library, the triumphal arch form of the Loggetta at the foot of the Campanile and the representation of the Zecca (Mint) as a fortification each symbolized Venice’s readiness to accept Roman legacy. Manfredo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, trans., Jessica Levine, Cambridge Mass., MIT, 1995, 111.

170 CHAPTER 4

The ‘Architect’ representing a Court politics with his practice based on

talent and intellect to conceive and direct his transformations of stone

into architecture: the Frontispiece of L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti,

Cosimo Bartoli’s translation of L. B. Alberti’s De re aedificatoria.

The frontispiece examined in this chapter is from Cosimo Bartoli’s translation of

Alberti’s De re aedificatoria titled L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, printed in Florence in 1550 by Lorenzo Torrentino. The frontispiece to L’Architettura developed as a collaboration between Cosimo Bartoli who devised the invenzione for the illustration, and Giorgio Vasari who designed the sketch for the image prior to its sculpting as a woodblock.1Figure 28 Bartoli’s treatise translates Alberti’s text from Latin into the Tuscan dialect, lingua fiorentina; Bartoli was a leading advocate of its use as was Alberti.

Although Alberti wrote De re aedificatoria in Latin as was usual for humanist scholarship, he had developed a Grammatica della lingua toscana circa 1450 codifying what was to become the basis of modern standard Italian.2 Cosimo Bartoli reinforced

Alberti’s early advocacy for the common tongue by translating Alberti’s text in the volgare but with a new title.

A component of the investigation of this chapter is to assess whether Bartoli’s and

Vasari’s representation of the architect through their depiction of architecture and its role in society, differs from those attributed to the architect in the text of Leon Battista

Alberti’s De re aedificatoria first published in Latin in the late fifteenth-century. 3

Although experienced in collaborating, Bartoli and Vasari bring to the frontispiece

171 potentially conflicting theoretical positions, and different professional and practical interests, and beliefs.4

Cosimo Bartoli and Giorgio Vasari were members of the distinctive socio-political

Florentine court of Cosimo I de’Medici (1500-1571). Florence had been a major centre for humanist scholarship and development in the arts during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

By the late 1540s Bartoli and

Vasari had worked together on artistic projects in Florence and were dedicated to the development and representation of achievements of the Florentine duchy of Cosimo I de’Medici. The patronage of Cosimo de’Medici

(1389-1464) was presented as

Figure 28 Giorgio Vasari: Illustration, Uffizi, Gabinetto Disegni e having been fundamental to Stampe V, 47a.

Florentine dominance in the arts and it became a requirement of court ‘publicists’ such as Bartoli and Vasari to find Florentine precedents for new artistic ventures and to make public presentations of connections between Cosimo I de’Medici and his maternal ancestral namesake. One example of the collaborative work of Bartoli and

Vasari in the presentation of this idea can be seen in a fresco of the life of Cosimo in the Sala di Cosimo il Vecchio in the Palazzo Vecchio. This brought together the new architecture of Cosimo I and the image of Cosimo, connecting in the image’s portrayal,

Cosimo I, now as Duke of Florence, with Cosimo the Pater Patriae of the duchy. With

172 this background, it would be expected that conformity to specific requirements of this court, its understanding of Florentine precedent and devotion to a single patron would be significant and visible attributes in the portrayal of the architect in the frontispiece of

Cosimo Bartoli and Giorgio Vasari.

4.1 Cosimo Bartoli, Giorgio Vasari and the Medici court of Florence: The glorification of the Tuscan

In the first two years of 1550s, as well as his translation of Alberti’s De re aedificatoria,

Bartoli also translated Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae and in 1556 he completed Carlo Lorenzo’s In difésa della lingua fiorentina et di Dante, Lorenzo having died during 1551.5 Bartoli became interested in architecture and spent some time studying and drawing Tuscan antiquities with the aim of establishing the origins of

Florentine architecture as developing from its local and older Etruscan rather than representing it as conforming to the historically more recent Roman antiquities located in other areas.6 It was through translations into the Tuscan tongue and from the basis of knowledge of the Tuscan origins of its architecture that Bartoli attempted to make contemporary the historical and difficult-to-decipher texts that were pivotal to the identification of the origins of Florentine attitudes to societal conventions including architecture. In his translation of Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, he introduced explanatory illustrations to aid its comprehension.

Significant to Cosimo Bartoli’s preparation of his translation of Leon Battista Alberti’s

L’architettura was the mid-sixteenth century’s adherence in Florence to the

Christianised Neoplatonism and Hermetism influenced by the writing of Marcilio Ficino.

In his early writing career, Bartoli had included a commentary on Marsilio Ficino’s vernacular translation and commentary on Plato’s Symposium.7 Judith Bryce suggests that the “continued potency of the Quattrocento Neoplatonic legacy within the

173 Florentine Academy” was of great importance to Bartoli’s publishing of this book.8 In referring to Bartoli’s Neoplatonism, Bryce discusses Bartoli’s invenzione for the

Palazzo Vecchio and his 1540s commentary on Dante. She suggests that, although

Leon Battista Alberti had probably not been a member the Neoplatonic circle in

Florence during his lifetime, Bartoli was able to assume this link, through association with a member of Alberti’s family, as Antonio Alberti had been associated with a member of the Orti Oricellari group.9 Bryce suggests that throughout his writing, Bartoli adhered to the tradition of Florentine syncretism that she interpreted as, “a belief in the essential agreement, in the fundamental compatibility of all philosophy, both pagan and

Christian, and in the intuition of a single divine truth experienced by sages long before the ‘official’ revelation of Christ.”10

Cosimo Bartoli achieved the position of Provost11 of the Florentine Baptistery and member of the Accademia degli Umidi of the Florentine court of Cosimo I de’Medici during the early 1540s as a result of his family’s strong partisan ties to the Medici family.12 The partisanship of his family had taken the form of political loyalty in return for office within the city, diplomatic positions especially related to governance in Rome, favours by way of introductions, and nominations to positions of status. This was the lifestyle of reward and obligation Cosimo Bartoli inherited.13 He had been active during the short leadership of Alessandro de’Medici and after Alessandro’s death Bartoli transferred his loyalties to Cosimo I de’Medici whose household reign brought with it an

“enforced political tranquillity.”14

Bartoli’s description of himself as ‘gentil’huomo e accademico fiorentino’ describes a figure dedicated to the humanist attributes of scholarship, rhetoric and eloquence developed through classically and Neoplatonically inspired understandings of moral good.15 Combined with this, his work in the Umidi meant that he was directly involved in the planning of the academic program for future activity of the Accademia

Fiorentina.16 One of the most important attributes of this academy was its commitment

174 to the Florentine volgare. Use of this language, with its maintenance of many of the classical subtleties of Latin and a compatibility with classical eloquence, was considered necessary to enable the literary excellence of Florence to reach a wider public – including the patrons and merchants many of whom did not understand the rigours of Latin. This development of the vernacular language into a sophisticated and complex literary tradition in the early Renaissance contributed to the desired uniqueness and superiority of Florence.17

In 1542 Bartoli was elected to the position of censor, the second highest academic position within the Accademia degli Umidi. Such a position during the eight years prior to the publication of his translation of Alberti’s De re aedificatoria into the volgare increased its significance not only by its use of the Tuscan language, now comprehensible to a wider audience, but also by its introduction of architectural knowledge for use in the broader Italian context. It was during this period that on

February 20, 1548, the censors committee within the Umidi passed Bartoli’s translation of Alberti.18

Giorgio Vasari brought other influences to this collaboration with Cosimo Bartoli in the design of the frontispiece of the treatise. During 1540s Giorgio Vasari had become an established painter and was later to become architect-designer, and publicist for

Cosimo I de’Medici, working with Cosimo Bartoli on numerous works. In 1554 he joined Cosimo I de’Medici’s court on a more permanent basis when he was given charge of the rebuilding of the Palazzo Vecchio.19 Judith Bryce has found that Cosimo

Bartoli, Giovanni Battista Adriani and Vincenzo Borghini devised the invenzione or iconography for the Palazzo in collaboration with Vasari.20 His work as architect and courtier to Cosimo I de’Medici is widely documented but for this study it is important to deduce attitudes that Vasari may have contributed to the image of the architect in the frontispiece as, presumably, both translator and artist had influence over its visual iconography.

175 Many of Vasari’s attitudes, as expressed through his writing, stem from sources different to Bartoli’s more academic origins. During 1550 Vasari published his first collection of biographies of eminent artists, Le vite de piu eccellenti architetti, pittori, e scultori italiani, also printed by the Medici court printer Torrentino. Cosimo Bartoli had read and helped in the editing of the text while it was in preparation and during its printing.21 A significant component of this treatise was a small treatise on technique with introductions on Architecture, Sculpture and Painting that was titled “Introduzione di Giorgio Vasari pittore Aretino alle tre arti del disegno, cioè architettura, scultura e pittura” and was bound with the Vite.22 It is significant to interpretations of the frontispiece to L’architettura that assume similarities of influence from Bartoli and

Vasari for its visual iconography that Vasari’s Vite and this ‘parte teorica’ on architecture were not consistent with the form of Neoplatonism that Bartoli espoused in his rigorous translations.

In his Vite, Vasari was concerned mainly with recognising ‘God-given talent’ (ingegno) in artists. In addition to this notion of talent, Vasari’s artist had acquired sensitivity to conventions of expression and behaviour, essentials for conformity to the courtesies of a learned and courtly society.23 Leon Satkowski has suggested that Vasari’s Vite was anti-theoretical, claiming that Vasari delighted in the anecdotal, professional and technical aspects of architectural practice, the recognition of the merit of talent, and conformity to concepts of good behaviour being recurring themes of the treatise.24

Vasari’s approach to his Vite also changed over time, and Patricia Rubin has suggested that the more theoretical approach in the alterations to his second edition of the Vite is, to a great extent, attributable to, “his newly engaged study of ancient and modern monuments and of architectural theory and practice.”25

Differences between Bartoli and Vasari’s theoretical positions are highlighted when comparing Vasari’s ‘parte teorica’ to Bartoli’s syncretic approach. David Cast suggests a specifically Aristotelian conception of Vasari’s presentation of technical theory in that

176 for Vasari, “la practica was defined as a direct and factual intervention in the real world.” 26 Cast interprets this manner of engagement as Aristotelian in its sentiments in its concern with practical knowledge.27 However, Vasari does not limit his theoretical position to any one theoretical source being guided more by notions that the worth of artists is derived from the dual attributes of God-given talent, in the Neoplatonic sense, and the sensitivity to behavioural and expressive conventions of court life more reminiscent of the Aristotelian real-world intervention. For Vasari, an essential component in the depiction of worth of the artist was his capacity to converse in the company of the elite and patronal classes. Throughout Vasari’s Vite and his technical introductions, artist’s lives are depicted side-by-side with accounts of their patron’s recognition of and support for the development of their art, suggesting that without this contribution from the Patron that the artist may never have achieved a status of merit.

For most of the frontispiece ‘readings’ of this study the most cogent context for the interpretation of the frontispiece is the treatise that it prefaces. However, in this particular treatise, purported to be an accurate translation of the original, there is an intricate relationship established between the image, the text and the two distinctly different individuals involved. It is for this reason that, in this case study, other texts and contextual material associated with the authors and designers of the frontispiece become important in the investigation of its meaning.

4.2 Describing the frontispiece to Bartoli’s L’Architettura and analysing its component images

The frontispiece depicts a mix of Classical allusions with allegorical and narrative strategies reflecting notions of social order in a Medician context.Figure 29 It presents a festive and triumphal frame opening onto a scene of Roma antica revealed by a veil or curtain being partly raised. In the centre, the depiction of Roma antica portrayed an

177 idealised representation of classical Rome in ruin.28 On an aedicule of a simplified

Tuscan squared order, the personification of Minerva in armour with a shield and jousting pole stands on the left pillar. On the right pillar is Flora in the robes of sovereignty with lion epaulette on her shoulder, and a sceptre. Flora and Minerva each stand above a Medici imprese inscribed in the pedestals to the aedicule: Piero di

Cosimo de’Medici’s

Figure 29 Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture

178 impressa of the falcon holding a diamond ring in its claw is below Minerva, and Cosimo

I’s tortoise with a sail fixed to its shell is below Flora.29 Above the pillars the allegorical figures, from the left of Virtù, Immortalità, and Fortuna are grouped. Virtu holds a book with one hand and points to the heavens with the other.30 The central figure of this group, Immortalità, has her foot on a representation of Time and holds the globe of the world in one hand, the other rests on he knee holding a double forked laurel branch that protrudes over her left shoulder. Fortuna, on the right of Immortalità, has one hand on her wheel and allows a cornucopia of produce to fall from her hand. Placed to the outer side of Virtù and Fortuna and at the edge of the aedicule are the cosmological signs of Capricorno resting on a papal insignia and crown. In the theatrical scene below, a river god is surrounded by icons of the signs of the Medici and of Florence: a papal crown and keys, a bishop’s mitre and crosier, two ducal crowns and two helmets and sitting outside the scene and below the aedicule is a scroll with the printer’s mark.

Each of these emblems has a distinctive history of usage that becomes contextualised with specific meanings when placed within the overall narrative of the frontispiece.

Charles Davis, in a study of Giorgio Vasari, suggests that there is a close correlation between the emblems of the frontispiece and a description of a fresco in a later work written by Cosimo Bartoli.31 Davis’s assertion that Bartoli is describing the frontispiece remains conjecture as Bartoli left no notes from which to verify the claim.

Nevertheless, Bartoli’s description of emblems in that text does provide clues, for the reader of the frontispiece, to the variety and depth of possible meanings incorporated into its emblems. Bartoli’s descriptions are included in his Ragionamenti accademici di

Cosimo Bartoli Gentil’huomo et Accademico Fiorentino, sopra alcuni luoghi difficili di

Dante Con alcune inventioni et significati, et la Tavola di più cose notabili.32 Although, the dating of the Ragionamenti is 1567, Judith Bryce suggests that it was during the early 1550s that Bartoli recast the Dante lectures he had given during the 1540s and which were later printed as the Ragionamenti.33

179 For the text of the Ragionamenti accademici, Bartoli used the familiar Renaissance rhetorical framework of a dialogue between significant characters to present the meaning for his image. In the dialogue, the characters of Lionardo Doffi and his friends

Monsignor Ferrante Pandolfini, Bishop of Troia, and Lodovico de Masi discuss a fresco that they observe.34 The fresco, a painting supposedly by Giorgio Vasari, from the allegorical invenzione by Bartoli, was said to describe the prominence and prosperity of

Florence under the leadership of the Medici, especially Cosimo I de’Medici. The text does not specify the particular political contexts of the figures but does explain some of the ideas underlying and defining the use of specific symbols. While the Ragionamenti is explored for interpretation of the emblems of the frontispiece, examination will also be made of other text’s interpretations of the emblems. This broader investigation will include the more general use of these symbols by the Florentine Academy and, the allegorical meaning of these symbols in Vasari’s writing and art.

4.2.1 The Tuscan Aedicule Setting

The aedicule in the frontispiece to Bartoli’s L’Architettura, rather than depicting a triumphal arch or gate, framed an enclosed space, a distant scenic view revealed by a partly raised veil on which were attributions of the book’s content and its author. As well, on the frame of the aedicule were placed a hierarchy of emblems from its base to the apex of its pediment, symmetrically aligning each group placed either side of the vertical axis, forming pairs. This symmetrical composition is reinforced through the centralised perspective of the illustration, a technique that focused the attention of the reader on the enclosed Roma antica and the River God beneath.

The origins of the aedicule are recognisably classical and Tuscan with lack of fluting on the pilastered columns indicating its interpretation as Tuscan. In his De re aedificatoria

Alberti included only Doric, Ionic and Corinthian as the three Roman classical orders

180 but had cited the Tuscan typology (tuscanicae dispositiones) in Book IV, VII.35

However, for Bartoli and Vasari the Tuscan was considered to be an older and more regionally authentic order for architecture than these Roman orders. As suggested by

Gustina Scaglia, Bartoli had established this older Etruscan origin for Florentine architecture and it is most likely that the aedicule is of modified Tuscan type.36

No specific architectural source for the aedicule of the frontispiece is known but Bartoli had used a modified

Tuscan design in renovation of the palazzo of Giovan

Battista Ricasoli on the Via delle Mantellate in

Florence.37 For this design Bartoli suggested that it was Michelangelo Buonarroti who was his architectural mentor and that it was Michelangelo’s entry to the

Laurentian Library that he had admired as a prototype.Figure 30 While the Order utilised for the entry to the Laurentian Library is Ionic, the arrangement of its decorative panels on its interior walls is similar to that Figure 30 Wall panel detail, Michelangelo Buonarotti, Vestibule, West of Bartoli and Vasari’s frontispiece. The similarities in wall detail, Laurentian Library, San Lorenzo, Florence, 1519-1559 the resolution of their visible details, supports a claim that Michelangelo’s vestibule to the Laurentian Library was the model for the design of the aedicule of the frontispiece.

Not only did Bartoli admire Michelangelo’s work, but Vasari also, in his small treatise on architecture and his Vite, affirmed Michelangelo as a significant exemplar.38

Part of the function of the aedicule was to affix a curtain or veil that covers the top half of the view to the scene of Roma antica and on which is printed details of Alberti’s treatise. The title to the treatise and Alberti’s name dominate the scene forming part of what Bartoli later named the ‘veil of faith.’39 Locating the title in this dominant position suggests the significance of the treatise and guides interpretation of the emblems of the ‘interior’ scene of the frontispiece. This allusion suggests the importance of

181 Alberti’s text in interpreting the narrative contributed by the scene. The images combined to encourage the reader’s entry into knowledge of the Roman antique through the authority of Alberti’s text, now translated into the Tuscan tongue so that it can be read by those not familiar with Latin.

4.2.2 The imprese and the Allegorical Figures on the Pilasters

The imprese sculpted into the plinth of the two symmetrically opposite pillars of the aedicule, represents the two most significant and recent powerful rulers of the Medici household. On the left the impresa of Piero di Cosimo de’Medici (1416-1469), whose successes in war preserved the duchy that his father,

Cosimo the Pater Patriae of the household, had achieved. On the pilastered column on the right and opposite Minerva, above Cosimo

I de’Medici’s (1519-1574) impressa of the tortoise and sail is the image of Flora.Figure 31

Figure 31 Details of allegorical figures and imprese, Frontispiece, Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Minerva’s location, in front of the pilastered Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, column that stands above the impressa of Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550 Piero, symbolises the dominance of Medici rule in the past, as Piero was the last direct and legitimate descendant of this lineage from Cosimo de’Medici Pater Patriae(1398-

1464). Bartoli in the Ragionamenti suggested the figure as Minerva. He states this in a dialogue using the character of Lodovico de Masi to describe her. He said, “the meaning of that other Woman, who armed, is there on the opposite side, the one who is commonly intended as Minerva”.40 Bartoli used the character of Monsignor

182 Pandolfini to describe the metaphor of the costume of Minerva and its association with physical valour gained through prudence. Pandolfini says, “they held her to be the

Goddess of Wisdom and they armed her, wanting to show with this, that wise and prudent men are always armed with Counsel and with Prudence, so as to be able to defend themselves from the Wars, and from combats; by which they are or can be continually oppressed.”41 These emblems were used in later allegorical images of

Alessandro de’Medici (1511-1537) the penultimate heir to the Medici lineage prior to

Cosimo I and may have been commonly associated with him.42 It is a characterization of the Medici that can be sourced to Andrea Fulvio’s 1517 images of earlier Medici represented as Alexander the Great. 43 A symbol of Alessandro in the frontispiece was significant in the Medici lineage because when the Emperor Charles V had restored the

Medici to Florence in 1530 he had nominated Alessandro as head of state. Minerva’s symbolism is strengthened in the narrative of this frontispiece by her shield’s gaze toward the impresa of Cosimo I the tortoise with sail.

In Bartoli’s Ragionamenti, the use of Minerva is given characteristics that allude to other possible interpretations of the metaphor of Minerva. He uses the character of

Monsignor Ferrante Pandolfini to explain these. Pandolfini says, “the Ancients supposed that she was born purely from the brain of Jove, without having copulated, either with Juno or with another: and they intended her for intellectual virtue wanting to demonstrate that from the deep secret of God’s wisdom, is born all wisdom, and each pure intellect, and separated from every earthly dreg, or filth, in the souls of men.”44

The Ragionamenti explanation indicates a possible second symbolic meaning for the inclusion of Minerva in the frontispiece. For Bartoli, Minerva is Wisdom gained through

‘pure intellect’ untainted by mortals. Bartoli’s belief in the primacy of the intellect over other pursuits is confirmed in his dedicatory letter in the 1550 edition of L’architettura.

When suggesting the virtues of Alberti’s book on architecture, Bartoli concluded that

183 this book “praises his beautiful intellect, much doctrine, accurate diligence, great effort and long studies,” and gives priority to the intellect in listing these attributes.45

The pre-eminence given to the intellect in both quotes of Bartoli’s text repeats the sentiments of a poetic verse written by Michelangelo Buonarroti between 1530-1540 and popularised at the Florentine Academy by Benedetto Varchi. Michelangelo more specifically linked the intellect to the Divine and the understanding of Nature, “The soul, the intellect entire and whole, ascends more free and loose through the eyes to thy lofty beauty”46 and “the best artist has no concept which some single marble does not enclose within its mass, but only the hand which obeys the intellect can accomplish that.”47 Michelangelo’s use of ‘intellect’ represents a faculty for discerning the inner beauty of Nature and recognising the potential of divine harmony that can then be reflected in architecture or sculpture through the transformative capacity of the architect or artist. It was this faculty in the artist that the Neoplatonists such as Marsilio Ficino suggested reflected most closely Godlike divinity.48 During 1546 Benedetto Varchi delivered an exegesis to the Florentine Academy on Michelangelo’s sonnet “Non ha l’ottimo artista alcun concetto,” LXXXIII, where Varchi suggested Michelangelo’s placement of intelletto in correct relationship with the concepts of fantasia, imaginativa and cogitiva reflects Neoplatonic principles.49 These concepts, reinforced for Bartoli and the Neoplatonists of Renaissance Florence, the notion that art coexisted in two worlds, the divine and the corporeal, and that artist’s creativity reflected divine creativity. Their creativity was a physical enactment of the transference of beauty from the realm of principle to the realm of matter.50 Bartoli’s commitment to Neoplatonic theory and the friendship that existed between Michelangelo and Giorgio Vasari suggests that the iconography of Minerva in the frontispiece could conform to similar sentiments.

An essential component of this understanding of the faculty of the intellect is the notion that creations of art develop more significantly from the mind mediated transference of

184 Divine or Natural Beauty rather than unmediated repetitive practices of the hand.

Michelangelo was documented as having stated that for an understanding of beauty, the artist or architect should have “compasses in his eyes,” a metaphor for grasping

Divine order rather than one focused on the experiences of the world.51 Robert

Clements found four texts testifying that Michelangelo’s saying had a meaning commonly understood in Florence.52 The most notable quotation for this comes from

Vasari’s Vita di Michelagnolo (1568) where he cites Michelangelo as having said “che bisognava avere le seste negli occhi e non in mano, perchè le mani operano, e l’occhio giudica” (“that it was necessary to keep one’s compass in one’s eyes and not in the hand, for the hands execute, but the eye judges”).53 This sense of the dominance of intellect is reflected in the figure of Minerva in the frontispiece to L’architettura.

Giorgio Vasari provides an additional meaning for Minerva in his commentary on

Michelangelo Buonarroti in the second edition (1568) of his Vite.54 Vasari’s text incorporated sections from Esquie del divino Michelangelo Buonarroti, a celebratory booklet written most probably by Vincenzo Borghini and Jacopo Giunti of the Florentine

Academy and printed in 1564.55 Although this text was written fourteen years after the publication of Bartoli’s translation of Alberti’s treatise, it may shed some light on the range of interpretation and possible meanings attributed to the personification of

Minerva during this period of Florentine history. The text suggests,

To the left of this rightly much-praised figure, that is towards the Altar of the Sacrament, was another figure, wisely planned to represent Minerva, or really Art, for one can truly say that it is she who, next to goodness and saintly bearing, must always hold first place among the best. Art it also is that brought this man not only honour and power, but also much fame that one may say he had savoured during his life much fruits as other celebrated and valiant men are scarcely able to wring from fame after their death by means of their distinguished works.56

185 Bringing together the personification of Minerva with the meaning of Art modifies the concept of Art from it as an activity of ‘doing’ art to a powerful and transformative and intellectual concept.

These three interpretations suggest that the allegorical figure of Minerva could be read in many ways: she could represent the status of Medici, she could reinforce

Neoplatonic notions of creativity and the primacy of pure intellect, and she could represent a concept of Art informed primarily through the intellect. One of the meanings or a combination could apply to Minerva in different contexts and her use for different purposes in the politics of court life. However, for a dialogue to be set up across the frontispiece, there would have to be an interaction or interplay of symbols and ideas between the personification of Flora and the figure Minerva on the pillar opposite.

The image of Flora is on the pillar above Cosimo I de’Medici’s (1519-1574) impressa of the tortoise and sail. Flora had been used in the iconography of Cosimo I as a symbol of the riches of Florence under his leadership. The leonine attributes recognised in

Flora’s lion shoulder-caps in the frontispiece link Florence and Cosimo I with representations of Hercules noted for the virtues of strength and magnanimity.57 By representing both Flora and Minerva with attributes of physical valour Bartoli and

Vasari could be interpreted as reconciling the differing characteristics of the separate hereditary lines of Medici family in Florence, Alessandro and Cosimo I being of different branches of the family. Minerva with her glance toward Flora directed attention to the continuity of the Medici lineage and the artistic development of Florence to the new heir, Cosimo I and his impressa.58 Through this use of court iconography the aedicule and its figures can be interpreted as a representation of the Medici court and their patronage.

In a similar manner to his description of Minerva, Bartoli uses characters in his dialogue to describe and explain the metaphor for his depiction of Flora. Bartoli uses Pandolfini

186 to explain the figure saying “Flora, as you know, is intended here as the City of

Florence, and they have armed her to demonstrate the strength of this city, and of this fact; it is intended for the right arm, therefore, strength of the body and for the left arm strength of character: wanting to demonstrate that the men of this state are valorous of body and intrepid of character.”59 Here, Bartoli imbues Flora with attributes of physical valour and action as well as symbolising the actual city of Florence. Personifying Flora with these two attributes suggests dialogue between the symbolic intentions for

Minerva and the figure of Flora. Physical valour supplements the virtue of pure intellect, the attribute of Minerva.

However, Bartoli does not simply suggest Flora as Florence but also layers her metaphor with the more usual allusion to concepts associated with Primavera. He does this through his comments on her flowers. Pandolfini continues to explain Flora and the significance of her holding flowers upward, saying, “I think that he meant that she looks towards Heaven almost praying to God, to impress in the heart of who is virtuous and who has such character, that she happily shows the flowers.”60 This is consistent with more traditional interpretations of Flora where she symbolises

Primavera bringing together physical attributes of spring’s regeneration and the blossoming of flowers. Interpretations of Flora as Primavera can be seen in Sandro

Botticelli’s Primavera, a painting of c. 1478.Figure 32

Even though painted over seventy years prior to the Bartoli and Vasari frontispiece, its symbolism would have been well known to both Bartoli and Vasari as it was housed in the Medici collection in Florence. Edgar Wind suggests that the source for the symbolism in Botticelli’s painting was Lorenzo de’Medici’s fifteenth-century poem which says, “spring is the season ‘when Flora adorns the world with flowers’ – la primavera quando Flora di fiori adorna il mondo.61 Edgar Wind’s interpretation of Botticelli’s

187 Figure 32 Primavera, Alessandro Botticelli, Uffizi, Florence, Inv. 1890, 8360. See Caterina Canerva, Alessandro Cecchi, Antonio Natali, The Uffizi: Guide to Collections and Catalogue of all Paintings, Florence, Giusti di Becocci, 1986, 70 image suggests that Primavera is in the act of transformation from one state of being to another. In Botticelli’s painting she is depicted in the act of transformation: fleeing

Chastity (Chloris); and changed into Beauty (Flora) by Passion in the character of

Zephyr.62 This reinforces the underlying physically transformative nature of Flora.

This interpretation brings a representation that is both active and transformative to the figure of Flora in Bartoli and Vasari’s frontispiece. The interpretation can be used to complement the different characteristics embodied in the personifications of Minerva in the frontispiece. While Minerva is interpreted as pure intellect Flora is interpreted as the act of transformation in Art. Whereas Minerva could be interpreted as Art embodied in the intellect as reflecting a Divine sense of Beauty, Flora can be interpreted as Art embodied in the physical act of creation a reproductive enactment of

Beauty. In Bartoli’s Ragionamenti, the character of Pandolfini reinforced the Divine inspiration of pure craft when he says, “I think that he meant that she looks towards

Heaven almost praying to God, to impress in the heart of who is virtuous and who has

188 such character, that she happily shows the flowers.”63 Flora’s act of creation is

‘happily’ displayed as a God-given and God-inspired ability or a talent.

Flora thus has many attributes that form a distinctive complementary relationship with those of Minerva who, in the Bartoli and Vasari frontispiece, is placed symmetrically opposite to her. Flora embodies all the sensual attributes of worldly experience where flowers burst forth from her hand in response to the ‘passion’ of Zephyr, whereas

Minerva represents contemplative ‘pure intellect.’ Bartoli and Vasari combine the eagle helmet and the sceptre, to add to the figure of Flora, emblems that can be read as martial characteristics or the characteristics of judgment, a tactic that draws attention to her being symbolic of the physical attributes of Art transforming Natural materials into another state in a reflection of Divine creation.64 Minerva represents the ideal figure of

Art and judgment gained through pure intellect, without being “soiled by any contagion of Mortal things” whereas Flora represents the idea that Art is gained through the transformative and Divinely given talent of making, and the physical values of valour and worldly knowledge.

4.2.3 The Allegorical Figures on the Pediment:

Figure 33 Details of allegorical figures on the pediment, Frontispiece, Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550

189 The main allegorical figures on the pediment are the composition of Virtù, Immortalità and Fortuna.Figure 33 While each of these personifications has individual meaning the implication of their grouping is also essential for an interpretation of the figures. In the frontispiece, the figure of Virtù raises her right hand and holds her index finger pointing into the air while in her other hand rests on a book. In Bartoli’s Ragionamenti, he explained again through the character of Pandolfini, the significance of the figure. He said,

Not long ago we said that they held her to be the Goddess of Wisdom and they armed her, wanting to show that because of this, men who are wise and prudent are always armed with counsel and Prudence . . . lifting herself with her wings rising ever towards Heaven she was painted this way by the Ancients, wanting to demonstrate, that men who have become virtuous through ingenuousness, lift themselves up and rise up to a step higher than others and who can, through intellect, fly and talk about all things that are in Heaven and earth.65

In this quote Pandolfini has explained the attributes of Virtù as inventive talent developed through intellect. In Bartoli and Vasari’s frontispiece Virtù’s pointed finger and the emblem of the book linked the power gained from Divine or Cosmic sources to the action directing memory and wisdom (knowledge) developed through texts. The illustration is very similar to that done by Venetian printer Michele Tramezzino, in his printer’s marks developed during the 1540s and 1550s and would have been known to

Giorgio Vasari.66 The Sibylline character of this figure was seen to have connections with deity and the prophecy held in her books, thus she has her finger raised upward and a book in her hand.67 Renaissance readers would recognise, in the object being held, the prophetic powers of the sibylline books.68 The book in the Bartoli and Vasari frontispiece, as suggested by the prominence being given to the title of L’architettura, is focused on architecture rather than sacred knowledge, but it is the knowledge that is required for understanding the relevance of the Classical authority of architecture for concepts of civic magnificence in the city of Florence.

190 Fortuna, with her hair being blown from behind, is seated opposite Virtù on the right of the aedicule. She has one hand on the wheel of time and is depicted with a cornucopia of worldly wealth falling from her hand. The symbolism here again is multifaceted. The figure of Fortuna with Virtù conforms to the christianised Neoplatonic values as espoused by the philosopher Marsilio Ficino. Barolti had printed a commentary to

Ficino’s translation of Plato’s Symposium during the 1540s.69 Ficino had said, “The prudent man has power over Fortuna, but only if he understands the words of that Wise

Man: Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.”70 For Ficino that ‘Wise Man’ is Christ but such sacralization would have been secularised by humanists during the sixteenth century.

However, there are interpretations conforming more closely to her visual context. The placing of Virtù opposite Fortuna had a long history for the Medici as seen in a medal for Giuliano II de’Medici of 1513. Figure 34

Figure 34 Medal of Giuliano de’Medici with Virtù and Fortuna-Occasio, Washington, National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collection, Seen in Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Rudolph Wittkower explains the significance of the images:

It shows two figures: the veiled one of Virtù giving her right hand to another figure characterised as Fortuna-Occasio by a cornucopia and rudder – symbols of Fortuna – and by the forelock – symbol of Chance. The occasion for which this medal was struck is well known. After the re-establishment of the Medici in

191 Florence in 1512, Giuliano, brother of Leo X, became for a short period head of state. The medal thus commemorates this event, and indicates that such a position can be attained only by personal virtue combined with chance.71

These are commemorative figures associated with the past glories of the Medici. They bring together attributes of Cosimo I de’Medici’s magnificence with the arts and Leon

Battista Alberti, Florence’s architectural authority on implementing antique classicism for current relevance.

Erwin Panofsky claims that the complementary placing of Fortuna with Virtù was a common combination during the Renaissance. He explained, “The Renaissance, however . . . revived both the idea of Virtus as the sum total of purely human achievement and the idea of Fortuna as a sovereign and unpredictable mistress of human destiny.”72 While the juxtaposition of Fortuna with Virtù later in the sixteenth century became symbolic of ‘irreconcilable feud’, Bartoli and Vasari’s illustration reflects the mid-sixteenth-century representation of a resolution of the two forces bringing a positive attribute to the combination as explained by Panofsky.73 The

Renaissance audience would have understood their juxtaposition as a positive attribute.

The figure of Fortuna reinforces the celebration of learning and literature that had emerged from Florence under the Medici rule. Fortuna and Virtù were seen as a necessary combination because it was only through divine intervention and the Virtù of learning that the positive attributes of Fortuna could be attained. The image reinforces the idea that wealth and peace would ensue as a result of great learning mediated by

Divine forces thus contributing to the continuity of the Medici’s worth in the actual rather than idealised city of Florence. In the context of Alberti’s text, Fortuna symbolised the distinctive attributes found in Florence that resulted in the emergence of so many distinguished artists and scholars in their populace.

192 The further combination of these figures with Immortalità continues the frontispiece’s narrative. Emblems of Immortalità stem from classical sources including

Iphigeneia/Oreilochia who was endowed by Artemis with immortality and eternal youth,

Juturna a nymph beloved by Jupiter who rewarded her with immortality, and Psyche who overcame the jealousy and hatred of Venus to gain Amor’s love and in doing so became immortal.74 In the Bartoli and Vasari frontispiece Fortuna’s hair blows toward

Immortalità who is portrayed with her foot on Time (pictured as an old man holding an hourglass above his head.) Immortalità holds the globe of the world in one hand and with the other hand and holds a double forked laurel branch over her shoulder.

The use of the double forked laurel branch in the frontispiece is a direct reference to

Cosimo I de’Medici. The painter Jacopo Pontormo had used the stemma of the newly sprouting laurel in a portrait of Cosimo de’Medici Pater Patriae of 1519.75 Janet Cox-

Rearick has interpreted this stemma as a celebration of the birth of the future Cosimo

I.76 The stemma of the laurel continued to be used by the Medici household and Cosimo I but was modified to the double forked branch when Cosimo I married

Eleonora de Toledo. Cosimo I embodied the bringing together of two significant houses of Medici lineage. His mother Maria Salviati was granddaughter of Lorenzo the

Magnificent and his father Giovanni delle Bande Nere was of a more distant Medici lineage. Janet Cox-Rearick cites a description of the stemma written by Giambullari and Giovio and its association with the marriage of

Cosimo I to Eleonora de Toledo in June 1539. In this Figure 35 Bronzino, Portrait of Cosimo de’Medici in Armour, Kassel, Gambulari noted that the “exuberant new shoot was Staatliche Kunstsammlungen coming out of the old stump, completely renewing the tree.”77 This is further explained in discussion with Giovio “It signified that even if Duke Alessandro had died, there

193 would not fail to be another ‘golden bough’ in the same family.”78 Cox-Rearick saw this stemma as alluding to the inevitability of Cosimo I’s accession to power on the death of

Alessandro and reinforcing the message of his predestined rule.79 To represent

Cosimo I’s dynasty this symbol had been extended in a hanging designed by Bronzino for the Palazzo Vecchio in 1549.Figure 35 Cox-Rearick suggests this symbolised “an allegory of the foundation of a new branch of the Medici dynasty by Cosimo, represented by Apollo and his sprouting laurel.”80 That this image forms the pinnacle of the entire illustration in the frontispiece gives the stemma of Cosimo I de’Medici, represented as Immortalità, the primary position reinforcing his significance.

Placed beside the personifications are the signs of Capricorno resting on a papal insignia and crown. This star sign was not Cosimo I’s birth star but was adopted by

Cosimo I in his aim to legitimise his claim as heir to civic rulership in Florence and his ambition to be proclaimed Grand Duke of Tuscany.81 The adoption of the sign was purposeful as it contributed references linking the actions of Roman Emperor Caesar

Augustus and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V and himself. These were links that validated Cosimo I as imperial by his destiny. Vasari later explained:

They called it Capricorno, a sign appropriated by the astrologers for the greatness of illustrious princes, and as their ascendant. As it was that of [Caesar] Augustus, so it is still that of our Duke Cosimo, with the same seven stars. And thus, as it made Augustus a monarch of the whole world, one sees it daily working in the same way for his Excellency, making him always greater, so that he is almost king of Tuscany.82

Cosimo I had used the favourable nature of his natal horoscope with Capricorno ascending to create a new cosmological origin for himself.83 Cox-Rearick suggests it was the sign of the date, 9th January 1537, when he was elected as Duke of Florence, a date he chose as his astrological sign in order to achieve a more favourable fortune than that of his birth date.Figure 36 The emblems of Capricorn rest on the impressa of the

Medici most commonly used by Pope Leo X, Giovanni de’Medici and Clement VII,

194 Giulio de’Medici (natural son of Giuliano and illegitimate grandson of Piero) who had all been significant Medicean Popes.84

Thus,Figure the 36figures Domenico of Virtù di Polo,, Immortalità Medal of Duke and Cosimo Fortuna I de’Medici bounded showing Capricorn,by the astrological London, British sign of Museum, seen in Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Capricorno positioned on the pediment contribute ideas of the power of the Medici lineage and patronage. Bartoli and Vasari have combined emblems that place Cosimo I de’Medici in favourable light drawing attention to his lineage and the attributes needed for a distinguished reign.

4.2.4 The River God and emblems in the foreground and the Roma antica

The river god and emblems in the foreground of the frontispiece composition focus the location in the frontispiece more specifically as Figure 37 Details of river god and Roma antica, Frontispiece, Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, Florence. Below, in the theatrical scene of the tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: frontispiece, a river god representing the Arno Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550 is recognised by the emblem of the head of the lion that he rests on with his elbow.

Jacopo Giunti and others from the Accademia de Pittori, Scultori, & Architettori

195 described the attributes that distinguished the Arno from the Tiber in their memorial to

Michelangelo in 1564.85 Figure 37

Upon it, at the side facing the main of the church, were two very beautiful recumbent river gods, one representing Arno, the other Tiber. Arno had a horn of plenty, filled with flowers and fruits, signifying therewith which the Arts have borne in our town. They are so many and so great that they have filled the world, and especially Rome, with extraordinary beauty. This was very well demonstrated by the other river representing Tiber, because, stretching out one arm, he had his hands filled with flowers and fruits from the horn of plenty of the river god Arno, who was lying near, facing him. . . . I need hardly mention that, as Arno had a lion next to him, so Tiber had the wolf and little Romulus and Remus, because these two rivers are always represented with those symbols near them.86

In the frontispiece, the Arno personified as a river-god gazes at the impressa of Cosimo

I and is surrounded by icons of the signs of the earthly authority of the Medici: a papal crown and keys, a bishop’s mitre and crosier, two ducal crowns and two helmets.87

The images reiterate the great fortunes and status gained by living in Florence under the rulership of Cosimo I. Bartoli confirms this in two areas of his Ragionamenti text stating through Pandolfini that “on the Arno, in Florence, through ingeniousness, virtue and fortune one can be led to immortality in spite of and against the will of time in thereby achieving honours, wealth, dignity, status, reputation, wisdom (sapienza) and human happiness.” He continues, “If you will remember well, you saw signs of these things down along the Arno88 where there are papal mitres, crowns for Kings, hats for

Cardinals, for Bishops, sceptres, Ducal mazzocchi,89 insignia, arms, books and many other similar things which one can say demonstrate the dignities and the honours, and the qualities which the prudent and fortunate men and women, born on the banks of the Arno in Florence, have had.”90

The symbolic meaning of the Arno and the greater dominance of it in its association with the enclosed image of Roma antica in this frontispiece, provides a new direction in emphasis of the roman antiquities and in doing so transforms Florence to be the

196 idealised location, dominant over Rome in its understanding of Roman antiquity. The personification of the Arno was the official emblem of the Florentine Academy as laid down by the 1547 reform.91 It is significant that the Florentine Academy had developed from the Accademia degli Umidi whose purpose was to read the Latin authors of antiquity, translating them into the Tuscan tongue. It was Cosimo Bartoli’s house where they held their meetings.92 In this sense Florence, through the intellectual powers of the Florentine Academy, is represented as having claimed ownership of the knowledge of Classical Rome, which gives it access to a new way to display intellectual, artistic and political power.

The buildings illustrated can be recognised as being located in Rome and include a temple, either the Tempio di Vesta, Rome, the Pantheon, ’s Column, Cleopatra’s

Needle, the Colosseum and classical columns from the Forum.Figure 38 They are depicted in the distance of the scene and show the decay that time has brought to

Roman antiquity. Of these, Alberti’s De re aedificatoria mentioned only the Tempio di

Vesta and the Pantheon, when he was expressing dismay at the calamity that many temples of ancient time had suffered.93

Figure 38 Illustration depicting Temple of Vesta Rome, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura di Andrea Palladio, Venetia, Appresso Dominico de’Franceschi, 1570, libro quarto, 53 (reprint 1945)

197 The representation of these buildings by Bartoli and Vasari has a purpose different to the dismay expressed by Alberti. This message is revealed through the placement of the book’s title above and dominant to the scene on what Bartoli called ‘the veil of faith.’ Such juxtaposition confirms the necessary insight that Alberti’s text provides for an interpretation of Classical Roman concepts. For Bartoli and Vasari these examples of Roma antica are portrayed in the frontispiece as still essential but subservient to the dominance of Florence, and the Florentine Academy. Rather than simply being a registration of Roman ruins, they are able to signify that architecture, as motivated by

Classical Order, was appropriate for the Florentine humanist’s commitment to represent the worth of the Florentine Republic.

4.3 Interpreting the allegorical narrative of the architect in the Bartoli and Vasari frontispiece to L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti:

The elements of this frontispiece include six significant groups of emblems that contribute to the narrative of the frontispiece. The first is the frame created by the

Tuscan aedicule referring to the historical origins of Florentine architecture and the worth of this in new Florentine design. The second are the imprese of Piero and

Cosimo I de’Medici bringing together the two important lineages of the Medici household. The third are the personifications of Minerva and Flora referring to different but complementary concepts of Art and also having significant Medici stemma in their attributes. The fourth are the personifications of Virtù, Immortalità and Fortuna and the zodiac sign of Capricorno each having attributes that reinforce specific stemma of

Cosimo I de’Medici and as well point to the acquiescence of artistic effort to the

Florentine court. The fifth is the Arno, the River God who represents both the location of Florence as a centre of rich artistic production as well as the Florentine Academy whose forebear Leon Battista Alberti, held the key to understanding the architecture of antiquity. The sixth is the collection of Roman antique buildings and ruins revealed

198 through the veil on which is written the title of the book, its author and translator. This

Roma antica is located between the Florentine River God and the veil suggesting it is through the text of Alberti and the Florentine conception of Art that the values of

Roman antiquity could be understood.

The narrative developed in the frontispiece provides two dominant layers of meaning directing the reader of the book. The first is the political and civic layer of recognisable stemma for Medici patronage and the attributes attached to the urban centre of

Florence. Through an interpretation of these symbols, the frontispiece is an affirmation of court culture and its attempts at a tangible representation of classical civic order and social rhetoric. The frontispiece, if read from the left pedestal – a direction of reading reinforced by Minerva’s gaze – brings together the stemma of the Medici, beginning with the impressa of Piero de’Medici and culminating in the impressa of Cosimo I de’Medici at the base of right-hand pedestal. Taking a different point of departure, developing a narrative for the frontispiece beginning from both pedestals and moving vertically from their bases, we can interpret the two arms of the Medici lineage culminating in the figure of Immortalità holding the double-forked laurel stemma of

Cosimo I de’Medici. This interpretation results in a portrayal of the ‘immortal’ domain of the Florentine court of the Medici and the subservience of all creative production to this domain.

The public’s ability to read the frontispiece to L’architettura in this way is confirmed with its comparison to the frontispiece to Antonio Francesco Doni’s book La Zucca printed in

Venice during 1551.94 Doni, secretary of Accademia Fiorentina from 1546, had been the Medici printer prior to Torrentino and had left for Venice in 1548, a move that may reflect a falling out between the Medici household and Doni. The manuscripts in preparation, including Bartoli’s L’architettura and Vasari’s Vite, were left to Torrentino, a heritage that resulted in a definite loss of money for Doni. Doni mentions these in his

La Zucca and comments on their worth:

199 So does Florence also shine through the works of the Academici, as one can see continually with the Duke’s printing houses; the good translations of the works of Aristotle by the most noble Segni; in the works of Lion Battista Alberti, of the virtuous Messer Cosimo Bartoli; in the writings of Dotto Varchi: & it can also be seen in the admirable intellect of Messer Pierfrancseco Giambiullari, in all that one could desire in Dante. . . . . And so the perfection of the head is seen through each of its limbs (per questi mezi de i membri), which is in itself a small world, the keeper of virtue, peace, & justice.95

In moving to Venice, Doni founded a literary group the Accademia Pellegrina and had a prolific period of writing that included nine books using the printing house of Marcolini.96

La Zucca was the second of these books and was a collection of moral tales, witticisms, aphorisms and letters. These were presented as if they were tales heard in the marketplace.

The frontispiece to his La Zucca parodies the imagery and allegorical invenzione of the iconographic program of the frontispiece to

Bartoli’s L’Architettura.Figure 39 Many of the

Medici imprese, emblems and symbols of the

Bartoli and Vasari frontispiece are retained but their reconfiguration inverts their meaning.

For Doni, Flora has become a fanciful musician or jester who points to the title of the book. Minerva, the sketch of which is almost an accurate trace of Vasari’s image, now becomes surrounded by drums and flags.

The crowning trilogy of figures on the aedicule Figure 39 Frontispiece, Antonio Francesco Doni, La zucca del Doni, Venzia: Francesco Marcolini, 1551. is changed so that Fortuna becomes a devil Biblioteca Nazionale Firenze with horns and pointed wings holding a medallion (most likely with Medici stemma) and horn; Virtù no longer has symbolism of knowledge but again holds a horn and

200 medallion while Immortalità with her foot on the globe holds in one hand a hollow gourd and in the other the laurel branch of the Medici. At the edges, replacing the images of

Capricorno, are urns with smoke billowing from them entwining Medici symbols with their fumes. This visual parody sets itself against all the invenzione of the Bartoli and

Vasari frontispiece and has the underlying message that the Medici household and

Florence are a hollow gourd where image and fanfare are without substance. That this image could appear within a year of the Bartoli and Vasari image attests to the common use of the iconographic representation for a Renaissance audience. There can be no doubt that the subtleties of Doni’s parody were widely understood.

Through the framing of their work in print media, both Bartoli and Vasari understood their influences on the court through the creation of invenzione for its architecture and other forms of visual propaganda that legitimated the moral, didactic, and intellectual worth of an artwork. Judith Bryce lists Bartoli’s specific knowledge which was used to inform the depth of his invenzione as including studies of Dante and the Florentine

Neoplatonic tradition, medieval history, applied mathematics, fine arts and architecture.97 It was this breadth of knowledge of classical antiquity and literature that enabled Bartoli to produce extensively sourced invenzione for Cosimo I.

The second dominant layer of meaning for the frontispiece’s narrative is explained by

Vasari’s later documented interpretation of Minerva as Art and her relevance in the context of a frontispiece to L’architettura, a treatise on architecture. In this context the frontispiece mixes artistic attributes with symbols of patronage to form an allegory that continues Alberti’s relevance into the sixteenth-century, rather than only to the fifteenth- century. Interpreted in this way Minerva becomes a metaphor for Art as Architettura derived from ‘pure intellect’ and Flora becomes a metaphor for Art as Architettura derived from the transformative powers of architecture in changing natural materials into the handcrafted forms of buildings. The stemma and imprese of the frontispiece provide the context for this artistic production.

201 While Alberti provided a series of conceptualisations of the architect and the social arena for early Renaissance architectural practice, based on his belief that problems of the architect and of building were crucial to debates concerning civic life, it was Bartoli and Vasari that saw this concept as a continuing concern of the Florentine court.98

Alberti’s arguments included the appeal to classical precedent not as an archaeological source to be reproduced, but as a model which could be modified to conform to contemporary concerns of program, physical conditions of site, and the political conditions of the city.99 This notion of ‘model’ was vital because evidence from fragments, and the measurements and subsequent drawings of Ancient Rome did not support Renaissance Humanists’ return to the Classical adhering strictly to examples of

Antiquity as described by the authority, Vitruvius. Alberti’s title De re aedificatoria, alluded to the need for a restoration of Classical antique forms of building in a society which was developing an increasing building program.100 It is, however, Bartoli and

Vasari who continued the relevance of this for the sixteenth-century and provided the visual understanding of this concept by enclosing images of Roman antiquity within an iconography of Florence.

There were no illustrations in either the original manuscript or the printed version of

Alberti’s treatise. Bartoli had explained this as a reason for initiating his translation. He suggested in his ‘Letter of Dedication,’ that Alberti had himself measured and conjectured from the ancient buildings themselves and through this had “opened wide those hidden secrets that were locked up within the obscure writings of Vitruvius.”101 In preparing his translation he realised the value of including illustrations to make the text more readily understood. Bartoli said,

I set myself to complete them adding drawings of the plans, profiles (Proffili) and facades of the various buildings discussed by the Author. Some partly drawn as he himself had precisely described and others partly as it seemed to me that he would have wanted to describe. These were not so easy to put clearly into drawings from his description. Some may disapprove of this just as they could condemn me to

202 have applied myself, almost too boldly, to translate an Author who is difficult both because of his subject and because of the terms he used: not only those approved ancient Latin ones but new ones he has composed himself.102

It is Bartoli’s desire to transform Alberti’s rhetorical models into visual iconography with illustrations and at the same time transform the treatise into having relevance for sixteenth-century audiences. While Alberti’s manuscript was addressed to humanist rulers recommending a return to ancient models of thought for the embellishment of civic life, Bartoli’s aim was for a much broader readership interested in architecture and the role of the architect.103

Cosimo Bartoli’s invenzione addressed the new role and changing definition of new practices of the architect by combining of the architect as a societal figure having a role in the court with a visual representation of the status of the court and its patron. The attributes and role of the architect in the iconography of the frontispiece to L’architettura was not only a combination of an abstracted group of concepts but was a depiction of attributes enmeshed in the visual representation of a specific court. Through the emblems and narratives of the image, Bartoli and Vasari utilise the authority of Alberti and his text to depict a point of contact between classical antiquity, civic magnificence, and the Medici court, thus requiring some redefinitions of Alberti’s concept of the architect.

1 Giorgio Vasari’s original drawing is found at the Uffizi, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe (V, 47a). 2 For a full list of the literary works of Leon Battista Alberti see Franco Borsi, Leon Battista Alberti: The Complete Works, New York: Electa/Rizzoli, 1973. Alberti had a high regard for the city of Florence, its language, and for the Medici as strong rulers and defenders of the Republic. Cosimo Bartoli and Giorgio Vasari built on these known sympathies but represent them in a rather different way. For Alberti’s praise of Florence and its citizens, see especially the ‘Prologue’ to Leon Battista Alberti’s, Della Pittura, trans., John R Spencer, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956, 39-40.

203

3 Leon Battista Alberti, L’Architettura di Leonbatista Alberti tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli con la aggiunta de designi, Firenze: Appresso Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550. For a discussion of the role of Torrentino in the Medici court see Antonio Ricci, “Lorenzo Torrentino and the Cultural Program of Cosimo I de’Medici,” in Konrad Eisenbichler, ed., The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’Medici, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001, 103-120. 4 Bartoli and Vasari continued to collaborate on Medicean allegorical imagery in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence during the 1550s and 60s. 5 Judith Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli: The Career of a Florentine Polymath, Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1983, 71. 6 See Gustina Scaglia, “The Etruscology of Sienese and Florentine artists and humanists: Antonio da Sangallo Il Giovane, Baldassarre Peruzzi, Salustro Peruzzi and Cosimo Bartoli,” Palladio, 10(1992), 21-36. 7 See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 40. 8 See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 213. For an alternative view to this see Alina Payne The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 9 See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 211. 10 See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 214. 11 Responsibilities included the church, its clergy and its font, the font being the only place of baptism till the nineteenth century. Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 39. 12 The Accademia degli Umidi was the parent body of the future Accademia Fiorentina. See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, Chapter 1 talks of Cosimo’s roots. 13 Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 25. 14 Alessandro was expelled from the city with the Medici household in 1527, he re-entered Florence in 1531 and was head of the Medici household and Florence until his murder in 1537. 15 Judith Bryce concluded by his use of this description for himself that Bartoli was not ordained into the church but was a diplomat. She calls attention to Arnaldo D’Addario’s description of many contemporary Florentine churchmen as, “figure di uomini di governo e di diplomatici, inseriti nei quatri della burocrazia e della diplomazia granducale, o di eruditi, dediti più allo studio che alla cura delle anime.” Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 40. 16 Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 43 for qualification to this. 17 See Ricci, “Lorenzo Torrentino,” 2001, 102-119, for his account of the politics behind books published by the court printer Torrentino. 18 Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 45. 19 Giorgio Vasari (1511-1574) was to carry out the buildings of the Uffizzi in Florence 1560-1580. See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 55. Vasari had been invited by the Duke to enter his service in 1550 if Vasari’s accounts are to be believed, but he did not arrive until 1554. For further reading on Vasari see Claudia Conforti, Vasari architetto, Milano: Electa, 1993. 20 See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 55. 21 David Cast, “Reading Vasari Again,” Word & Image, 9, 1(Jan-Mar., 1993), 29.

204

22 For a full translation and discussion of this small treatise see, Baldwin Brown ed., Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, trans., Louisa Maclehose, New York: Dover, 1960. 23 Patricia Rubin, Giorgio Vasari: Art and History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995, 21ff. 24 Leon Satkowski, Giorgio Vasari: Architect and Courtier, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993, 117. 25 Rubin, Giorgio Vasari, 1995, 211. 26 David Cast, “Vasari on the Practical,” in Vasari’s Florence: Arts and Literati at the Medicean Court, ed., Philip Jacks, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 72. 27 Cast suggests that interest in Aristotle in Florence at this time is evidenced through the translation by Bernardo Segni of Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics printed during 1550 by the Torrentino press. Cast, “Vasari on the Practical,” 1998, 72. 28 There are many examples of designs for festivities for the Medici by Giorgio Vasari and Buontalenti that use the same poetics of personification and revival of ‘classical’ ornament. See, J. M. Saslow, The Medici Wedding of 1589: Florentine Festival as Theatrum Mundi, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, for documentation of the preparations for these citywide festivals using temporary architecture. 29 Frances Ames-Lewis, “Early Medicean Devices,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, XLII(1979), 122-143. See also Frances Ames-Lewis The Library and Manuscripts of Piero di Cosimo de’Medici, New York: Garland Publishing, 1984, 78-81 for a discussion of the impresa. Aimes-Lewis’s thesis outlines the devices of Cosimo and Piero, which are used by Vasari to add local history to the frontispiece. The use of these two devices can be seen as an attempt at legitimation for Cosimo I to be rightful heir to rulership in Florence. 30 The medieval personification of Fortune is intimately bound with the representation of Time, and Time understood as Kairos. See Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance, New York, Harper and Rowe, 1962, Ch III, also M. Ciavolella and A. Iannucci, Saturn from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Ottawa: Dovehouse, 1992, 57, also Rudolph Wittkower, Allegory and the Migration of Symbols, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977, Ch 6-7. 31 See Charles Davis, “Frescos by Vasari for Sforza Almeni, coppiere to Duke Cosimo I,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 14(1980), 127-99, and, Cosimo Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici di Cosimo Bartoli Gentil’huomo et Accademico Fiorentino, sopra alcune inventioni et significati, et la Tavola di piu cose notabili, Venezia, Francesco de Franceschi Senese, 1567, fol. 22-26r. 32 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1567, fol. 22-26r. 33 Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 71.

205

34 Judith Bryce suggests that we can assume that this fresco actually existed. In the Bartoli text it is unidentified other than by its street of Via del Cocomero identified by Bryce as the now Via Rica-soli, Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 273. 35 For comments on this and the examination of the Tuscan by Cosimo Bartoli see Gustina Scaglia, “The Etruscology of Sienese and Florentine artists and humanists,” 1992, 21- 36. 36 Scaglia, “The Etruscology of Sienese and Florentine artists and humanists,” 1992, 21- 36. 37 Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 270ff speaks of the influence of Michelangelo on Bartoli. 38 While Vasari’s life of Michelangelo was extended significantly in his 1568 edition of the Vite the earlier edition was comprehensive in its praise. For a translation of Vasari’s technical treatise on architecture into English see, Brown, Vasari on Technique, 1960. 39 In his Ragionamenti accademici, Bartoli had explained this emblem, “that silvery veil which comes from under those two lion’s heads . . that drapery . . which almost seems to be gold brocade, is always intended to be faith.“ “Quel velo argentato che usciva di sotto a quelle due teste del Leone sopra delle spalle quello drappo […] che sembrava quasi che un broccato d’oro, è sempre inteso per la fede.” Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici , 1567, fol. 23v. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 40 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1567, fol. 24r. Ca.: Se io non credessi parere ò M. Lionardo a Monsignore troppo discortese, io lo pregherrei, che si fusse contento, di chiarirci ancora i significati di quell’altra Donna, che armata, le era al dirimpetto; la quale ancor che comunemente si intenda per una Minerva. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 41 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1567, fol. 24r-25r. Ves.: Gli antichi finsono che nascesse puramente dal cervello di Giove, senza essersi egli congiunto, ò con Iunone ò con altro: & la intesono per la virtu intellettiva volendo mostrare, che dal Profondo segreto della sapienzia di Dio, nascesse ogni sapienza, & ogni intelletto puro, & separato da ogni terrena feccia, ò spurcizia, dentro a gli animi de gli huomini: & oltre à questo la finsono ancora Vergine. . . . Perche e volsono mostrare, che la Sapienza non si lasica mai maculare da alcuna contaigone di cose Mortali: conciosia che ella è sempre lucida, sempre pura, sempre in terra, & perfetta; & per essere i frutti della sapienza eterni, la Finsono vergine, cioe sterile quanto alle cose temporali. Ves.: Voi sapete, come poco fa dicemmo ch’essi la tenevano per la Dea della sapienza et la armarano, volendo mostrare per questo che gli huomini saggi, et prudenti, son sempre armati di consiglio et di Prudenza, da potersi difendere dalle Guerre, et da combattimenti; da quali sono o possono essere, continouamente oppressati. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 42 Giorgio Vasari’s later painting of Alessandro de’ Medici as Alexander the Great of 1557- 63 in the Room of Leo X in the Palazzo Vecchio provide an iconography almost identical to this sketch of Minerva. The lion can be identified with Florence and the early Medici and had been depicted as part of the emblemata of Cosimo I in ’s bronze bust of 1543-48.

206

See Kurt Forster, “Metaphors of Rule: Political Ideology and History in the Portraits of Cosimo I de’ Medici,” Mitteilungen des Künsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 15(1971), 70-71 and 77-79. 43 See Forster, “Metaphors of Rule: Political Ideology and History in the Portraits of Cosimo I de’ Medici,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 15(1971), 70-71 and 77-79. 44 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1568, fol.23v. Gli antichi finsono che nascesse puramente dal cervello di Giove, senza essersi egli congiunto, ò con Iunone ò con altro: & la intesono per la virtu intellettiva volendo mostrare, che dal Profondo segreto della sapienzia di Dio, nascesse ogni sapienza, & ogni intelletto puro, & separato da ogni terrena feccia, ò spurcizia, dentro a gli animi de gli huomini. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 45 Alberti, L’Architettura di Leonbatista Alberti, trans., Cosimo Bartoli, 1550, II, III. Sia tale che lodi à bastanza il bello ingegno, la molta dottrina, la accurata diligenzia, la gran fatica, & il lungo studio. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 46 L’anima, l’intellecto intero e sano Per gli ochi ascende piu libero e sciolto Al’ alta tuo belta . . Michelangelo Buonarroti, sonnet CIX, 8, translated in Robert Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961, 17. 47 “Non ha l’ottimo artista alcun concetto, Ch’ un marmo solo in se non circonscriva Col suo souerchio, et solo à quello arriva La man, che ubbidisce all’intelletto. Michelangelo Buonarroti, quartrain LXXXIII, translated in Robert Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, 1961, 16. 48 For an explanation of the Neo-Platonism ideas in Michelangelo’s writing see Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, 1961, Chapter 1, and John Harford, The Life of Michael Angelo Buonarroti with translations of many of his Poems and Letters, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts,1857, Vol II, Chapter VII. 49 Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, 1961, 19. 50 Clements sees that it was possibly Plotinus’s writings that influenced Michelangelo’s concept of concetto. Robert Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, 1961, 22. 51 Michelangelo continuously reinforced the nature of creating with the intellect rather than the hand. See in a letter to a prelate of the court of Paul III. Gaetano Milanesi, ed., Le letteri di Michelangelo Buonarroti, Firenze, 1875, 489 see also letter to Giovan Francesco Fattucci on page 450. 52 Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, 1961, 31. 53 See Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, 1961, 30ff. 54 Giorgio Vasari, “Vita di Michelagnolo Fiorentino. Pittore scultore et architetto”, in Le vite d’più eccellenti pittori scultori e architettori italiani, Fiorenza: Giunti, 1568, II, 3. 55 See the facsimile edition in Rudolf and Margot Wittkower, The Divine Michelangelo: The Florentine Academy’s Homage on his Death in 1564, London: Phaidon, 1964. Discussions of authorship are evaluated on pages 33ff.

207

56 A man manca di questa in vero molto lodata figura, cio è verso l’altare del sagramento n’era collocata un’altra fatta giudiziosamente per la Dea Minerva, o vero per l’Arte, perche si puo dire con verità, che dopo la bontà, e fantità de costumi, laquale dee tener sempre appresso a i migliori il primo luogo; l’Arte poi sia stata quella, che ha dato a questo huomo non solo honore, e facultà, ma anco tanta gloria, che si puo dire lui havere in vita goduto que frutti, che apena dopo morte sogliono dalla fama trarre, mediate l’egregie opere loro, gli’huomini Illustri. Wittkower, The Divine Michelangelo, 1964, 97-98. 57 Forster, “Metaphors of Rule,” 1971, 77-79. 58 Cosimo was at great pains to establish his authority for claim to power as he was of a distant hereditary line to that of Piero. See Ames-Lewis, ‘Early Medicean Devices.’ 1979. 59 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1567, fol. 24v. Ves.: Flora come voi sapete si intende qui per la Città di Firenze, & le harà fatto le braccia armate per dimostrare la Fortezza di questa città, & di questo fatto; percioche per il braccio destro, si intende la fortezza del Corpo e per il braccio sinistro la forza dello animo: volendo mostrare che gli huomini di questo stato, sono valorosi di Corpo, & intrepidi di animo. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 60 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici , 1567, fol. 24v. Ves.: Io credo che egli abbia finto che ella guardi verso il Cielo quasi pregando Dio, che imprima nel cuore di chi la [abbia?] virtu & Animo tale, che ella possa lietamente mostrare i fiori … la giustizia inverso i popoli; laquale si denota ..lo Scettro, che ella tiene nella sinistra piu bassa che la destra; alludendo che le azzioni e le opere di chi ben governa in terra, sono quasi pieni di suavissimi odori, in Cielo nel conspetto di Dio. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 61 Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, London: Faber and Faber, 1958, 102. 62 Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, 1958, 105. 63 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici , 1567, fol. 24v. Ves: Io credo che egli abbia finto che ella guardi verso il Cielo quasi pregando Dio, che imprima nel cuore di chi la [abbia?] virtu & Animo tale, che ella possa lietamente mostrare i fiori. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 64 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici , 1567, fol. 23v. Ves.: Non è mal significato questo vostro, ma io mi ricordo d’havere letto che gli Egizij quando dipingevano, una Aquila piu delle volte la intendevano per Dio. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 65 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1567, fol. 25r. Ves: con un libro in una delle mani, et con una Girlanda di fiori in testa alzava l’altro mano in verso del Cielo, et che haveva ;l’Alie dietro alle spalle, credo io che il Bartoli habbia inteso per la virtu, la quale per essere sempre verde, e per uscir di lei suavissimi odori, sollevandosi co l’Alie sormontando sempre verso il Cielo fu cosi dagli Antichi dipinta, volendo dimostrare, che gli huomini poi che sono mediante lo ingegno, diventati virtuosi, si innalzano et si sollevano a grado superiore a gli altri e possono mediante le Alie dello intelletto, volando, discorere tutte le cose, che sono in Cielo et in terra. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 66 See Tramezzino’s copy of Flavio Biondo’s Roma restavrata, et Italia illustrata, Venetia: Tramezzino, 1542 for a version of Sibilla standing with book in hand but her other hand by her

208 side. Other versions are documented in Giuseppina Zappella, Le marche dei tipografi e degli editori italiani del Cinquecento, Milano: Editrice Bibliografica, 1986, vol., II, fig. 1071-1072. 67 For general discussion of the classical myths see Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. 68 This would be consistent with allegorical myths surrounding the Sibyls. See Robert Bell, Women of Classical Mythology, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1991. 69 See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 40. 70 Rudolph Wittkower, Allegory and the Migration of Symbols, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977, 101. 71 Wittkower, Allegory and the Migration of Symbols, 1977, 102. 72 Erwin Panofsky, The Iconography of Correggio’s Camera di san Paolo, London: The Warburg Institute, 1961, 62. 73 See Wittkower’s argument, Wittkower, Allegory and the Migration of Symbols, 1977, 103ff. 74 Robert Bell, Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Santa Barbara: ABC CLIO, 1982, 133- 134. See also Bell, Women of Classical Mythology, 1991. 75 Examples of this impressa can be seen in Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art: Pontormo, Leo X and the Two Cosimos, Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984, illus 159-162. 76 Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, 1984, 233. 77 Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, 1984, 239. 78 Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, 1984, 239. 79 Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, 1984, 239. 80 Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, 1984, 240. 81 Cosimo I came to Florence and was elected head of the Signoria after the assassination of Allessandro, a distant and illegitimate cousin who had come to power in Florence. This position was soon dissolved, after which Cosimo I assumed the role of the Duke of Florence. He was not proclaimed Grand Duke of Tuscany until 1569, five years before his death. Alessandro had not been acceptable as a source for comparisons and in an attempt to represent the characteristics of the suitability of the Medici rule, Bartoli had claimed his comparison with Piero, a previous and more favourable source for legitimation of status. 82 Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, 1984, 257. 83 For a discussion of the necessity for Capricorn and the further developments of Cosimo I’s impresa see Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, 1984, Chapters 10 and 11. 84 Leo X was Pope 1513-21 and Clement VII 1523-34. 85 Giunti, et al, Esquie del divino Michelangelo Buonarroti reprinted in Wittkower, The Divine Michelangelo, 1964, 90. 86 Erano nella parte, che guarda verso la porta principale della chiesa, posti due bellisimi fiumi a giacere, figurati l’uno per Arno, et l’altro per il Tevere. Arno haveva un corno di dovizia pieno di fiori, e frutti, significando per cio i frutti, che dalla nostra città in queste professioni sono

209 nati, i quali tanti, e tali sono stati, che hanno ripieno il mõdo, e particolarmente Roma di straordinaria bellezza. Il che di mostrava benisimo l’altro fiume, figurato, come si è detto, per il Tevere, percioche, stendendo egli un braccio, si haveva piene le mani de’fiori, e frutti havvti dal corno di dovizia del fiumi Arno, che gli giaceva a canto, e dirimpetto . . . . Tacerò; che si come Arno haveva à canto un Leone, cosi haveva il Tevere la Lupa & i piccioli Romulo, & Remo, percioche si fanno sempre, con si fatti segni a canto, questi due fiumi. Wittkower, The Divine Michelangelo, 1964, 90. 87 See Davis, ‘Frescos by Vasari for Sforza Almeni, coppiere to Duke Cosimo I,’ (1980), 127-99 and Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1567, fols., 22-26. 88 What is being referred to here are the artisans’ huts along the banks of the Arno where these objects were made. 89 A mazzocco is a specific type of insignia, representing a seated lion. 90 Bartoli, Ragionamenti accademici, 1567, fol. 26r. Egli ha voluto per questo mostrare le Azzioni che si fanno adesso in Firenze, et dice che in su lo Arno, in Firenze, mediante lo ingegno la virtù e la fortuna si conduce il mondo alla immortalità a mal grado, et a dispetto del Tempo, onde se ne acquistano honori, ricchezze, dignità, stati, riputazioni, sapienza, et felicità humane, le quali cose voi vedeste, se beni ricordate, notate giù da basso intorno all’Arno, essendovi Murie da Papi, corone da Re, capelli, da Cardinali, da Vescovi, scettri, mazzocchi Ducali, insegne, armi, libri et molte altre cose simili, che si può dire, che dimostrano oltre a questo le dignità et gli honori, et le qualità che hanno avuto così gli huomini come le done prudenti, virtuosi et fortunati nati in su lo Arno in Firenze. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 91 Di Filippo Bareggi, ‘In nota alla politica culturale,’ 569-70, as seen in Judith Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, 274. 92 Scaglia, “The Etruscology of Sienese and Florentine Artists,” 1992, 34, n. 38. 93 Leon Battista Alberti, On The Art of Building in Ten Books, trans., Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavenor, Cambridge Mass.: MIT, 1988, 221. 94 Antonio Francesco Doni, La zucca del Doni, Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1551. 95 Doni, La zucca del Doni, 1551, fol 49v and 50r. Anchora Fiorenza similimente risplende per l’opere degl’Academici, come si vede continuamente pre le stampe Ducali; le traduttioni buone delle cose d’Aristotile usciti dal nobilissimo Segni; nelle cose di Lion Battista Alberti, del virtuoso Messer Cosimo Bartoli; ne le compositioni del dotto Varchi: & vedrassi nel mirabil intelletto di Messer Pierfrancseco Giambiullari, tutto quel che si può desiderare sopra Dante. . . . . Cosi per questi mezi de i membri, si manifesta le perfettion del capo, ilquale è picciol mondo che conserva la virtù, la pace, & la giustizia. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 96 Paul Grendler, Critics of the Italian World 1530-1560: Anton Francesco Doni, Nicolo Franco and Ortensio Lando, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969, 53. 97 See Bryce, Cosimo Bartoli, 1983, see specifically Chapter III, 51-71, on the collaborations with Vasari during the 1550s. 98 See Alberti’s ‘Prologue’ and his discussion on the city in Book Seven ‘Ornament to Sacred Buildings,’ and Book Seven, Sections 1 & 2, 189-191 in Alberti, Leon Battista, On The

210

Art of Building in Ten Books, Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavenor, trans., Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1988. 99 See John R. Spencer, ‘Introduction,’ to Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting, 1956, 18. See also P. Portoghesi’s ‘Introduction’ to the G. Orlandi translation of Alberti, L’architettura, Milano: Il Polifilo, 1966, xvi. 100 See r-aedfco meaning ‘to build again’ in Lewis and Short A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1996, 1528. See Joseph Rykwert’s comments in, Leon Battista Alberti, On The Art of Building in Ten Books, trans., Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavenor, Cambridge Mass.: MIT, 1988, 366, n. 1. Rykwert also directs attention to Richard Krautheimer, “Alberti and Vitruvius,” International Congress of the History of Art, Acts of the Twentieth Congress, Studies in Western Art, Vol. 2, 42-52. Later published in his Studies in Early Christian, Mediaeval and Renaissance Art, New York: University Press, 1969, 323-332. 101 Alberti, L’Architettura di Leonbatista Alberti, trans., Bartoli, 1550, Letter of Dedication, 3. Conciosia che egli aperse largamente quelli ascosi segreti, che negli oscuri scritti di Vitruvio erano rinchiusi. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 102 Alberti, L’Architettura di Leonbatista Alberti, trans., Bartoli, 1550, Letter of Dedication, 3. mi messi a darli fine, aggiugendoci in disegno le piante, i Proffili, & le Faccie de varii edifitii descritti da lo Autore, parte disegnati come egli stesso appunto gli descrive; parte ancora come a me è parso che egli li habbia voluti descrivere alcuni che non era possible di metterli mediante i suoi scritti così a pieno in diesgno: del che potrei forse da alcuni essere biasimato, cosi com e mi potriano ancora dannare dello essermi messo, quasi troppo animoso a tradurre uno Autore, che non solo è difficile mediante la materia, di che egli tratta, ma mediante, i nomi non pur’ latini antichi & approvati, ma nuovi & da lui stesso commposti. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 103 Alberti’s treatise was presented to Nicholas V, Alberti’s employer, and noted improver of Rome, in 1452. Franco Borsi Leon Battista Alberti, trans., R. G. Carpanini, New York: Harper & Rowe, 1977, 316. Borsi also notes Alberti’s greater concern for the patron than the architect, both in educating a public, and in advising the architect to choose his patron well, 343.

211 CHAPTER 5

The term ‘architect’ as a social functionary in command of collectively

understood structured intellectual processes: the frontispiece to Daniele

Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentary.

This chapter investigates the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s (1514-1570) commentary and translation of Vitruvius’s De architectura entitled I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto

Patriarca d’Aquileggia, printed in the volgare during 1556.1 This treatise was later printed in a second edition in the volgare during 1567, and as an edition in Latin during that same year.2 Andrea Palladio, a close associate of Daniele Barbaro, has been attributed with the drawing of the frontispiece and many of the illustrations to the book.3

He also advised Daniele Barbaro on many issues of architecture from 1548, continuing this as they travelled through Italy during the 1550s.4 A small number of illustrations in the treatise have been attributed as the work of Giuseppe Porta who took the pseudonym Il Salviati after his move to Venice, in deference to his master Francesco

Salviati.5 There is an allegorical illustration on the verso of the frontispiece that Marco

Frascari and others have also attributed to Giuseppe Porta, or Il Salviati.6 The Salviati workshop in Venice was associated with the Marcolini printing house completing the illustration blocks and plates for a number of books until Marcolini’s death in the

1560s.7 It is unknown whether the personifications in the production of Palladio’s illustrations and frontispiece for the book are of his own invention or the result of collaboration with another artist.8 Such collaboration, in this case, could have involved

Giuseppe Porta or other artists in producing these illustrations.9

212 Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary on Vitruvius is fundamental to discussion on the changes in the role and status of the architect during the sixteenth century as from it comparisons can be made between the ancient text of Vitruvius, originating from

Augustinian Rome and its sixteenth-century transformation in book form. Vitruvius’s treatise was concerned with the exploration of principles for the making of buildings and it explicitly connected the term ‘architectus’ with those people actively engaged in the design and planning of buildings rather than those associated with their making.

His vision of the architect was one who was subservient to the orders of his patron.

Vitruvius’s story of the architect Dinocrates, is an explicit statement of this belief where he has the King, Alexander, stating, “still, I want you to be with me, because I intend to make use of your talents . . . from then on, Dinocrates never parted from the king, and followed him into Egypt.”10

5.1 Daniele Barbaro’s context during preparation of his Vitruvian Vitruvian commentary

Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary transformed Vitruvius’s De architetura to be relevant in Barbaro’s sixteenth-century Venetian political context. Rather than aim to restore the text faithfully, Barbaro used techniques of explanation that were structured for relevance in entirely different religious, political, social and linguistic settings to those of the Roman Vitruvius of the period of Augustus or those of the text’s early manuscripts or its fifteenth-century printed copies.11 To suggest that Barbaro was drawing a parallel between Augustinian Rome and sixteenth-century Venice for political purpose may not be easy to substantiate but his translation did fulfil a political purpose as well as being descriptive of the architectural discipline.

The rhetoric required for Barbaro’s intended audiences included allusions to specific philosophical ideas and their protagonists. James Ackerman has suggested that

213 Barbaro framed his Vitruvian commentary not only through a thorough knowledge of

Roman ruins but also through an attempted resolution of Platonic and Aristotelian principles. He suggested that Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary was “Platonic in locating the source of the architect’s inspiration in the immanent order and harmony of the natural world, and Aristotelian in the articulation of architectural practice.”12 Rudolf

Wittkower gives a similar interpretation. He suggested a mixture of philosophical approaches in Barbaro’s scholarship when he said, “His method reveals immediately his Aristotelian training, it is purely logical and deductive, leading from definition to definition; while his thought is often thoroughly Platonic.”13 Wittkower alluded also to

Barbaro’s systematic approach to the arts as being based on Aristotle’s five intellectual virtues of arts, science, prudence, wisdom and intellect and his “doctrine” of experience, but also drew attention to Barbaro’s presentation of architecture through

Platonic ideas.14 However, both Ackerman and more recently scholars such as Branko

Mitrovi have drawn attention to Barbaro’s particular use of the term ‘judgment’ as demonstrating his grounding in Aristotelian principles.15

Annarita Angelini who has alluded to the complex situation of Barbaro’s social context argues against attempts to isolate Barbaro’s philosophical sources.16 She warns of the fluid combination of Platonic and Aristotelian sources in Northern Italian texts and suggests that “frequent references to Aristotelian and pseudo-Aristotelian passages and the familiarity with the masters of the Studio di Padova do not 'inevitably' make

Barbaro an Aristotelian.”17 As explanation she speaks of the difficulty in making easy interpretations of the rhetorical sources in the social milieu of Daniele Barbaro:

The relationship between idea, nature and art on which Barbaro's architectonics are founded and that constitute the principal thread of his major writings - the Vitruvian commentaryo on Vitruvius, the Dialogo dell'Eloquenza and the Prattica della Perspettiva - places Barbaro within a cultural context that is not easily delimited by such interpretive schemes as humanism vs. scientific revolution, Platonism vs. Aristotelianism, Florence vs. Venice, or archaism vs. modernity. Moreover, in the

214 age of the Reformation and Counter-reformation, this context gave a kind of citizenship to literary men, artists and scientists from different European countries. A context whose chronological limits are precise but whose political and doctrinal confines are more difficult to define. 18

However, investigation of whether Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary has significance for what was understood in application of the term architect of the mid to late sixteenth century, cannot ignore difference of historical influences on Vitruvius and

Barbaro from literary, political, social as well as cultural sources.

By the late 1550s Daniele Barbaro with his brother Marcantonio had become influential political figures in the .19 Daniele had been a student in Padua at the Accademia degli infiammati and by the 1530s had become distinguished as a scholar of philosophy, mathematics and astronomy.20 His writing included commentaries on Aristotle In tres libros Rhetoricorum Aristotelis commentaria printed in

1544, a text that was built on the translation of Aristotle by Daniele’s granduncle

Ermolao Barbaro.21 During the 1540s Daniele Barbaro had worked for the Venetian

Senate to establish the botanic gardens in Padua.22 It was during this time that he developed an understanding of geometry and the geometric design of the gardens became emblematic of an idealised Eden. He acted as official historian to the Venetian

Senate from 1546-1549, and between 1548-1550 had acted as the Venetian ambassador to England where he had come into contact with mathematician John

Dee.23 In the highly political environment of disputes between the church in Rome and the Venetian Senate, Daniele Barbaro was nominated in 1550 to be Patriarch-Elect of

Aquileia by Patriarch Giovanni Grimani.24 It was through the establishment of the church at Aquileia that the Patriarchate of Venice was established.25 However, this appointment was reluctantly accepted as it silenced Barbaro’s other political aspirations.26 For Barbaro, this role had few responsibilities until his expected future ascension to the patriarchate on the death of Grimani, an ascension that was never to come to fruition.27 By 1562 Barbaro had participated in the Council of Trent as the

215 leading speaker and senior patriarch under Pius IV.28 Although this was the third

Council Barbaro’s position on social reform and the limitation of censorship has been documented in Paolo Paruta’s Della perfettione della vita politica di M. Paolo Paruta nobile vinetiani, printed in Venice later in the century.29

Barbaro embarked on his studies of Vitruvius around 1547 with his Vitruvian commentary being printed in 1556. Barbaro’s engagement with Vitruvian ideas was later extended in his treatise La Practica della Perspettiva, printed by Camillo and

Rutilio Borgominieri in 1568.30 For Daniele Barbaro, a social figure of high political status, to begin a study of architecture and embark on a major translation and commentary of a specialised antique architectural text seems uncharacteristic.

However, Annarita Angelini, Manuela Morresi and Manfredo Tafuri have each suggested that Barbaro’s interest in Vitruvius stemmed from the text’s relevance for his quest for an encyclopaedic model of knowledge.31 They suggest that for Barbaro,

Vitruvius’s text provided a model of order for intellectual processes as well as providing a compendium of knowledge for the understanding of architecture. It was this amalgamation of intellectual order with architectural concepts of organisation that was the characteristic of Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary.

The artists that associated with Daniele Barbaro for the production of his Vitruvian commentary were Andrea Palladio and Giuseppi Porta. Palladio had travelled extensively and sketched the antiquities of antique Rome with Gian Giorgio Trissino during the 1540s gaining knowledge essential to Daniele Barbaro’s understanding of

Vitruvius. Collaborations between Barbaro and Palladio are first documented in

1548.32 During the late 1550s Palladio designed the Villa Barbaro at Maser and travelled with Daniele Barbaro to Rome during 1554 as his architectural advisor.33 This close association suggests that many of the ideas for the treatise and its frontispiece would have been worked out in collaboration. In Barbaro’s relationship with Giuseppe

Porta this closeness is not apparent. Porta had travelled to Venice to work with

216 Francesco Salviati and had carried out his first independent woodcut for the titlepage of

Francesco Marcolini’s Le Sorti de Francesco Marcolini da Forli in 1540.34 Porta’s frontispiece is signed Joseph Porta Garfagninus and it portrayed allegorical figures in a mythical landscape. From his primary role associated with the workshop of Salviati and the printing house of Marcolini we can surmise that Porta had a more distant association with Daniele Barbaro. It would have been usual practice for someone in this role to be briefed by the author of a book concerning the appropriate allegorical allusions he wished to have portrayed in an illustration.

Investigation of the frontispiece and its verso illustration must acknowledge the preliminary work of Marco Frascari (1988), Luciana Miotto (1999) and Annarita Angelini

(1999) who have been engaged in the interpretation of many of the allegorical figures of the illustration.35 While these studies have described the specific personifications and documented some traits related to their role in the composition, they have not connected these to Barbaro’s text’s conception. In some cases their naming of the attributes and personifications for some of the allegorical figures of the frontispiece can be challenged as not consistent with Barbaro’s text.

5.2 Description of the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari and analysing its component images

In the frontispiece to Barbaro’s I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio, its designer

Andrea Palladio used a triumphal arch to locate allegorical figures and the title of the book.Figure 40 Each of the figures represent attributes associated with architecture and the architect. The most dominant of the figures is centrally located on the axis of symmetry of the triumphal arch and depicts Architettura with a crown and sceptre. Her sceptre is represented as a measuring rod that she points towards the right side of the triumphal arch of her setting, a focus reinforced through the turn of the head and her

217 gaze.36 Either side of Architettura, in sculptural niches above the pedestal level of the triumphal arch, are two figures with geometrical and astrological instruments. On the left, representing Scienza is a figure looking upward with raised opened compasses.37

On the right, representing Intelletto is a figure looking downward that has two faces, one the face of a young woman and the other the face of an old man.38 The twist of her youthful head directs her gaze to the armillary sphere that she holds. Across the front of the attic level, located above the cornice of the arch, are four figures representing the quadrivium of the arts: Geometria, Musica, Astrologia and

Aritmetica.39 Together these six figures, the four of the attic level and the two in the niches, direct portrayal of Architettura as Sapienza (rational wisdom) and Matematica, an idea developed in Barbaro’s writing and confirmed in features of the central figure of

Architettura.

Before analysing the elements of the frontispiece and their setting it is important to understand that the frontispiece to the text is not the only illustration prefacing

Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary. A second allegorical image is located on the verso of the frontispiece and although it has its own distinctive narrative, it is related to that of the frontispiece. The images form an antinomic or complementary association and as such each is necessary in clarifying the narrative of the frontispiece allegory and its presentation of the architect.40 This verso illustration portrays a view of a mythical landscape in ruin and is framed by a portico with herm figures. The portico holds an empty cartouche framed by the signs of Capricorno. Below the cartouche are two female figures holding a coat-of-arms incorporating a cardinal’s hat with a sprig of a palm and a laurel tree emerging from behind the coat-of-arms emblem. The interior scene held within the portico has a collection of broken military machinery in the foreground with a bearded Herculean figure seated gazing into an armillary sphere and examining it with geometric and mathematical instruments.41 Although historians have

218 Figure 40 Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. 219 been interested to interpret this figure as Daniele Barbaro there is no evidence that supports this interpretation.42 At his feet are musical instruments on which a scorpion is poised ready to attack. In the middle ground, to the left of the image is a hooded figure holding an urn and pointing towards an astrological diagram. In the distance, behind a circular arched colonnade and portico of the ionic order, are two domed constructions: the left of these has a plate of an astrolabe quadrant nailed to its wall in reverse position so that its numbers read backward; the other circular structure is detailed with a balustraded clerestory level. The underlying meaning of this image is fundamental to interpretation of the allegory of the frontispiece and therefore features of both will be analysed concurrently to clarify the frontispiece’s message.

Figure 41 Verso of Frontispiece, Attributed to Giuseppe Porta, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. 220 5.2.1 The Triumphal Arch of the frontispiece

The depiction of the triumphal arch of the frontispiece establishes the framework for understanding the allegorical narrative both through its allusion to places significant to

Venetian history and for the conceptualisation of Architettura as a philosophically motivated, mathematical and geometric practice. The triumphal arch, which forms the compositional framework for the frontispiece, is depicted in orthogonal view having a tripartite division with a tall attic level. The columns are depicted as Corinthian in order with shading to indicate their depth.

Historians, interpreting the frontispiece, have assumed the arch to be a depiction or development of the Arch of Trajan at

Ancona attributed to Apollodorus and dated 115AD.43 Figure 42

Apollodorus had been named as Trajan’s architect by Cassius

Dio, a historian living during the late second century AD.44

However, during the Renaissance period this attribution was not commonly known.

Prior to Barbaro, Sebastiano Serlio had included the Arch of

Trajan at Ancona in Il Terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e Figure 42 Trajan Arch of Ancona, descrivono le antichita di Roma, and the arch had been Plaster model, Museum of Roman Civilization, EUR. depicted in drawings by other artists that were circulated and copied during the Renaissance as a source for design. 45 Although Palladio carried out detailed examination of a number of triumphal arches, there is no documentary evidence that he visited Ancona or drew the Trajan Arch from his own investigation of it.46 He may have seen the triumphal arch at Ancona during his travels to study antique ruins, as Ancona was a commonly used seaport when travelling by boat from Venice to

Rome.47 Palladio briefly mentions the arch in Chapter XIX of Book I of his I quattro libri dell’architettura printed in 1570 as an exemplar for the design of pedestals.

221 Of great significance to discovering the source of the design of the arch in the frontispiece is a drawing suggested by Howard Burns to be a 1565 re-working of

Palladio’s 1554 proposals for the project.48 The drawing is held in the

Museo Civico, , drawing D 20r.Figure 43

Figure 43 Andrea Palladio, Rialto Bridge Project, Ink drawing, D 20r, Museo Civico, Vicenza. See Douglas Lewis, The Drawings of Andrea Palladio, Washington: International Exhibitions Foundation, 1981 The drawing depicts a colonnaded triumphal entry and portico for the Rialto Bridge, the central portion of which is identical in its composition to the triumphal arch of the frontispiece. The original drawing is undated and it has been debated whether it formed part of or a preliminary but discarded design for Palladio’s submission to the

Venetian Senate during 1554, or was a later development of his submission.49

Similarities with the frontispiece to Barbaro’s treatise of 1556 suggests that Palladio’s

222 design portrayed in drawing D20r existed at a much earlier date and that the actual drawing may be part of the earlier group of images with its provenance circa 1554.50

This does not suggest that Palladio’s reuse of it for the frontispiece was without purpose but it does suggest that Howard Burns’ dating of the drawings at the Museo

Civico, Vicenza might be challenged.51

When comparing the Arch at Ancona and the illustration of the triumphal arch of

Palladio’s frontispiece, differences can be seen in their proportion, form and ornamentation.52 The illustration presented by Palladio in the frontispiece shows an arch without any podium level, a dominant feature of the Trajan Arch at Ancona. As well, the proportion of the illustrated elevation has been squared below the attic level.

The addition of ornamental features in Palladio’s triumphal arch suggests that his design combined many elements consistent with his illustrations of other Roman triumphal arches. These included the Arch of Constantine and the Arch of Titus, both in Rome, the Gavii Arch in Verona, an arch that had the name of the architect inscribed in its stone, “L Vitruvius L L Cerdo/ Architectus” and the Trajan arch at Benevento.53

As with each of the Rialto Bridge projects, the Trajan Arch of Ancona and the triumphal arch of the frontispiece had its own characteristic features, the design of the triumphal arch of the frontispiece could be interpreted from the basis of a number of sources but it could also be interpreted as simply a technical drawing.

In interpreting the narrative in the frontispiece to Barbaro’s Commentari any allusion to the name Rialto, or Trajan, or Ancona is as significant as the design source on the actual Arch of Trajan at Ancona. Each of the names would imply a different meaning for the frontispiece. The name Rialto referred to the original village Rivus Altus, as it was once called, that existed on the site of the city of Venice.54 According to myth it was the first part of Venice settled at the beginning of the ninth century by a group of settlers from the mainland. Andrea Dandolo's Chronica (Doge of Venice, 1343-1354) refers to the mythical settlement of Rivoaltus to highlight characteristics of good

223 government, a reference that continued into the sixteenth century. By the mid- sixteenth century the Rialto Bridge was the most significant bridge of the , a bridge making a single city of the two component islands of Venice and the main centre for its commerce. The name of the bridge increased its significance through its reference to mythical origins of the city.55 At this time, Palladio and Barbaro were in the midst of a controversial move to make a new bridge for the city and for them to recall this memory in the frontispiece to Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary would have been significant and politically charged.

The second reference to the Arch of Trajan at Ancona recognised a structure that was valued as having beautiful proportions but also celebrated Trajan, a figure represented in Venice as synonymous with the virtue of Justice and represented as a arbiter of justice on the column capital’s representation of the ‘Judgment of Solomon’ near the

Porta della Carta in Venice.56 Again, to recall this memory in the frontispiece would be significant for a book intended for Venetian audiences.

There is a further distinctive link between Venice and Ancona in Venetian history that could have been considered by Barbaro and Palladio to be of such potence as to cause them to draw attention to it at the beginning of this book. The event celebrated the reconciliation of Pope Alexander III and Emperor Frederick Barbarossa during

1177, an act in which the then Doge of Venice, Sebastiano Ziani, played a pivotal role as negotiator.57 Figure 44 and 45 Barbaro had been official historiographer to the Venetian

Senate from 1547 until some time after he became Patriarch Elect of Aquilea in 1550.58

He acted at this time as documenter of Venetian history from the early sixteenth century and as historiographer would have known of this event, an event often retold in the construction of the myth of the Venetian Republic and cited in chronicles and painted images. The sources of Barbaro’s knowledge of this event would have included the paintings of it by Giovanni Bellini and Vittore Carpaccio located in the

Great Council Hall of the Doge’s Palace and the commission from the Vatican for a

224 fresco celebrating this event given to Giuseppe Porta, the designer of some of the illustrations in the Vitruvian commentary. This commission was given during the preparation of its publication.59

Figure 44 Preparatory drawing, Vittore Carpaccio, Figure 45 Girolamo Gamberato, Consignment of the Umbrella, Sacramento, Crocker Art Consignment of the Umbrella, Venice Museum. See, Patricia Fortini Brown, Venetian Narrative Ducal Palace, Great Council Hall. See Painting in the Age of Carpaccio, New Haven: Yale University Patricia Fortini Brown, Venetian Narrative Press, 1988, 85 Painting in the Age of Carpaccio, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, 86

The event had become the most enduring and emblematic accomplishment for the definition of State in Venetian history and retold often as the great moment in the

Venetian construction of its own status.60 The story is that, having succeeded in making peace between Emperor Frederic Barbarossa and Pope Alexander III, the

Doge and the Pope travelled from Venice to Ancona by ship. Ancona was a port from which the Pope could continue the journey overland to Rome in triumphal procession.

William Bouwsma has explained that, at stages in the journey, the Pope bestowed “a series of symbolic gifts on the doge: a candle, a sword, the right to seal documents with lead, the ring for the wedding of Venice with the sea, banners, and silver trumpets.”61

The most significant of the gifts was an “umbrella of governance” given to the Doge that he might be recognised as Potentate in the Christian Republic of Venice. It was at

Ancona, in front of the triumphal Arch of Trajan, that the Doge received this gift and was said to gain powers of governance equal to that of the Emperor and the Pope.

225 A depiction of this event painted during the early years of the sixteenth century, the years that Barbaro, as historian, documented was the theme of narrative paintings found in the Great Council Hall of the Ducal Palace in Venice.62 Vittore Carpaccio had depicted the scene of the “Consignment of the Umbrella,” in the Great Council Hall of the Ducal Palace in Venice during the early sixteenth century. Giorgio Vasari had described the image attributing it to Giovanni Bellini rather than Carpaccio.63

Unfortunately fire destroyed these paintings during 1577 and the depiction of the consignment of the umbrella was replaced or ‘restored’ by the painter Girolamo

Gamberato later in the century.64 In Gamberato’s depiction, the location of Ancona is characterised by both an image of the church of St. Cyriacus in the background and the

Arch of Trajan immediately behind the Doge. Patricia Fortini Brown has suggested that it would not be inconsistent to expect that these elements were also included in the

Carpaccio painting even though early sketches, still extant, include only its figural composition.65

If Palladio and Barbaro’s triumphal arch was a depiction of the Arch of Trajan at

Ancona its purpose may have been to recall and actively build on the myth of the triumph associated with this so that the use of it as the triumphal arch of the frontispiece would ratify the idea of ordained governance for the Republic of Venice.

This type of referencing is distinctly different to representation in frontispieces previously examined in this study. Whereas, in the frontispiece to Cosimo Bartoli’s edition of L’architettura of Leon Battista Alberti, the references to place and patronage are made explicit through emblems and impressa of particular individuals, in the frontispiece to Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary such allusions are ephemeral and at best implied. This suggests that for Barbaro and Palladio notions of locale and notions incorporated by implying the names of important persons may not have been the most significant message of the frontispiece even though the allusion to the importance of

Venice is evident.

226 Of greater importance to the frontispiece than the referencing of particular places or collective memories of the arch framing the illustration, is the actual technical depiction of the triumphal arch. As stated earlier in this chapter prior to Barbaro, Sebastiano

Serlio had included the Arch of Trajan at Ancona in Il Terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma.66 Serlio’s illustration of the arch had enhanced an orthogonal front view with perspectival diminution to a central vanishing point providing some information about the depth of the central opening. This was significant because

Daniele Barbaro, in his Vitruvian commentary, expressed no specific criteria for the use of perspectival depictions suggesting that perspectival depictions could be concerned either with the perception of light or the diminution of forms in space.67 In the frontispiece Palladio depicted the triumphal arch using orthographic projection, with the inclusion of some shading on the circular form of the column shafts. Palladio’s orthographic projection portrayed instead a measurably accurate orthogonal depiction of the facade. By doing this Palladio stressed the mathematical accuracy of the illustration and its underlying geometric clarity and drew attention to aspects of

Barbaro’s representation of Vitruvian concepts as emerging from the ideae and relying on the techniques of plan (ichnographia), elevation (orthographia) and section

(profilo).68

By using an orthographic projection Palladio and Barbaro depicted concepts consistent with the allegorical figures of the frontispiece. This enabled the viewer to understand the ideal and the mathematical order of architecture and the ‘species’ of specific drawing techniques.69 From the technique of drawing the arch of the frontispiece the reader was reminded immediately that the basis of mathematics is its reflection of a notion of ‘certain truth,’ a concept that was Platonic in its origins.70 This is made explicit in Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary as a fundamental element in providing

Architettura with dignity. Plato had alluded to “those arts into which arithmetic and mensuration enter, far surpass all others; and of these, arts or sciences which are

227 animated by pure philosophic impulse are infinitely superior in accuracy and truth.”71

The technique used in the depiction of the triumphal arch of the frontispiece reinforces a proposal that is consistently referenced in the allegorical figures placed on it: that

Architettura is superior in the arts and sciences because it is, as Barbaro had argued, indebted to its philosophic sources.72

In his Philebus, Plato had construed ‘dialectic’ as the science animated by philosophic impulse, but Daniele Barbaro formed a correspondence between Plato’s ‘dialectic’ and

Architettura through the proposition that Architettura was synonymous with rhetoric.

Barbaro said,

The ways of speaking, which we call ideas, are the different types of oration useful to things and people. In the same way, the different manners of building are the kinds of art useful to things and people. Eight things are necessary to form an idea of oration, that is: judgment, which is the understanding of man; artifice with which the concept arises with the use of a precise tool; the words which express the concepts; their composition, with colours and figures; the movement of the parts, which we call number; and the closing and the end of the composition. In the same way, six things are needed to expedite a manner of the arts and we have explained nearly all of them.73

Barbaro’s conception of Architettura as the highest of the arts is reflected in the technique of the illustration with the orthographic projection as depicting the most measurably accurate and abstract of the architectural visualisation techniques.

The meaning, of the triumphal arch and its technique of representation, is clarified further by comparing it with Giuseppe Porta’s illustration on its verso. In this illustration, the architectural components are circular, drawn in perspective and an illusion of visual movement, architectural instability and lack of order is created. In the portico of the curved colonnade where the Herculean figure sits, the order of the columns is Ionic – and with its location on the ground floor it could not be considered to be a portrayal of any extant building for instance, the Colosseum in Rome where the

228 Ionic is used in the upper floor.74 Equally, the domed building of the background, which has been suggested by Vincenzo Fontana to refer to the Pantheon, cannot be so easily attributed because of its balustraded detail.75 Without being able to reference specific historical exempla, the illustration portrays a tragic and haphazard scene of buildings in ruin. The use of perspectival technique also permits a personal interpretive engagement with the depiction of the scene rather than an understanding of its mathematical accuracy, integrity and logic. This dislocation and disjointedness is reinforced through the emptiness of the cartouche and the unknown impressa above the scene. It is as if the image is the antithesis of the frontispiece. In the Giuseppe

Porta illustration the social order of elites and patrons, and notions of intellectual and architectural order have been inverted. This inversion portrays a calamity that cannot represent the dignity of Architettura nor can it represent Barbaro’s proposition for the design acts of the architect as reliant on their mathematical clarity and its origin in

‘certain truth.’ Instead it represents the ‘moral’ decay of disorder.

5.2.2 The personifications

In the frontispiece there are seven personifications. Four of these are on the attic level of the triumphal arch, two are in the niches and one is central in the image.

Interpretation of these figures will be separated into those on the attic level, followed by those placed below them in the niches and finally to the central figure of Architettura.

Luciana Miotto has suggested that the six figures, of those on the attic and those in the niches, portray a group of attributes that refer partly to the quadrivium and partly to the trivium of the arts. However, this interpretation and nomenclature is not consistent with

Barbaro’s text.76

In his Proemio, Barbaro had been quite explicit in distinguishing the characteristics of the trivium from those of the quadrivium, separating them into categories of “ways of

229 speech” and “ways of quantity.”77 He had also used Boethius’s nomenclature in this separation, with the trivium noted as Grammatica, Rhetorica, Logica, and the quadrivium as Geometria, Musica, Astrologia and Aritmetica. In a manuscript entitled

Libro detto delle quattro porte, Barbaro stated that Aritmetica, Musica, Geometria and

Astrologia constituted the doorways to knowledge.78 It was the quadrivium and its

‘ways of quantity’ that, for Barbaro, was fundamental to Architettura.79 This clarity of definition creates problems for Miotto’s interpretation. Miotto ascribed the allegorical representations of Rhetorica, Musica, Aritmetica and Geometria to those figures on the attic level with Astrologia being the figure in the lower right hand niche.80 This interpretation breaks the unity of the trivium and locates the quadrivium over two levels and is not consistent with the explicitness of Barbaro’s text or the compositional symmetry of the Palladian frontispiece.

It is my suggestion that Barbaro’s division was specific and controlled by a symmetrical structure. This structure isolated the elements of the quadrivium so that each illustration could reinforce the notions of commensurability inherent in each of these arts. Their commensurability validates their being understood at both a conceptual intellectual level and as a manifestation at a sensory level. Thus, Barbaro has described each as being emblems of the Vitruvian concepts of the signifier and the signified.81 For Vitruvius these concepts were evident in architecture through concepts of discorso and fabrica. Analysis of the figures, in this study, will follow the order of their placement; from those representing the compendium of knowledge for the discipline to those portraying its intellectual processes and finally to the depiction of the discipline itself. This separation into a symmetrical order is consistent with Barbaro’s text but differs from recent analysis and therefore interpretations of the frontispiece.

230 5.2.2.i The figures on the attic level

The figures on the attic level include the four personifications of the quadrivium, in this case sequenced Geometria, Musica,

Astrologia and Aritmetica.82

Geometria

Geometria, the figure on the left is depicted as having physical craft origins, with bare arms and breast, holding what can be interpreted as ‘the hair of the Ionian woman’ or a ribbon falling

83 Figure 46 into the shape of an Ionic volute. The myth of the hair Figure 46 Detail Geometria, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri of the Ionian woman as being the source for the Ionic volute dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da was also well known and found in Barbaro’s translation of monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556 Vitruvius IV, I. Vitruvius said:

And later [the Ionians], in trying to build a Temple to Diana from the same fragments [of the ruined city], applied a new form in the manner of female svelteness. First they made the width of the column one eighth of the height of the column and because they wanted it to seem higher they placed a torus under the base, as if it was a shoe. On the capital they placed hanging on the left and on the right like waving curls of the hairdo, and decorated the fronts of the moulding with garlands (called encarpi) that is fruits and leaves gathered together in place of hair & along the shaft of the column they let the channels descend like the folds of the gowns worn by the matrons.84

Geometria’s pose is one of investigation with her eyes directed to the Ionic volute.

Reinforcing this nomenclature of the figure is Barbaro’s stated privileged relationship between Geometria and the Ionic volute in his Proemio saying:

The art of measuring is known as Geometry [Geometria] . . . And Geometry (Geometria) is no less useful to drawing and to practice, through its virtue and its power, as can be seen in the volute of the Ionic capital, in the division of the metope and triglyph in the Doric order, & in many other proportions and measures.85

231 In this quotation the Ionic volute is the primary indicator of the importance given to

Geometria in the architect’s practices. It also draws attention to Barbaro’s inclusion of the construction of the Ionic volute drawn by Giuseppe Porta as an addendum to his

Vitruvian commentary in its first edition.86

Interpreting this figure on the attic as Geometria focuses the reader’s attention on the dual nature of measure, a fundamental attribute of both the intellectual and the practical problems of architecture. As stated earlier, Geometria wears the clothing of an active craftsman and depicts notions of the virtue of labour but her face is portrayed as contemplative with a fixed gaze on the problem before her: the hair and its possible transformation into architectural form. Her problem is not only one of deciphering the geometry of a natural object but it is a problem also of understanding causes and the relationship between nature, representation and architecture. This attribute directed the reader’ attention to Barbaro’s insistence on associating Architettura with science and inquiry and his Aristotelian training with its requirement to develop concepts as an intellectual activity built from active study. In this, the symbolisation of Geometria reinforces Barbaro’s concepts.

This interpretation is supported when compared with that of

Giuseppe Porta’s image on the verso of the frontispiece.Figure 47 The scene is a depiction of disarray driven through an inability to act, brought on by an excess of Melancholia, destabilising creative impulses. The scene is one where the commensurability between the signifier (object) and the signified (concept) is not portrayed. In the illustration, objects lie as reflections of chaos rather than drawing reference to their inherent order. In the background Figure 47 Detail, Giuseppi Porta, Frontispiece verso, I behind the main figure the portico of Ionic order reinforced the deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati scene’s melancholic atmosphere. While many in the da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556

232 Renaissance has seen the Ionic as associated with the contemplative life of a scholar or associated with learning suggested that the Ionic order was the

Melancholic order in his De of 1509.87 Although the attributes of

Melancholia included the qualities of Saturn with “humor melancholicus” able to result in a man suddenly becoming “a [natural] philosopher, a physician or a [political] orator” versed in the ability to foretell the future, it could also lead to intellectual impotence and the inability to see the relevance of knowledge.88 The inclusion of this depiction in the verso and the abstraction of the origin of the Ionic volute in the frontispiece highlight the difference able to be aroused when portraying the origins and later purposes given to specific emblems.

These two illustrations, the frontispiece and its verso, when analysed together are consistent with Barbaro’s warnings against experiential understanding unless it is located in a structured framework of higher intellectual order – an attitude reflecting the

Platonic notion of pure philosophical impulse.89 For Barbaro, eloquence of architectural knowledge came through the logic and rationality of Geometria, not as a depiction of the contemplative but impotent Melancholia, but through the ability of Geometria to transform sources from nature into geometric and architectural order through knowledge of the logic of precise measure as revealed to the intellect.90

Musica

The second figure from the left on the attic level is Musica. Her attributes are more easily recognised as she holds a viola and Figure 48 Detail of Musica, gazes toward the celestial realm.Figure 48 Vitruvius had said, “The Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. architect should know Music in order to have a grasp of canonical Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, and mathematical reason and, besides that, to calibrate ballistae, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556

233 catapults and scorpiones.”91 Barbaro extends this in his Vitruvian commentary to consider Musica as representing the notion of commensurability in music of sensory perception of played music and understandings of abstracted or conceptual order in the

‘harmony’ of the spheres. This commensurability was most evident in Music but a notion also evident in architecture. For Barbaro, Musica at a fundamental level encapsulated knowledge of the mathematical relationships of sounds that were congruous with the mathematical relationships of architectural elements in composition.

The source of these relationships emerged from celestial order or the order of the heavens and the harmony of souls and of bodies. He said,

Vitruvius demonstrates that Musica is useful to the architect both in reason and in practice. . . . Mathematics truly leaves the sense behind and elevates itself to the contemplation of resonant numbers and to the ways, the ideas and the manners of songs, and of the possible combinations and times of the syllables, and perhaps rising even higher it considers the human and mundane order of the heavens, & the harmony of souls and of bodies . . . It is certain in Musica that equality in sound demonstrates equality in space, and that the proportions found between spaces are found also between sounds and even if sound is the same in one or the other arm, it follows that the nerve that needs to be in tension to make the sound is the same in each arm, from this the good quality of the instrument, the correct setting of the arrow and the direct and certain aim that archers and crossbow archers practice each day are born.92

For Barbaro, the depiction of Musica was a metaphor for the harmony of celestial order because it considered both “the human and mundane order of the heavens and the harmony of souls and bodies.”93 This is a Platonic concept of the reflection of the celestial realm and those of the human soul in the corporeal world of matter.94 The congruity seen between Musica and architecture as representations of celestial order is reinforced in Vitruvius’s discussion on the design of a theatre where he shows the architectural equivalence of the musical division of the constellation:

The form of a theatre is to be adjusted so that from the centre of the dimension allotted to the base of the perimeter, a circle is to be described, in which are

234 inscribed four equilateral triangles, at equal distance from each other, whose points are to touch the circumference of the circle. This is the method also practiced by astrologers in describing the twelve celestial signs according to the musical division of the constellation.95

The representation of Musica in Barbaro’s frontispiece depicts commensurability in architecture. This points to a compendium of architectural knowledge that is both conceptual as well as sensory, intellectual as well as practical. In the illustration of the frontispiece

Musica looks upward, reflecting higher intellectual inspiration, but is dressed in the

manner of a craftsman, reinforcing the Figure 49 Detail of musical instrumenta and scorpion, Frontispiece verso, Giuseppi Porta, I distinctiveness of the difference between the deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556 abstract and conceptual notion of mathematical relationships evident in harmonic sounds and architectural order and the sensory perceptions of played music or experienced architecture.

This interpretation is also reinforced through comparison with Giuseppe Porta’s illustration on the verso of the frontispiece. Here musical instruments lie unused under the table of the Herculean figure. They have been ignored by the figure as he transfixes his gaze to the armillary sphere on the table in front of him. The illustration reinforces the notion that musical instruments and their sounds cannot in themselves lead to an understanding of the concepts of proportion and harmony necessary for architectural knowledge. A scorpion, depicted poised ready to attack the Herculean figure is located on the shaft of a harp as though it represents a reminder of the immanent danger of forgetting the important concept referred to by Vitruvius in allusions to the objects at his feet.Figure 49

235 Astrologia

The third figure from the left on the attic level is Astrologia.Figure 50

While Luciana Miotto has interpreted this figure as Aritmetica the depiction of an astrolabe quadrant in her hand clearly gives her attributes of Astrologia.96 She holds the astrolabe quadrant in her right hand, pointing to it with her left hand and gazes toward the ground below in the direction of the figure in the niche that holds an armillary sphere. An additional attribute of this figure is that she wears the clothes of a scholar providing her with allusions of contemplative study. Figure 50 Detail of Astrologia, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri In his Vitruvian commentary, Barbaro points out the dual purposes dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et of knowledge emerging from the study of Astrologia. For him it is commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: not only the study of the movement of the sun but the relationships Marcolini, 1556 and order of the planets and stars that allow the construction of systems of order in the corporeal world. He said,

One of the principal components of architecture [as we will see in the third chapter of Book I] concerns the sun’s shadows and what is needed to make sundials. This part is called Gnomonics, because it can impart a wider and greater knowledge than what can be obtained from Euclid, and the ninth book of Vitruvius is replete with such knowledge, as well as that other part of Astrology concerned with the elevations and the distances of the planets and the stars for which the Astrolabe was invented. Architecture has no use for that other part, based on the stars ascendant at our birth, which comprises what will happen in the future, unless we want to find out some secret quality in a site, the understanding of which we can only obtain from the order and influence of the planets. Many turn birthdays and orbits into principles for building cities but for the love of architecture, it is not within reason to bring in such dubious and useless knowledge.97

236 In this statement Barbaro clearly separated the ideas of Astrologia from those of the horoscope using the term ‘astrology’ to stand for a study of celestial order through instruments such as the astrolabe.

Barbaro had been well educated in the study of the sun’s movements and had included a study of the movement of the sun in Book IX of the Vitruvian commentary. He had also made various astrolabes, sundials and clocks for his own study.98 Astrologia held the key to understanding the celestial order revealed in the relationships of the planets and stars and the movement of the sun that could be revealed in physical terms in architecture.

The illustration of the astrolabe in both the frontispiece and its verso could be a reference to the depiction of the ‘Astronomer’ in the frontispiece to Johannes Angelus’s, Astrolabium planum printed in Venice in 1494 or illustrations in Gregor Reisch’s Figure 51 Ptolemy and Astrologia, Gregor Reisch’s Margarita Philosophica first printed in Strasbourg in1504.Figure Margarita Philosophica, Strasbourg, 1504. Digitized image from Giancarlo Truffa, 51 In Angelus’s illustration Ptolomy, depicted as a bearded see The Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy Cambridge: Cambridge man, gazes into an armillary sphere while an astrolabe lies on University Press, 1997, ed., M. Hoskin. the ground.99 In Reisch’s depiction of Astrologia,

Ptolemy holds an astrolabe and is guided by the personification of Astronomia in his study of celestial order.

The allusion in this emblem is reinforced through an examination of the image of the verso that has a number of astrological emblems. Here, the Figure 52 Detail of reversed astrolabe Herculean figure gazes without comprehension into quadrant, Frontispiece verso, Giuseppi Porta, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556.

237 an armillary sphere, his lack of comprehension being visibly reinforced through other emblems of the illustration. The clumsy reverse attachment of the astrolabe nailed to the tower in the background and the addition of the figure of the astrological cycle in the left mid-ground draw attention to this characteristics for the image.Figure 52

The astrolabe quadrant has become unusable with its numbers depicted in reverse. In a similar set of symbols, ‘Melancholia I’ by Albrecht Dürer represented a ‘magic square’ with the numbers jumbled.100 This deliberate haphazardness calls attention to the contentious nature of astrological studies during the Renaissance with the elevation to

‘science’ of the study of horoscopes by people such as Luca Gaurico and more significantly, an associate of Daniele Barbaro, John Dee in England.101 In the frontispiece and Vitruvian commentary, Barbaro is clearly separating himself from such collusions aiming instead to clarify the quality of Astrologia that reflects Vitruvian notions of the signifier and the signified.

Barbaro’s desire to suggest specific meaning for the idea of Astrologia is further reinforced with other elements in the image in the verso where a Saturn like figure is pointing his finger toward an empty zodiac or astrological cycle with its central spoke aimed to the winter phase of the cycle.102 Marco Frascari has suggested that this figure has some similar characteristics to Saturn depicted as Kronos in Giulio

Campagnola’s engraving of the early 1500s.103 Saturn depicted as Kronos reinforced the idea of the negative attributes of Melancholia for the image and it pointed to the notion that Astrologia was problematic for the Renaissance reader. While Saturn symbolised those men gifted in concrete mental images rather than abstract philosophical concepts through their contemplation and investigation of celestial order, he could also signify notions of impoverished action through the intellectual and intuitive impotence derived from Melancholia.104 In the image in the verso to the frontispiece of the Vitruvian commentary Barbaro clearly wished to warn the reader about the disasters facing those who rely on misinformed study of the zodiac for their

238 knowledge of celestial order. He warned that an emphasis on the study of Astrologia at this level will lead to the destruction of society, a destruction shown as equivalent to the destruction caused by war as illustrated in the destruction surrounding the Herculean figure.

Aritmetica

The figure on the right of the attic level is Aritmetica.Figure 53 Her distinguishing characteristics are the squared ruler and her clothing as a scholar. Her gaze is directed diagonally downward to focus on the measuring rod of Architettura in the arch below. 105 For Barbaro,

Aritmetica’s importance lay in her dealing with the relations and ratios made from associations of real numbers. Unlike the compasses that can develop geometric ratios reducible into irrational numbers, the Figure 53 Detail of Aritmetica, squared ruler is concerned with those proportions that develop from Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio whole numbers. Extending this, the illustration of the squared ruler tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: signifies the tool that transforms this concept into drawing (disegni). Marcolini, 1556

Barbaro explains the significance of Aritmetica saying,

The unlearned believe that those practices born of Mathematics that we have mentioned above are real, virtuous and most excellent arts, it is not this way because they do not give the reason behind things but shows us only delightful and beautiful effects. Virtue (as I have said) embraces principal and less principal [arts] as we see in Arithmetic, & in the aforementioned reasons behind Geometry and drawing. But, to penetrate more deeply, beyond the practice of enumeration … Arithmetic is useful in demonstrating the reason behind measurements, and to dissolve those doubts that are insoluble for Geometry, like, as he demonstrates in the ninth book, Plato, Pythagoras and Archimedes have found many admirable things. And it is true what Plato says about those who are by nature arithmetical, that they are apt for any discipline because they have, in themselves, an elevated

239 and ready spirit. But why does Vitruvius touch on these forms of knowledge, on these contemplations and on these practices? For no other reason than to demonstrate what he has said previously, that we must seek discorso and fabrica, the signifier and the signified.

Thus Aritmetica not only enabled the architect to point to the origins of any arithmetic proportion but also enabled the depiction of that proportion in lines and points. This validated cause, or the signified, and enabled it to be interpreted and portrayed as integral to objects. Statements reflecting these sentiments can be found in The

Timaeus where Plato says:

The best of bonds is that which makes itself and those which it binds as complete a unity as possible; and the nature of proportion is to accomplish this most perfectly. For when of any three numbers, whether expressing three or two dimensions, one is a middle term, so that as the first is to the middle, so the middle is to the last; and conversely as the last is to the middle, so the middle is to the first; that since the middle becomes the first and last, and the last and the first both become the middle, of necessity all will come to be the same, and being the same one with another all will be unity.106

Barbaro borrows from Platonic sources for his understanding of principles without finding it necessary to conform to all Platonic ideas to the point of rejecting the worth of the material world. An example that unifies Barbaro’s description of Aritmetica with

Plato’s text is the continuous proportion 4:6::6:9 that can be reversed or interchanged allowing the ratio to remain the same.107 Barbaro’s text is not drawing a distinction between Platonic and Aristotelian understanding of mathematics but rather emphasising the importance of Aritmetica for the creation of conceptual or ideal order in its architecture in the space of the city. While the tools of Aritmetica are included in the Giuseppe Porta image on the verso they are portrayed as of no consequence or use in their context. They lie discarded on a sloping ledge, a place unsuitable for accurate calculation and accurate delineation.

240 5.2.2.ii The figures in the niches:

In past interpretations of the frontispiece, the figure in the left niche has been attributed the name of either Theory or Astrology.108 The figure on the right has been interpreted as Practice, Experientia or Prudenza.109 However, these attributes can be questioned because of the emblems held by the figures are not typical of such characterisations.

Other attributions can be supported by depictions of the distinctive emblems for these concepts, in the frontispiece illustration being consistent with Barbaro’s discussion in his text of concepts related to Architettura. In this section I will provide evidence for their attributions as personifications of Scienza on the left and Intelletto on the right.Figure

54

Figure 54 Composite details of Scienza and Intelletto, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556

Barbaro discussed the nature of the architectural design act as an intellectual, rational and scientific endeavour in his Proemio to Book I of his Vitruvian commentary.110 The original text of Vitruvius had not developed such an approach to the discussion of the architect’s practices but maintained a focus on construction or technical details of architectural practice. However, Barbaro’s concepts extend those of Vitruvius by the

241 inclusion of attitudes more relevant to the sixteenth century and it is these concepts that are relevant to an interpretation of the two figures in the niches of the triumphal arch.

In his Proemio, Barbaro introduced the notion of habitus with regard to concepts of the intellect and the will. Paolo Morachiello suggests that for Barbaro the term habitus has an Aristotelian source and refers to the actions emanating “from an acquired perfect state or condition.”111 Barbaro suggested that these actions or ‘habits’ could influence the intellect in three ways depending on their origins: those stemming from opinion, those from ignorance, and those from truth. Barbaro focused his discussion on those

‘habits’ stemming from truth and separated notions of ‘necessary truth’ or “that which is concluded through true and certain reason,” “grasped through proof” and “composed of the proof of the thing proven,” from notions of ‘contingent truth’ that are not ‘necessary’ but dependent on will.112 For ‘necessary truth’ Barbaro characterised three substantive

‘habits’ of Scienza, Intelletto and Sapienza.113 He says:

The first habit is called Scienza, which is a conclusion acquired through true and necessary proof. The second habit is known as Intelletto, which is of principles and of proofs and which retains the name of the power of the soul where it is found. . . . The third type of habit is Sapienza that is the quick and ready consciousness of proofs applied to conclusions.114

The habits of Scienza, Intelletto and Sapienza form a trilogy with which visual attributes of the three figures in the frontispiece are consistent. The figures in the niches display many characteristics consistent with Barbaro’s explanation of the attributes of Scienza and Intelletto as associated with Architettura while the figure in the centre of the frontispiece is consistent with an image of Architettura as Sapienza. While the first two concepts derive from intellectual activity, the third transforms these into action. For

Barbaro, these three concepts would be the source-contingencies forming ‘necessary truth’ that would in turn influence the intellectual purpose of the architect’s activities. In his discussions these notions of ‘necessary truth’ were separable from issues of

242 theology and dependence of God-given talent and inspiration suggesting that architecture, as a discipline, had a distinctive source of knowledge that was different to that suggested by religious theology.115

Scienza

Scienza, the figure in the left hand niche, holds an open set of compasses with points directed upward and open suggesting an association with the quadrivium on the attic level and/or beyond to the celestial realm.Figure 55 She has been represented as an old woman in full robes, those of a scholar, not the robes of craft where the arms and breasts are exposed.116 A wrap covers her hair hiding any physical beauty Figure 55 Detail of Scienza, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio 117 and Daniele Barbaro, I deci and reinforcing a focus on her other characteristics. Her libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto body emphasizes the direction of the compasses with the Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556 index finger of her right hand pointing toward the compasses and with her gaze following their upward direction. These gestures signify the contemplative study of the intellect, of understanding the potentials of the compasses rather than their application to actively investigating nature and proportions.

Support for the interpretation of the figure as Scienza comes through Barbaro’s conception of Architettura’s association with the intellectual processes of Scienza.

Barbaro had separated all practices of art from being manifestations of ‘necessary truth’ saying:

And just as the sharpness of divine intelligence penetrates into the centre of all things so truth can be found once more through the reawakening of an intellect which is versed in many sciences and is cognisant of many principles: and these are the habits of the intellect that we find around necessary truth: that is around that

243 truth that cannot be, that could not be found in those who we have found are versed in the habits of that which we call Art.118

However, for Barbaro, the location of Art amongst the manifestations of ‘contingent truth’ did not reduce its requirement for wisdom through Scienza because the invenzione demanded of Art, required both knowledge and understanding of principles as well as the experience of practice.119 In an extension of this thought Barbaro links the personification of Architettura with Scienza and thus ‘necessary truth,’ giving it the highest status of the Arts because of its reliance on Geometria, Matematica and the other sciences of the quadrivium:

Where it occurs that some arts have more science than others this is the way to know which of the Arts is more worthy. The great ones are those that require the art of numbers, Geometry and the other Mathematics, those that remain without these arts are (as Plato says) base and abject . . . . And this is where the dignity of Architecture appears; who approves and judges those works performed by the other Arts.120

In these terms Scienza is thus a philosophical principle related to the rational logic of proofs that determine ideal principles of Architettura rather than the manifestations of real buildings. Scienza represents a visual documentation of the transfer of knowledge from principles to corporeal reality by gazing skyward but pointing to her compasses.

By this action she suggests that it is through the workings of the compasses in architectural speculation that the architect understands principles and forms judgments rather than through transmission from the Divine.

The orientation and positioning given to the compasses and the depiction of old age in her face and figure are attributes that provide evidence against more general interpretations of this figure. In one such interpretation, Annarita Angelini cites Achille

Bocchi’s 1555 symbol CXXIIII la Medietas as possible source for this figure’s interpretation as Theorica.121 In Bocchi’s illustration a female figure points skyward to a cloud where God sits with his universe of celestial beings. With her other hand she

244 holds compasses pointed to the ground drawing circular shapes. Other geometric figures are scattered on the ground. However, in the frontispiece to Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary the compasses are not being used as instruments for drawing and cannot represent a notion of transference in this manner. Other interpretations of illustrations done later in the century suggest that the attribute of the opened compasses attached to the head or in a raised hand represent personifications of ‘Theory’ as a higher order of human activity.122 The positioning of compasses has been the focus of Elizabeth

Cropper’s study of early seventeenth-century iconography in the work of Pietro

Testa.123 In this representation, the open compasses are attached to the head of a young woman and pointing heavenward. Her youth symbolising the necessary agility of mind necessary for concepts of ‘Theory.’ Cropper suggested that this image reflected the workings of ‘Theory’ from the universal to the particular, a process associated with youth because of the necessity for “agility, promptitude, ardour, life, hope and happiness.”124

In the frontispiece to Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary, the gesture of the opened compasses in themselves cannot be seen to signify ‘Theory’ but the figure could be a precursor to the personification of ‘Theory.’ Palladio’s image for Barbaro’s frontispiece is of an old woman who points to instruments of investigation and focuses on the symbols of the quadrivium in a contemplative gaze. Rather than represent attributes of

‘Theory’ her age suggests other concepts that conform to Barbaro’s text. For Barbaro, the characteristic of wisdom was the ability to teach, “he who understands reason, can teach and make another like himself.”125 The representation of Scienza in the frontispiece conforms to the maturity and wisdom of the teacher.

245 Intelletto

Just as the figure on the left shows conformity with Barbaro’s notion of Scienza and its relation to ‘necessary truth,’ the figure on the right hand niche shows conformity with the second substantive ‘habit’ of ‘necessary truth,’ Intelletto.Figure 56 For an explanation of Intelletto Barbaro stated,

Therefore, to be able to conclude many things from one’s own, the proper [i propri] principles (which is none other than having Science) one must first acquire Intellect: that is the habit that knows principles, which here I would like to call Understanding,126 so as not to confuse the terminologies of

things: because intellect is what we call the power and virtue Figure 56 Detail of Intelletto, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio of the soul that understands: and understanding is the and Daniele Barbaro, I deci 127 libri dell’architettura di M. operation/use or habit of that power. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, For Barbaro, the concept of Intelletto relied on the dual nature of Venezia: Marcolini, 1556

“principles and proofs that retain the name of the power of the soul,” that is causes or first principles, and of the operational use of those principles in the service of man.128

In his Proemio, Barbaro had suggested that ‘habits’ could be divided into those depending on intellect and those depending on will. The text is quite emphatic that

Architettura relying on actions of will, cannot belong to the typology of ‘necessary truth’, a concept that required rational principles and proof. Barbaro suggested that

Architettura as a discipline combined both the requirements of rational principles and those of will, and relied on the development of judgment through the training of the will.

This he reiterated was largely achieved through maturity and of Prudenza, a necessary component of Intelletto. While having many of the attributes of Prudenza, the figure with its combination of emblems goes beyond symbolising this virtue. Barbaro said:

Art is the habit found in the mind, which disposes it towards doing and operating on those things useful in life according to rule and reason: just as Prudenza is the habit

246 which disposes the intellect to regulate will in those things which are useful to unity and to the good of the republic, and to the family and to oneself.129

In Arts such as Architettura, Prudenza was understood as an essential attribute for acknowledging the regulation of its actions for social good.

Conforming to this inclusion of Prudenza in its attributes, the representation of Intelletto has the face of a young woman but the back of her head incorporates the face of an old man, a double-headed Janus figure.130 In one of her more traditional guises

Prudenza has the head of a young woman gazing into a mirror representing virtue or wise conduct while the face of the old man, the emblem of the wisdom gained with time, sits on the back of her head.131 This notion of wisdom gained over time has in other representations also been portrayed as a snake.132 Andrea Alciati had included ten emblems on Prudenza in his Emblematum liber of 1549 that would have been known to Barbaro and Palladio.133 In Emblem 18, Prudentes has the epigram,

Janus, you who have been provided with two faces, you know the past and the future; and since you see what is offered to you, you can mock what has happened, Why have you been depicted with so many faces? It is perhaps because a strong and wise man should be such that at the same time he can see the present and the future.134

Instead of conforming to the personification of Prudenza where the figure’s young face gazes into a mirror or speculum, the figure in Barbaro and Palladio’s frontispiece looks into an armillary sphere. Marco Frascari interprets this emblem as representing a speculum nature or mirror of nature.135 He suggests a possible source is the tarot card set by Andrea Mantegna where his representation of Figure 57 attributed to Andrea Mantegna, Tarocchi di Mantegna, Figure 57 see Rafal Prinke, “Mantegna’s Prudencia holds a speculum showing her reflection. Prints in Tarot History, Manteia, 4(1990), 9. With the addition of the armillary sphere emblem the

247 personification of Intelletto is made more intricate.

She incorporates notions of action for social good emerging from knowledge of prudent action where the understandings of the principles of natural cause can be represented in the social fabric such as architecture.

Annarita Angelini suggested that the downward and upward gazes of the faces of

Intelletto and its source in Prudenza give each figure the double meaning of universal theory and earth bound action.136 However, in the frontispiece there is a distinct separation between the old contemplative figure of Scienza looking up and the young figure of Intelletto looking down.

Having such reminders in the allegorical figures of the frontispiece provides the reader with a key to the complex nature of the dual requirements of ‘contingent truths’ in Barbaro’s propositions on

Architettura. He said,

But Vitruvius wants experience to be accompanied by knowledge. . . . We understand that there are two types of experience, one that precedes art: that comes before one acquires Art . . . The other type is that which we find

in ourselves and is excited or awakened Figure 58 Verso of Frontispiece, Attributed to Giuseppe Porta, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et 137 by Art. commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556 Here, the interconnectedness and interdependent nature of each concept is confirmed.

For Barbaro these concepts inextricably underpin an understanding of the complex characteristics of Architettura.

248 Comparing Scienza and Intelletto with the image on the versoFigure 58

The characteristics of Scienza and Intelletto have been reinforced through the depiction of the opposite sentiments in Giuseppe Porta’s image on the verso to the frontispiece. In this illustration the Herculean figure in the foreground brings together the symbols of the astrolabe and the compasses. However, his distinctive characteristics highlight the destructive consequences of an unbalanced approach to the Figure 59 Symbol CXII (CX), Achille Bocchi, Symbolicarum Quaestionum de knowledge of architecture. An explanation of this is universo genre quas serio ludebat libri quinque, Bononiae, in aedibus Novae made clear when the image is compared with Achille Academiae Bocchianae, 1555, See Elizabeth Watson, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as Symbolic Form, 138 Bocchi’s illustration of Hercules and Atlas of 1555. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 134. In that illustration, the figures symbolise the dual aspects of knowledge with each portraying attributes of opposite modes of inquiry, investigative and contemplative.

Hercules examines an armillary sphere with compasses while Atlas examines it with the aid of a book.Figure 59 In this image Atlas is the contemplative astrologer focused on study through rhetoric and pre-ordained knowledge emphasising eloquence attained through scholarly learning whereas Hercules represents vigour of mind, wisdom and magnanimity attained through active study.139 In the emblem book Achilli Bocchi questioned the worth of each form of knowledge “Atlas studying a book about the stars or Hercules measuring the universe with a compass?”140 Bocchi’s lemma VIRTUS

OMNIS EST IN ACTIONE LAUS suggested that the glory of all virtue is in the performance rather than the path taken.141

However, Barbaro’s message, supported by a comparison between Giuseppe Porta’s verso image and Palladio’s frontispiece, is quite different. In Giuseppe Porta’s image the Herculean figure gazes in a Melancholic pose with no clear transference of

249 knowledge through understanding of its purpose for his own requirements.142 Here physical performance without understanding of the rigor of logic and the structure and purpose of knowledge has resulted in destruction. By contrast Palladio’s frontispiece presents a representation of the rigorous approach to knowledge in the symmetrical opposition and interrelatedness of Scienza and Intelletto and their reflection in the arts of the quadrivium. This representation of order portrayed the role of rational knowledge and intellectual processes in the maturity of action for the good of society. As stated earlier, Barbaro had said, “Prudenza . . . disposes the intellect to regulate will in those things which are useful to unity and to the good of the republic, and to the family and to oneself.”143 The emblems of the figures of Scienza and Intelletto in the frontispiece show that for the architect the double foci of active investigation and contemplative scholarship are needed for action ‘useful to unity and to the good of the republic’ and their symmetry suggests that they must both be utilised equally if good action is to ensue.

5.2.3 The Central Figure of Architettura:

The figure forming the central focus of the frontispiece is the figure of Architettura, depicted in a scale disproportionately large when compared with other figures.Figure 60 She has many attributes consistent with the allegorical figure of Sapienza or Wisdom emphasised in the depiction of young Vulcan, the sun-god medallion and her crown and sceptre, but equally, she has attributes of Matematica as her sceptre is portrayed as a

144 Figure 60 Detail of Architettura, measuring rod. She stands on a circular pedestal that Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et has a frieze of garlands and mascaron faces, emblems commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556.

250 heightening her importance. Her scale if compared with the dimensions of the Arch of

Ancona makes her almost three times human scale at approximately nineteen Roman feet.

Barbaro describes in Book I, Chapter I of his Vitruvian commentary the attributes of

Architettura as informed through mathematics especially arithmetic and geometry.

Barbaro said,

We can say that the Architect is not a maker, not a carpenter, not a bricklayer, and determined craftsman, but the chief who regulates and supervises the artisans: those who have not yet risen to a higher level, who has no previous experience in various doctrines and works. In supervising, therefore, he demonstrates, draws, distributes, orders, and commands. In these offices the dignity of Architecture appears alongside Wisdom (Sapienza) & resides as an heroic virtue amongst the Arts; because only she [Architecture] understands reason; only she embraces what is high and beautiful. Only she, amongst all the arts, belongs to the most exact sciences, like Arithmetic and Geometry, and those others, without which (as has been said) every art is base and not worthy of esteem.145

This explanation highlights the purpose for including emblems related to Sapienza or

‘rationality of the intellect’ that is gained through Matematica in its combination of

Aritmetica and Geometria as attributes of Architettura.146

For Barbaro, Sapienza had, in this context, been explained as “the quick and ready consciousness of proofs applied to conclusions.”147 This concept reinforced in

Architettura its essential indebtedness to the “intellect that is versed in many Sciences and is cognizant of many principles.”148 The manifestation of Sapienza in Architettura appeared necessary for the architect to make judgments informed by knowledge of the quadrivium but also intellectual wisdom, knowledge and agility of Scienza and Intelletto in his intellectual process. For this reason Barbaro had presented Architettura dominant amongst the arts.

251 Architettura gestures with her measuring rod, to the depiction of the triumphal arch, an act reinforcing attributes of Matematica and the necessity of the exact science in architecture. The triumphal arch is depicted through orthographia, a technique that documents the accuracy of Architettura’s arithmetic and geometric exactness.

Matematica was seen by Barbaro to have distinctive power because of its connection with principles and concepts. He said,

But Dante called the knowledge of this kind of truth the first notion and that truth, that first truth the Philosophers like to call first concepts or Dignities149 or Maxims. Mathematics, in particular, has drawn strength and vigour from this habit (habitus) called intellect because first notions are most manifest in it, & though they are of small quantity their value is inestimable.150

Such an important gesture in the figure of Architettura, linking back to Intelletto and

Scienza and to their notion of causes, is reinforced with the figure’s gaze as she looks toward the triumphal arch. The gesture of the fingers of her right hand also signify a conduit of meaning between Matematica and Sapienza in Architettura, her index finger points to the measuring rod and her second finger points to the sun-god at her breast.

The clearly structured message of Architettura is reinforced through portrayal of the opposite message in the Giuseppe Porta’s image on the verso of the frontispiece.

Here the Herculean figure is surrounded by disorder and chaos in a depiction of the destructive attributes of an excess of Melancholia rendering him impotent and unable to act. Even though the perception of a higher order of learning, as Panofsky explained, gave the Melancholic a consciousness of its own creative capacity it also often highlighted a sphere of unachievable knowledge, beyond reach. Panofsky explained, “Her’s is the inertia of a being which renounces what it could reach because it cannot reach for what it longs.”151 Rather than the clarity of thought and the processes ‘animated by pure philosophical impulse’ - of translation from knowledge to action - portrayed in the frontispiece as essential to Architettura this image shows its figure’s demise through lack of understanding.

252 5.3 Interpreting the ‘architect’ in Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary

For Daniele Barbaro the fundamental context for Architettura was its philosophical source that not only motivated prudent action but understandings of the purpose of architecture for social good. In the frontispiece Architettura was based on concepts of

‘necessary truths’ and ‘contingent truths,’ with the role of Scienza and Intelletto

(through maturity in Prudenza) being the source for revealing the good ‘habits’

(habitus) associated with practice. In architecture these were ‘habits’ emanating from an understanding of the role of the quadrivium and trivium in the specific development of concepts and processes in design. The converse of this understanding is shown in the verso image to the frontispiece where a fixation on individual objects is without gleaning understanding of their purpose to a holistic notion of order. Giuseppe Porta’s illustration depicts the result of this lack of understanding as an inability to solve the immediacy of social causes bringing destruction and dystopia. The explicitness of these structured and analytically framed divisions of conceptual order portrayed in the frontispiece were fundamental to all aspects of the illustration including the orthographic projection of its architectural frame. As a drawing type, the orthogonal elevation removed the complexity and spatiality of a perspectival view that could introduce differences in interpretation. By using the technique of the orthographic, the rigorousness of architectural invenzione could be presented in its most explicit form – a form based on rhetorically correct allusion to an ideal cosmic order rather than to the lesser material-world experience.

Barbaro clearly presented a rigorously structured notion of the processes necessary for good architectural speculation to take place. Unlike Serlio’s frontispieces that confirmed the complexities of personal judgment, Barbaro, as patrician involved in the governance of the Venetian state, wished to see clearly constructed intellectual processes for all forms of cultural invenzione and social action. Barbaro’s Vitruvian

253 commentary had transformed both in text and illustration the complexities of the sixteenth-century interpretations of Vitruvius into a comprehensible, eloquent and rhetorically definitive exegesis on the role of the sixteenth-century architect and his knowledge for application in civil society.

Manuela Morresi claimed that Barbaro’s treatise set up the idea of the architect as a metaphor for the politician and that, consistent with this metaphor, architecture became

“an instrument of government for a Republic which is bene instituta (well founded).”152

This idea had its source in writings of Aristotle who brought the figure of the architect and that of the ‘politician’ together.153 Manfredo Tafuri has instead expressed that the metaphor related to architecture as concept rather than the architect as its social functionary. Tafuri had explicitly stated with regard to Barbaro’s text: “the entire discourse concerns architecture, but not the architect.”154

In his study of Barbaro’s political engagement with Venice, Manfredo Tafuri gave as explanation of Barbaro’s conceptualisation and attitude to architecture, the suggestion that the metaphor not only brought into focus Barbaro’s Aristotelian training but also that Vitruvius’s triad of proportio, eurythmia and symmetria could be interpreted as the image of good government.155 However, neither Tafuri nor Morresi have attempted to show how their assertions emerged in Barbaro’s text or illustrations. Tafuri came closest suggesting that the metaphor brought together Barbaro’s Aristotelian and

Platonic interests by presenting Aristotelian concepts of tecnica (technique and technology) and nature with Plato’s concept of the beautiful. This, he said, was reflected in Barbaro’s presentation of architecture as absorbing superior mathematical truths translated into harmonic proportions, a concept that provided a “consonant structure to plurality,” one that in turn brought “harmony to a well-established republic.”156 These sentiments repeat an earlier conclusion where Tafuri stated:

The symmetry established by Aristotle between architecture and politia is echoed in Barbaro’s words. Reason governs civil society through custom and learned

254 technical skills, and it keeps society unified, defending it from corruption caused by time. . . . Planning rationality – albeit based on principia – is upheld.157

Tafuri interpreted notions of principia and politia as highlighting the double coding of both Platonic and Aristotelian thought in Barbaro’s writing. But, how the metaphoric power of these rhetorical devices is established in Barbaro’s text or his illustrations has not been revealed.

The frontispiece portrays consistency with these interpretations. Barbaro’s conceptualisation of the architect became a societal figure focused through his intellectual cognition of philosophically organised processes. For Barbaro, the compendium of knowledge required by the architect was abstracted and compartmental. It could be ordered into a logical structure, a structure that reflected the logic of eloquence in rhetoric and perfection of the politician in governance.158 This is a distinctive move away from the Vitruvian text. For Vitruvius, ideas defining the architect focused on the capacity to explain the formation of built form in the mind of the architect. Barbaro, in his text and the allegorical narrative of the frontispiece, has taken this idea as a starting point but extended it to show how the theoretical processes of the architect are structured.

The most significant contribution that the frontispiece provided for the role of the architect is that it indicated a distinctive attitude to the reformation of knowledge in

Architettura and its social function. Barbaro presented a restructuring of knowledge thoroughly grounded in Neo-Platonic and Aristotelian teaching. However, he used these sources without the then current need to reflect on the formation of all knowledge based on Christianised principles. This enabled the architect to be in control of a discrete compendium of knowledge controlled by the intellect of man rather than the

Divine. By seeing Architettura and the architect as indebted to philosophy for their compendium of knowledge and its structuring, Barbaro distanced the civil organisation of the Republic from the dominance of religion.

255 Barbaro had alluded to the power of Architettura in his speculation about knowledge twice in his Proemio. The first allusion is in his presentation of the parallel nature of government with conceptual thought in Architettura and collections of knowledge that can be ordered under or determined by that thought. Barbaro said,

Because just as we can conceive in our minds the multitude of subjects under one prince so do many concepts of art refer to one principle. And this is why the inventors of things are worthy of great praise, those who have found the principles without skimping on effort, principles from which the completion and perfection of the arts is achieved, where one can say that a good start is half the work.159

The second time in his Proemio that Barbaro suggests the power of Architettura is in his discussion of the separation of knowledge that structures creative acts dedicated to the “use of mortals” away from religious doctrines and theological dictates. By forming this compendium of distinctions and commonalities Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary and Palladio’s frontispiece visualise, through text and illustration, the way that conceptual thought (architectural or governmental) dedicated to the “commodity and use of mortals with dignity and greatness,” could be analysed and known. Barbaro had said,

I will not discuss those Arts and doctrines which are inspired by God, like our Christian Theology, because it is not our aim to find all that which is contained under the name of Art: because it is not to our intention so I will leave those divinations which are a mixture of divine inspiration and human invention. Those that are to our present need are those that serve the commodity and use of mortals with dignity and greatness.160

This distancing of those activities that are a “mixture of divine inspiration and human invention” allowed the conceptualisation of Architettura to conform to a type of scientific logic that for Barbaro corresponded to notions of ‘good government’ and ‘rhetorical eloquence.’161

Manfredo Tafuri had pointed out the web of political, intellectual and religious circumstances in Venice that made Barbaro’s dialectic reading of architecture a

256 requirement in the process of re-conceptualisation and renewal of the political structures of the Venetian republic. But, more than this, Barbaro is depicting the concept of the architect as a collectively understood term, indebted to the logical structure and rational order of its knowledge, a discipline founded on the status of its intellectual processes derived from ‘pure philosophical impulse.’ This changed the meaning of the term from focusing on the individual context of ‘architects,’ working in their specific courts or with patrons, to a term representing a compendium of knowledge and intellectual processes outside the serendipities of everyday circumstance. The frontispiece and its verso presented the logical proposition that such recognition of the term architect could result, in the creation of the civic state, in a visible manifestation like that of celestial order and harmony. As Tafuri has suggested,

Vitruvius’ De architectura was a central text along with Aristotle’s Politics and Plato’s

Laws for patricians concerned with the development of ethical paradigms for the process of renewal. However, Barbaro aimed to reduce the importance of the Venetian tendency to empiricism through support from Vitruvius’s text by reframing Vitruvius through philosophical origins.162 By doing this the meaning of the term architect becomes a term associated with governance rather than craft, bringing to society a physical manifestation of philosophical order. For Barbaro, it is only through this visible reflection that “man [was] truly worthy of being named magnificent.”163

Barbaro’s Vitruvian commentary portrays a distinctive conceptual shift for the term architect. It modified Vitruvius’s notion giving the architect an independence based on a commonality of purpose.164 Barbaro portrays the compendium of knowledge of architecture as developed through a ‘philosophical impulse,’ logically structured through the workings of the intellect, and therefore able to be collectively comprehended.

257

1 Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Daniele Barbaro, trans., and ed., Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1556. Page numbers quoted below are to the facsimile 1567 edition, Vitruvius, I dieci libri dell’architettura, tradotti e commentati da Daniele Barbaro, Manfredo Tafuri and Manuella Morresi, eds., Milano: Polifilo, 1997, unless otherwise stated. 2 The second editions were printed by Francesco de’Francheschi Senese and Giovanni Alemano Compagni in Venice. This change in printing house resulted from the death of Francesco Marcolini during the early 1560s. 3 This followed Daniele Barbaro’s proclamation of Palladio’s involvement with the illustrations of the treatise. See Tafuri’s, “Introduction” to Vitruvio, I dieci libri dell’architettura, tradotti e commentati da Daniele Barbaro, Manfredo Tafuri and Manuella Morresi, eds., Milano: Polifilo, 1997. For general discussion of Barbaro’s treatise in context see Manuela Morresi, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, New Haven: Yale University press, 1998, 263-280. For the dating of a trip to Rome by Barbaro during 1556 see James Ackerman’s “Daniele Barbaro and Vitruvius,” in Cecil L. Striker, ed., Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern, c1996, 1-5. For Barbaro’s continuing patronage until his death, see Bruce Boucher, “The Last Will of Daniele Barbaro,” Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XLII, 1979, 277-282. 4 See Antonio Magrini, Memorie intorno la vita e le opere di Andrea Palladio: pubblicate nell’inaugu razione del suo monumento in Vicenza, li agosto 1845: . . . Padova: Dalla tipografia del Seminario, 1845, 27-37. 5 See Giovanni Casali in his Annali della tipografia veneziana di Francesco Marcolini, Forlì: M. Casali, 1861. For an extensive account of the work of Giuseppe Porta see David McTavish, Giuseppe Porta called Giuseppe Salviati, PhD Dissertation submitted to Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, New York: Garland Publishing, 1981. 6 Frascari directs attention to Vincenzo Fontana, “Arte e isperienza nei trattati veneziani del Cinquicento,” Architectura, 4(1974), fn7. Marco Frascari, “Maiden’s ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the Sides of Lady Architecture,” Assemblage, 7(Oct 1988), 27, and fn. 26. 7 Catherine Goguel, Francesco Salviati 1510-1563 o la bella maniera, Milano: Electa, 1998, see specifically the entry by Alessandro Cecchi, “Francesco Salviati e gli editori: 2, I libri,” 71-2, and catalogue entry 141. See also William Rearick, “Francesco Salviati, Giuseppe Porta and Venetian Draftsmen of the 1540s,” in Francesco Salviati et la bella maniera, eds., Catherine Goguel, Philippe Costamagna and Michel Hochmann, Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2001, 455-478. See also McTavish, Giuseppi Porta called Giuseppi Salviati, 1981. 8 For attribution of the illustration of figures to Bernardino India see Licisco Magagnato, ed., Cinquant’anni di pittura veronese 1580-1630, exhibition catalogue, Verona: N. Pozza, 1974. 9 Licisco Magagnato has drawn attention to the collaborations between Andrea Palladio and Bernardino India in the illustration of allegorical figures. This relationship, dating from the Villa Thiene, completed during 1556 where India carried out the figures decorating the "Sala

258 delle Metamorfosi" have been judged similar to figures Palladio included in his entry for the Rialto Bridge competition of 1554. However, there is no correlation between the India figures of the Rialto Bridge project and the figures of the Barbaro frontispiece. The vigorous and angular style of India is not evident. It is known that Palladio felt more comfortable working with minor artists who also collaborated with him on plaster and frescoes and that Giuseppe Porta worked on the Barbaro treatise. It would be more consistent that Porta would have worked on the frontispiece because of his association with the Marcolini printing house. For Magagnato’s discussion of Palladio’s collaborations see, “Introdution,” in Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, eds., Licisco Magagnato and Paola Marini, Milano: Polifilo, 1980, lxi-lxiii. See discussion by Paolo Morachiello in Lionello Puppi and Giandomenico Romanelli, eds., Le Venezie possibili: Da Palladio a Le Corbusier, Milano: Electa, 1985, 59, note 2.2. Also see explanation that this attribution is now accepted by scholars in Lionello Puppi, Palladio Drawings, New York: Rizzoli, 1989, 23, fn 130-131 and catalogue entry 44. In these discussions, no attribution has been given for the figures on the frontispiece to Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari. 10 Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, Book II, par: 3-4, see Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, Ingrid Rowland and Thomas Noble, trans., and com., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 33. 11 See Christine Smith, Architecture in the Culture of Early Humanism: Ethics, Aesthetics and Eloquence 1400-1470, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, 136 for her evaluation of these notions on early translations of Vitruvius. 12 See James Ackerman, “Daniele Barbaro and Vitruvius,” in Cecil Striker, ed., Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, Mainz: Von Zabern, 1996, 1-5. 13 Rudolf Wittkower, “Principles of Palladio’s Architecture,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 7(1944), 102-122. 14 See Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics V, 3-8. See Wittkower, “Principles,” 1944, 107-8. 15 Branko Mitrovic, “Paduan Aristotelianism and Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari on Vitruvius’ De architetura,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, XXIX, 3(Fall 1998), 667-687. 16 Annarita Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtu: Il mediomondo di Danile Barbaro. Firenze: Olschki, 1999. 17 Allo stesso modo, il frequente riferimento a passi aristotelici o pseudoaristotelici, la familiarità con i maestri dello Studio padovano non fa di Barbaro 'inevitabilmente' un aristotelico. Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtu, 1999, 60. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 18 la relazione tra idea e natura e arte che fonda l'architettonica di Barbaro e che costituisce il filo conduttore dei suoi scritti principali - il Commento vitruviano, il Dialogo dell'eloquenza, la Prattica della Perspettiva - lo colloca in un contesto culturale che schemi interpretativi quali umanesimo vs rivoluzione scientifica, platonismo vs aristotelismo, Firenze vs Venezia, arcaismo vs modernità difficilmente potrebbero perimetrare, e che tuttavia diede cittadinanza a letterati, artisti, scienziati di diversa provenienza europea, nell'età della Riforma e

259 della Controriforma. Un contesto dai confini politici e dottrinari sfumati, ma dai limiti cronologici ben definiti. Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtu, 1999, 60. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 19 For a commentary on Daniele Barbaro and his influence in Venice and the work of Andrea Palladio see Paul Holberton, Palladio’s Villas: Life in the Renaissance Countryside, London: John Murray, 1990, 90-100. 20 Boucher, “The Last Will of Daniele Barbaro,” 1979, 277-282. 21 Daniele Barbaro, Rhetoricorum Aristotelis Libri Tres, Interprete Hermolao Barbaro P. V. Commentaria in Eosdem Danielis Barbari, Venetiis: Pauli Gerardi, 1544. Barbaro’s other printed works of Ermolao include his edition Compendium ethicorum librorum Hermolai Barbari, Venetiis: Apud Cominum de Tridino Montisferrati, 1544 and Hermolai Barbari Patrittii Beneti Compendium scientiae naturalis, ex Aristotele, [Paris]: Apud Ioannem Roigny, 1547. Previously he had published Exquisitiae in Porphirium commentatione Danielis Barbari, Venetiis: Apud Aldi filios, M. D. XLII.[1542]. After the Vitruvian Commentari, Barbaro published Della eloquenza, dialogo del reverendiss. Monsignor Daniel Barbaro, eletto Patriarca d’Aquileia. Nuovamente mandato in luce da Girolamo Ruscelli. A i Signori academici costanti di Vicenza, Con Privilegii dell’Illustriss. Senato Veneto, & d’altri Principi, per anni XX, Venezia: Vicenzo Valgrisio, 1557, the manuscripts Libro detto delle quattro porte, (ms. C. 344r), Venezia, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, and Storiografo della Repubblica. He went on to finish a treatise on perspective, La pratica della perspettiva di Monsignor Daniele Barbaro eletto patriarca d’Aquileia opera molto prodittevole a pittori scultori, et architetti, Venetia: Camillo e Rutilio Borgominieri, 1569. 22 The plan for the gardens was developed from one carried out by Barbaro in 1545 but he had travelled there with Giuseppe Porta during 1541. See Margherita Azzi Visentini, L’orto botanico di Padova e il giardino del Rinascimento, Milano: Polifilo, 1984 for an extensive account of Barbaro’s involvement. 23 John Dee, The mathematical praeface to the Elements of geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570) reprinted New York: Science History Publications, 1975. John Dee’s Mathematical Preface included a section on architecture reflecting Barbaro’s conceptualisation of Vitruvian principles. See also sections on John Dee and his interactions with Barbaro in Annarita Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtù, 1999. 24 For the political importance of the figure of the patriarch of Aquileia see Peter Laven, “The Causa Grimani and its Political Overtones,” Journal of Religious History, IV(1967), 182- 205. 25 See Marion Kuntz, Venice, Myth and Utopian Thought in the Sixteenth Century: Bodin, Postel and the Virgin of Venice, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999, 505. See also Frederick Lane, Venice, a Maritime Republic, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. 26 See also the discussion of Barbaro’s reaction to this nomination in Paul Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990, 90. 27 This was not to occur as Grimani outlived Barbaro. 28 For accounts of Barbaro’s activities at the meetings of the Council of Trent see Paolo Sarpi’s account Historia dell Concilio Tredentino (English), London: Printed by Bonham Norton,

260

1629; see also Paul Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press, 1540-1605, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. See also Paolo Paruta’s documentation of a dialogue at this time in Della perfettione della vita politica di M. Paolo Paruta nobile vinetiani. Libri tre. Con privilegio, (1579), Venezia: Domenico Nicolini, 1599. 29 Paolo Paruta Della perfettione della vita politica, 1599. 30 For this publication Barbaro had sought the help of Venetian mathematician Giovanni Zamberti, brother of Bartolomeo Zamberti, the pioneer translator of Euclid (1505). He was also aware of Sebastiano Serlio’s treatise on perspective and a manuscript by Piero della Francesca. See Martha Pollak, The Mark. J Millard Architectural Collection: Volume IV, Italian and Spanish Books: Fifteenth through Nineteenth Centuries, Washington: Washington National Gallery of Art and Braziller, 2000, 38. 31 Manfredo Tafuri, “La norma e il programma: il Vitruvio di Daniele Barbaro,” in Vitruvius, I dieci libri dell’architettura, tradotti e commentati da Daniele Barbaro, Manfredo Tafuri and Manuella Morresi, eds., Milano: Polifilo, 1997, xviii, where Manfredo Tafuri draws allusion to this. Here he says, “Aristotle’s Politics discusses the politician as an architect and the presence of this metaphor in humanistic culture is demonstrated by the interest in Vitruvius shown by the Siennese political scientist Francesco Patrizi.” He continues, “It is evident that Daniele Barbaro absorbed these classical themes and that indicates that he conceived of architecture as a metaphor. An art which unifies, which signifies a totality of behaviours and which can be called upon to bring harmony (concordia) to a well-established republic.” See also Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtù, 1999, 356, and Morresi, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice,” in Paper Palaces, 1998. 32 See Magrini, Memorie intorno la vita e le opere di Andrea Palladio, 1845, 27-37. 33 See Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990. 34 Francesco Marcolini, Le Sorti de Francesco Marcolini da Forli . . . , Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1540. 35 See Marco Frascari, “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice” at the sides of Lady Architecture.” Assemblage 7(Oct, 1988), 15-27, Luciana Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit, commenté et illustré de Daniele Barbaro (1556),” in Michel Plaisance, ed., Le livre illustré italien au XVIe siècle, Klincksieck: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 1999, 233-243, and Annarita Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtù, 1999, 20ff. 36 Luciana Miotto suggests that this figure represents ‘Theory’ or the ‘ratiocinatio’ expressed in Vitruvius. Luciana Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. 37 Marco Frascari has interpreted this figure as ‘Practice.’ Luciana Miotto interprets it as ‘Astronomy.’ Marco Frascari in his “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27, and Luciana Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. Emblems in the hand of the figure conform to Economia where the upturned compasses in the hand are significant to the definition. See Cesare Ripa, Iconologia overo descrittione dell'imagini universali cavate dall'antichità et da altri luoghi da Cesare Ripa, Roma, Giovanni Gigliotti, eredi, 1593.

261

38 Marco Frascari, “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27 and Luciana Miotto “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. Both Marco Frascari and Luciana Miotto have considered the figure as ‘Prudence’ because of her two faces. 39 Luciana Miotto interprets these as ‘Rhetoric,’ ‘Music,’ ‘Arithmetic,’ and ‘Geometry.’ Luciana Miotto “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. 40 The two images have been ‘read’ together by Marco Frascari in “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’,” 1988. 41 A possible source for the bearded figure is Johannes Angelus’s, Astrolabium planum, Impressum Venetijs: Per Iohanne[m] Emericu[m] de Spira, [9 June 1494]. In Angelus’s depiction of the astronomer there is a bearded figure of an astronomer gazing into an armillary sphere. See Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, London: Nelson and Sons, 1923, plate 94. 42 See Giuseppina Zappella, Il ritratto nel libro italiano del cinquecento, Milano: Editrice Bibliografica, 1988, 72. 43 Vicenzo Fontana, “Il ‘Vitruvio’ dell 1556: Barbaro, Palladio, Marcolini,” in Ezio Riondato, ed., Trattati Scientifico nel Veneto fra il XV e XVI secolo, Venezia: Università Internationale dell’Arte, 1985, 39-72, Marco Frascari “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27 and Luciana Miotto “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243 each sources the illustration to the Trajan Arch at Ancona. For the attribution of the Ancona Arch see William MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, vol. I, 134. MacDonald suggested that the work of, “Apollodoros of Damascus included the Markets of Trajan, Trajan’s Column, the frieze on the Arch of Constantine, a Circus-Naumachia, and the Pantheon (all in Rome); Porto, works at Ostia, the harbour at Centumcellae (Civitavecchia), the arches at Ancona and Benevento, and the Terracina road cuts; the monument at Adamklissi near the mouth of the Danube and road cuts in Dacia; and a walled enclosure in Damascus.” 134n. 44 He had made the aside that Apollodorus was involved in, “the various creations of Trajan in Rome,” See Cassius Dio, Roman History, 68 & 69. The books refer to Apollodorus as architectus. 45 This arch was illustrated in central single-point perspective in Serlio’s 1540, Book III. fol. 108r. Howard Burns has suggested that Palladio had seen and studied Serlio’s treatise in the years prior to Serlio’s departure for France. See Howard Burns, Lynda Fairbairn and Bruce Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580: The portico and the farmyard, London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1975, 101. See also Hubertus Günther for other extant illustrations in, Das Studium der antiken Architektur in den Zeichnungen der Hochrenaissance, Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1988, 204-213, where he lists examples of studies of arches by Renaissance architects. He lists drawings by Giambattista da Sangallo (Uffizi 508 A, fog. VI, 7), Antonio da Sangallo (Uffizi, 1875 A r and v, figs VI, 4-5) as well as work in the Codex in Musée Wicar, Lille (nn. 77 and 793, figs VI 8-9) Codex Ross, 618 in the Vatican (Sheet 42r, fig, VI 10) the Codex in the Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen, Kassel, sheet 9v, and the Codex II-I-492, Group A in the Biblioteca

262

Nazionale, Florence, sheet 18r and others. The arch of Trajan at Ancona is included among these at the Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, Codex 10935, sheet 34v and “Italianer C’s” drawings from Tafeln Codex ANH. IV Riniero Neroccio da Pisa (Italianer C) 28 b 5v, 29 a 6r, 53 a 12r, 53 b 12v. See Hubertus Günther for Palladio’s connection with the Codex, Das Studium, 114-147, 212-215. 46 Whereas, Palladio had sketched the Arch of Titus in Rome, the Arch of Settimo Severo Rome, the Arch of Constantine Rome, the Arch of Sergi at Pola, and the Arch at Gavi, as well as numerous gates there is no account of his sketching the Arch at Ancona. His extant sketches and measured studies are held in the Museo Civico, Vicenza and the RIBA collection in London. See Heinz Spielmann, Andrea Palladio und die Antike: Untersuchung und Katalog der Zeichnungen aus seinem Nachlass, München, Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1966; Giangiorgio Zorzi, I disegni delle antichità di Andrea Palladio, Venezia : Neri Pozza, 1959; Lionello Puppi, Palladio: Corpus dei disegni al Museo Civico di Vicenza, Milano: Berenice, 1989; Douglas Lewis, The Drawings of Andrea Palladio, Washington: International Exhibitions Foundation, 1981. See Burns, Fairbairn and Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580, 1975, for discussion of his drawings. 47 Palladio visited Rome during the 1540s with Gian Giorgio Trissino and in 1550s with Daniele Barbaro. Ancona was a major port on any sea crossing from Venice to Rome and may have been visited on this journey. 48 For the connection between the drawing and Palladio’s design for the Rialto see Howard Burns, I disegni, in Palladio, exhibition catalogue, Milano, 1973, 131-154. This was later to appear as Howard Burns, “I disegni del Palladio,” in Bollettino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura “A Palladio”, XV(1973), 169-191. See also Burns, Fairbairn and Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580, 1975, 126 cat. entry 223. Recognition that the Trajan Arch at Ancona has influenced this design was made by Decio Gioseffi, "Palladio e l'antichita," Bolletino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di’Architettura, Andrea Palladio, 15(1973), 43-65. Palladio printed a version of his Rialto Bridge design in Chapter XIII, “A Stone Bridge of my Own Design,” in Book III of I quattro libri dell Architettura di Andrea Palladio, Venezia: Dominico de’Franceschi, 1570, III, xiii, 26-27. 49 See Discussion in Lewis, The Drawings of Andrea Palladio, 1981, 121-122 and later Paolo Morachiello’s entry on the drawing in Puppi and Romanelli, eds., Le Venezie possibili, 1985, 63, in comparison with Puppi’s later argument in Puppi, Palladio’s Drawings, 1989, 99- 100. 50 See Lionello Puppi, Palladio Drawings, New York: Rizzoli, 1990, 98-100 for discussion of dating for the series of drawings. 51 This relates also to the dating of collaborations with Bernardino India on during the mid-1550s rather than later dates. 52 In his text of Book III, Serlio had included the measured dimensions for the arch making it clear that the height to the top of the entablature cornice was greater than the width of its base. It was significantly taller than wide. Palladio modified these proportions so that the

263 structure of the triumphal arch in his design formed a square in elevation with the base : height dimensions being equal. Furthermore, he used an overall proportion of 3 (base) : 4 (height) in the elevation to determine the height of the triumphal arch structure if the attic level is included in the dimension. As well as changes to the arch’s proportion, ornamentation of the surface of the arch has been modified significantly in the frontispiece. Modifications in Palladio’s illustration include: cornices and architraves ornamented with motifs with the addition of a modillion cornice and ornately carved cima, friezes beside the keystone above the architrave of the arch, garland friezes and arched niches between the Corinthian columns depicting allegorical figures, with above them a group of figures in a decorative panel, added statuary of a quadrivium on the attic level with modifications to the piers and frieze panel. Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro / di Sebastiano Serlio, Bolognese; nel qval si figvrano e descrivono le antiqvita di Roma, e le altre che sono in Italia, e fvori d'Italia ... Venetia : Impresso per F. Marcolino, 1540, CXXII – CXXIII. 53 For discussion on the inscription see Ingrid Rowland’s comments, Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, Rowland and Noble, trans., and com., Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1999, 2. See the inscription in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum V 3464 and also Paul Thielscher, Paulys Realencyclopaedia der classischen Alterumswissenschaft, 2nd ser., 172 (1961), s.v. “Vitruvius,” cols 420-421. See Pamela Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition and Rational Architecture in the Sixteenth Century: A Study in the History of Ideas, PhD dissertation submitted to Graduate School, University of Maryland 1979, Ann Abor, MI: UMI Dissertation, 1980, 149. This arch had been constructed some time between the end of the Republic to the end of the first century AD and during the sixteenth century, the architect may have been incorrectly attributed as the De Architettura author, architect Vitruvius. Johannes Schneider, writing in the late eighteenth century, drew attention to Andrea Alciatus, who in the mid- sixteenth century, first suggested that the architect of the Gavii arch was the same person as the author of De Architectura. See Schneider’s discussion in the introductory chapter of, Vitruvius, De architectura, libri decem : ex fide librorum scriptorum recensuit, emendavit, suisque et virorum doctorum annotationibus illustravit, Gottlob Schneider trans., and ed., Lipsiae: G.J. Göschen, 1807-1808, vi. Schneider also draws attention to Guillaume Philandrier’s edition of Vitruvius of 1544 drawing connection between his “Vita Vitruvii”, and Alciatus’ presentation. Cesare Cesariano in his translation and commentary on Vitruvius in his 1521 edition of the books spent some time discussing the attribution of this arch and concluded that it referred to an architect who had been named after Vitruvius. Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, Cesare Cesariano, trans., Como: Gottardo da Ponte, 1521, fol. 136r. See Carol Krinsky, “Cesariano and the Renaissance without Rome,” Arte Lombarda XVI(1971), 211, also Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 150. Barbaro had consulted Cesariano’s commentary and was also aware of Alciati’s Vita in the preface to Guillaume Philandrier’s Vitruvius of 1544, so would know of the debates that surrounded the attribution of the arch.

264

54 See discussion in Donatella Calabi and Paolo Morachiello, Rialto: le fabbriche e il ponte. 1514-1591, Torino: Einaudi, 1987, 5-15. 55 For discussion of the development of the Rialto Bridge see Calabi and Morachiello, Rialto: le fabbriche e il Ponte, 1987. 56 This is mentioned in Staale Sinding-Larsen, Christ in the Council Hall: Studies in the Religious Iconography of the Venetian Republic, Roma: L’erma di Bretschneider, 1974, 170. 57 See Vittore Carpaccio’s ink drawing “The Doge receiving the ceremonial umbrella from Pope Alexander III at Ancona in 1177,” probably dated around 1516 when Carpaccio was involved with painting “The Lion of St. Mark” housed in Palazzo Ducal, Venice. Seen in Patricia Fortini Brown, Venetian Narrative Painting in the Age of Carpaccio, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, 85. 58 Barbaro was again designated official historian of the Venetian Republic in 1560. See Paul Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990, 96. 59 There are three known drawings for Giuseppe Porta’s fresco in the Sala Regia of the Vatican palace. See Burns, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580, 1975, 129-130. 60 See Patricia Fortini Brown, Venice & Antiquity: the Venetian Sense of the Past, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, 15, 34, 44. 61 For an outline of this event see William Bouwsma, Venice and the Defence of Republican Liberty: Renaissance Values in the Age of the Counter Reformation, Berkley: University of California Press, 1968, 55. Giovanni and Jacopo Bellini, in the Great Council Chamber, Palazzo Ducale further endorsed this myth making through depictions in the series of paintings of the events painted during the early sixteenth century. See also Asa Boholm, The Doge of Venice: the Symbolism of State Power in the Renaissance, Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, 1990, 9-24. 62 See Brown, Venetian Narrative Painting, 1988. See her descriptions of Carpaccio’s images and their restoration 83-86. 63 Giorgio Vasari, Le vite de piu eccellenti pittori scultori et architetti, italiani, Firenze: Torrentino, 1550, see vita di Jacopo, Giovanni and Gentile Bellini in Part II. Vasari does not specifically locate the scene to Ancona. 64 For an understanding of the meaning of the term ‘restored’ see Brown, Venetian Narrative Painting, 1988, 85-86. 65 Brown, Venetian Narrative Painting, 1988, 86. 66 This arch was illustrated in central single-point perspective in Serlio’s 1540, Book III. fol. 108r. 67 See Daniele Barbaro in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556 Book I, i, 17. He says, prende il suo soggetto la prospettiva da due scienze, dalla Geometria la linea; dalla naturale la veduta: e ne fa una sola, che io chiamerei Raggio. See also Leon Battista Alberti’s discussion of perspective in La pittura di Leonbattista Alberti, trans. Per M. Lodovico Domenichi, Vinegia: Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari, 1547.

265

68 See comments on this notion of Barbaro’s in Alberto Pérez-Gómez and Louise Pelletier, Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge, Cambridge Mass., MIT, 1997, 46-7, 111-112. See also Barbaro La pratica della perspettiva, 1569. 69 Barbaro used terms such as ‘species’ to explain the division of types, see for example his La pratica della perspettiva, 1569, 130. 70 Plato, ‘Philebus, 57,’ in The Dialogues of Plato, trans., Benjamin Jowett, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, 634. 71 Plato, Philebus, 57, in The Dialogues of Plato, 1952, 634. 72 Barbaro ‘Proemio,’ in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, 6-7. 73 Barbaro in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, ii, 36. Come le maniere del parlare, che si chiamano idee, sono qualità dell’oratione conveniente alle cose, & alle persone, cosi le maniere de gli edificij sono qualità dell’arte conveniente alla cose, & alle persone. & si come à formare una idea dell’oratione otto cose sono necessarie, cioè la sentenza, che è lo intendimento dell’huomo; lo artificio, col quale come con certo instrumento si leva il concetto; le parole che esprimono i concetti; la compositione di quelle, con i colori, & figure; il movimento delle parti, che numero si chiama; & la chiusa & il fine della compositione: cosi per ispedire una maniera delle arti, sei cose sono necessarie, & queste già quasi tutti havemo espedite. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 74 In buildings such as the Colosseum the orders were used sequentially from Doric or Tuscan on the ground floor to Ionic on the first floor and Corinthian on the top level. 75 Fontana, “Il ‘Vitruvio’ dell’arte 1556,” 1985, 44. 76 Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. While there are some gestures that conform to a diagonal association between Economia in the niche on the left and Geometria on the right end of the attic level this is secondary to the symmetrical disposition of these two figures in the niches. 77 “d’intorno al parlare è la Grammatica, la Rhetorica, la Logica: Cerca la quantità è la Geometria, l’Astrologia, ‘Arithmetica, la Musica.” Barbaro, ‘Proemio,’ in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, 7. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 78 See discussion in Fontana, “Il “Vitruvio” del 1556,” 1985, 39-72. Fontana has privately given the source of the maniscript "Libro detto le quattro porte,” as a fragment in manuscript Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana in Venice Cod. it. IV, 152 (=5106) beginning c. 338r. 79 While Barbaro had argued for a fundamental tie between architecture and rhetoric suggesting in Della eloquenza and in his Vitruvian Commentari that the widths and lengths of buildings in Architettura are governed by the same laws of Eloquenza, that is of numbers in words, of letters and of sentences, he uses the allegorical emblems associated with Rhetorica in other figures of the frontispiece. Barbaro in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, ii, 33, see also Della eloquenza, dialogo del reverendiss Monsignor Daniel Barbaro, 1557, 43. Vitruvius’s inclusions for the group had been looser than those proposed by Barbaro. Vitruvius had used the term encyclios disciplina to bring together what became later

266 now known as the Liberal Arts. See the “Introduction,” to Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, 1999, 7 and 142 for Ingrid Rowland’s discussion. 80 Luciana Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 236. 81 Vitruvius introduces these concepts in Book I, I. Barbaro’s discussion follows in Barbaro in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, I, 11. 82 While this nomenclature follows Marco Frascari and others, none have evaluated the difficult emblems of the first figure. See Marco Frascari, “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27. 83 To interpret this figure as Rhetoric, Miotto has assumed that the object related to speech in the hands of the figure is a scroll from which the figure is reading. However, the figure has a closed mouth and this is not traditional symbolism when attributing speech to an allegorical figure. Luciana Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. 84 Daniele Barbaro, in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1567, facsimile edition 1997, Book IV, i, 163. Appresso dapoi cercando di fabricare un Tempio a Diana, da gli istessi vestigij trasferirono nuova forma di maniera alla sveltezza feminile. Et prima fecero la grossezza della colonna per la ottava parte dell’altezza, & accioche tenessero lo aspetto piu alto sottoposero alla basa in luogo di calzare la spira, & al capitello imposero le volute pendenti dalla destra, e dalla sinistra, come crespi cincinni della capillatura, & ornarono le fronti di cimase, & con festoni, (che encarpi si dicono) cioè frutti raccolti insieme, & foglie colligate in vece di capelli disposte, & per tutto’l tronco della colonna lasciarono andar a basso le canalature, come falde delle vestimenta all’usanza delle matrone. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 85 Daniele Barbaro, “Book I,” in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1567 facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, i, 13-14. L’Arte del misurare è detta Geometria; & benche il soggetto delle Mathematiche sia la quantità intelligibile, il che se non fusse, bisognarebbe per ogni quantità naturale fare una Scientia di nuovo; non dimeno La Geometria giova al disegno, & alla practica per la sua virtu & forza. Come si vede nella voluta del capitello Ionico, nel compartimento della Metrope, & Trigliphi nell’opera Dorica, & in molte proportionate misure. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 86 This inclusion had not continued in later editions. Giuseppe Porta had initially published a small treatise on the construction of the Ionic Volute with Marcolini in 1552. Regola di far perfettamente col compasso la voluta et del capitello ionico et d'ogn'altra sorte / per Iosephe Saluiati pittore ritrouat, Vinetia: Per Francesco Marcolini, 1552. The treatise had been dedicated to Daniele Barbaro. 87 Pacioli said: “The Ionic or so-called pulvinate capital is melancholic, since it does not raise itself upwards, but makes a melancholic and mournful impression like a window,” Luca Pacioli, De divina proportione, Venezia: Paganino da Brescia, 1509, 144. See discussion in John Onions, Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance, Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988, 216-224. See also Sebastiano Serlio, L’architettura, i libri I-VII e extraordinario nelle prime edizione, Paolo Fiore, ed., Milano: Polifilo, 2001, Book IV, folio XXXVIv and XLIIv, ad huomini letterati,& di vita quieta, and

267 illustrations on XLVv and Sebastiano Serlio, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, trans., and eds., Vol., I, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, 320. 88 Klibansky, Panofsky and Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, 1923, 357. 89 Barbaro ‘Proemio,’ in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, 6-7. 90 The Ionic volute had been the hardest image to describe geometrically and had been attempted in many treatises. For discussion of the different models for the orders of Daniele Barbaro and Andrea Palladio see Branko Mitrovi, “Palladio’s Theory of the Classical Orders in the First Book of I quattro Libri dell’architettura,” Architectural History, 42(1999), 1-31. 91 Daniele Barbaro, “Book I,” in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1567, facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, I, 18, quotes Vitruvius as saying, Della Musica esser deve intelligente lo Architetto, accioche egli conosca la regolata ragione, & la Mathematica, & accioche dirittamente caricare & temprare sappia gli instrumenti da pietre o saette dette baliste, catapulte e scorpioni. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 92 Daniele Barbaro, “Book I,” in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1567, facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, i, 19. Demonstra Vitr. che & quanto alla practica, & quanto alla ragione la Musica è utile allo Architetto . . . . La Mathematica veramente lascia affatto il senso, & s’inalza alla speculatione de i numeri sonori, & de i modi, & delle idée & maniere delle canzoni, & de i mescolamenti possibili de i tempi delle sillabe, & forse piu alto salendo la humana, & mondana convenienza de i cieli, & l’harmonia delle anime, & de i corpi va considerando . . . . Certo è nella Musica, che la egualità del suono mostra egualità di spatio, & quella proportione che è tra spatio, & spatio, si truova anche tra suono & suono, & però essendo il suono eguale dall’uno & l’altro braccio, seguita, che’l nervo, il quale tirato rende il suono, dentro le braccia sia eguale. Dal che nasce la bontà dello instrumento, la giustezza della carcatura, & il dritto & certo tiro di quello, come provano gli arcieri, & i balistrieri tutto il giorno. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 93 Daniele Barbaro, “Book I,” in Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1567, facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, i, 19, see fn 70. 94 Here Plato says: “But on our part let this be affirmed to be the cause of vision for these ends: God discovered and bestowed sight upon us in order that we might observe the orbits of reason which are in heaven and make use of them for the revolutions of thought in our own souls, which are akin to them, the troubled to the serene; and that learning them and acquiring natural truth of reasoning we might imitate the divine movements that are ever unerring and bring into order those within us which are all astray. And of sound and hearing again the same account must be given: to the same ends and with the same intent they have been bestowed on us by the gods. For not only has speech been appointed for this same purpose, whereto it contributes to the largest share, but all such music as is expressed in sound has been granted, for the sake of harmony: and harmony having her motions akin to the revolutions in our own souls, has been bestowed by the Muses on him who with reason seeks their help, not for any senseless pleasure, such as is now supposed to be the chiefest use, but as an ally against the discord which has grown up in the revolution of our soul, to bring her into order and into unison with herself: and rhythm too, because our habit of mind is mostly so faulty of measure and

268 lacking in grace, is a succour bestowed on us by the same givers for the same ends.” Plato, The Timaeus of Plato, trans., R. D. Archer-Hind, London: Macmillan, 1888, 165. 95 Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1557, Book V, vi, from Barbaro’s translation, facsimile edition, 1997, 247. Ma la conformatione dal Theatro si deve fare in questo modo. Che prima si veda quanto grande esser deve la circonferenza della pianta, & posto nel mezzo il centro sia tiranto un circolo, nel quale si fanno quattro triangolo eguali, & di spatij, & di lati, che tocchino la estrema linea della circonferenza. & sono questi a famiglianza di quelli, che gli Astrologi nella descrittione de i dodici segni celesti da una convenienza musicale, che hanno le stele tra se sogliono discorrendo cavare. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 96 Miotto, suggests that the instrument is a sextant “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. However, the sextant was not invented until the 1730s by John Hadley. Martin Kemp suggests that the astrolabe was the most popular astronomical instrument of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He explains, “Its construction involved the projection of the orbs of a celestial sphere onto a plan using the south celestial pole as the centre of projection.” Barbaro had shown this projection in his La pratica della perspettiva. See Martin Kemp, The Science of Art, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990, 86 and 78. 97 Barbaro Commentari, Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1567, facsimile edition, 1997, Book I, I, 20, 21. Una delle parti principali dell’Architettura è (come si vede al terzo capo del primo libro’) cerca l’ombre causate dal sole, & da gli stili necessarie a fare gli horologij da sole, & questa parte è detta Gnomonica, benche puo importare maggiore intelligenza, & piu ampia, che la descrittione de gli horologi come da Euclide si puo havere, della cognitione de quail è ripieno con meravigliosa dottrina il nono libro di Vitruvio, nel quale anche si vede l’altra parte dell’astrologia, che considera le elevationi, & le distanze de i pianeti, & delle stele, alle quali aspetta la invenzione dello Astrolabio. Quanto veramente appartiene à quella parte, che da gli ascendenti nel nascer nostro comprende i successi delle future cose; niuno uso si trova nell’Architettura; se forse noi non vogliamo cercare alcune qualità secrete ‘de luoghi, le cognitioni delle quali non si possono riferire ad altro che à gli ordini, & influssi de i pianeti, dal che molti si mettono a fare le natiuità, & le rivolutioni delli principij della edificatione della città. Ma non è lecito per l’amore, che si porta all’Architettura esser curiosi di tante cognitioni, che non meno dubie, che inutili, salva la pace di chi altrimenti crede, esser veggiamo. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 98 See Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990, 94. 99 See Klibansky, Panofsky and Saxl, Saturn and Melancholia, 1923, plate 94. 100 For a description of the importance of the magic square see Klibansky, Panofsky and Saxl, Saturn and Melancholia, 1923, 325ff. See also Erwin Panofsky, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955, 161ff for the significance of the magic square and also illus. 209. 101 John Dee held a copy of Luca Gaurico’s Tractus Astrologicus and had done astrological cycles at the time that Daniele Barbaro was in contact with him.

269

102 Frascari refers to this as a clock. It is without numbers and without zodiac signs thus it could be interpreted as either. See Marco Frascari, “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27. Pamela Long has interpreted the figure as Archimedes holding a crown to suggest his discovery of specific gravity. Long, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition, 1980, 74. 103 Marco Frascari, “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27. 104 Panofsky, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, 1955, 167-168. 105 Angelini, Miotto, and Sgarbi have suggested significance in the pairing of figures where one looks down and the other gazes upward and they draw attention to issues of intellect or theory in those looking upward and the practical making or active experiencing in those looking down. However, the gaze in the figures of the frontispiece is often set in opposition to the purpose of the symbolic emblems they hold and their dress, giving them a complex or double meaning. Annarita Angelini, Sapienza prudenzia eroica virtu, 1999, 18ff; Luciana Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243; Claudio Sgarbi, “Fabrica e Ratiocinato,” 1992, 122-126. 106 Plato, The Timaeus of Plato, trans., Archer-Hind, 1888, 97. 107 Plato, The Timaeus of Plato, trans., Archer-Hind, 1888, explained in fn 13, 97. 108 Marco Frascari “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27 and Annarita Angelini, Sapienza prudenzia eroica virtù, 1999, 21ff, interprets the figure as Theorica and Luciana Miotto “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243 interprets it as Astrologia. 109 Marco Frascari “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27, interprets the figure as Practice and Luciana Miotto “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243, interprets it as Prudentia. Annarita Angelini, Sapienza prudenzia eroica virtù, 1999, 21ff, also interprets the figure as Experientia. 110 This is distinctive from Sebastiano Serlio’s focus on the design act as being a resolution of the material substance of architecture through Euclidian geometry and perspective outlined in his letter to the readers at the beginning of Book I printed in 1545. Barbaro’s intellectual process equally focused on the whole object of architectural design but defined his process through notions of intellectual control over habits. For discussion on Serlio see Christof Thoenes, “Prolusione: Serlio e la trattatistica,” in his Sebastiano Serlio: Sesto seminario internazionale di storia dell’architettura, 1987, Milano: Electa, 1989, 9-10. Thoenes suggested that Serlio signifies a move away from Alberti’s view of ancient monuments as a thesaurus of the art, techniques and knowledge of the Ancients. Serlio understands them as a process of design, a testimony of a certain formal system the rules of which he wanted to teach. To him they are more like a grammar book or a semantic system. 111 Calabi and Morachiello, Rialto: le fabbriche e il ponte, 1987, 231. See also the meaning of Habitus in Charlton Lewis and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, as a word suggesting a disposition of character, way of acting, comporting oneself or dealing with things. 112 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6, Il Vero necessario è quello, che per vera, & certa ragione si con chiude. & oltra di questo vero

270 necessario è quello, che per prova di alcuna cosa si piglia. & finalmente vero necessario è quello, che della prova, & della cosa porovata è composto. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 113 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6. 114 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6, La prima e nominata Scienza, che habito è di conclusione per vera & necessaria prova acquistato. La seconda è detta Intelletto, che è habito de i principij, & delle prove, & ritiene il nome della potenza dell’anima, della quale egli si truova. . . . La terza maniera è detta Sapienza, che è pronta & ispedita cognitione delle prove alle conchiusioni applicate. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 115 See Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6. 116 The robes conform to those depicted in Gianbatista Caporali frontispiece to Vitruvius, Architettura con il svo comento et figure Vitruvio in volgar lingua raportato per M. Gianbatista Caporali di Pervgia, Perugia: Stamparia del conte Iano Bigazzini, 1536. For discussion on the robes of Justice see Panofsky’s comments on Albrecht Durer’s ‘Sol Iustitae,’ Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts, New York: Overlooker Press, 1955, fig. 82, 263ff and fn. 89. 117 Annarita Angelini has suggested that this figure has a double face similar to the figure in the opposite niche but this is quite unclear from the woodblock. See Annarita Angelini, Sapienza prudenza erotica virtù, 1999, 12-23. It would be significant if she had bare arms, as this would have denoted active craft. See Ripa’s Iconologia overo descrittione dell'imagini universali, 1611, for the difference in clothing styles amongst personification. 118 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6, Et come lo acume della divina intelligenza penetra per entro al mezo di ogno cosa, cosi ad uno risvegliamento dello intelletto habituato in molte scienze, & nella cognitione di molti prinicpij si ritrova il vero: & questi sono gli habiti dello intelletto d’intorno al vero necessario: cioè d’intorno al vero, che non puo essere, che non sia, ne i quali non si è ritrovato quello habito, che noi Arte chiamiamo. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 119 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6. 120 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 7 la quale giudica, e approva l’opere, chedall’altre Arti si fano. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 121 She also cites Raphael’s, ‘School of Athens,” completed in 1511 where Euclid is portrayed with finger of one hand in the air whilst making geometric forms on the ground with compasses in the other hand. Raphael, ‘School of Athens’, Vatican, Rome 1509-1511. Annarita Angelini, Sapienza prudenza erotica virtù, 1999, 15-16. Achille Bocchi, Symbolicarum quaestionum, de universo genre, quas serio ludebat, libri quinque, Bononiae, in aedibus Novae Academiae Bocchianae, 1555, emblem CXXIIII. 122 See Marco Frascari “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 15-27 and Cesare Ripa Iconologia overo descrittione dell'imagini universali, 1611. 123 Elizabeth Cropper, “Bound Theory and Blind Practice: Pietro Testa’s notes on Painting and the Liceo Della Pittura,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34(1971), 262-296. 124 Cropper, “Bound Theory and Blind Practice,” 1971, 285 and 286.

271

125 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, che è quello che intende la ragione, può insegnare & fare un’altro se stesso. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 126 The faculty of knowing, intellect, and reason, S. Battaglia, Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, Turino: UTET, 1961, 8, 202. Or as, Accademia della Crusca, Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca. con tre indici delle voci, locuzioni, e proverbi Latini e Greci, posti per entro l'Opera. Con privilegio del Sommo Pontefice, Del Re Cattolico, della Serenissima Repubblica di Venezia, e degli altri Principi, e Potentati d'Italia, e fuori d'Italia, della Masta Cesarea, del Re Cristianissimo, e del Sereniss, In Venezia: G. Alberti, 1612, Arciduca Alberto, ed., Firenze: Licosa Reprints, [1974], says: Intelletto. J. A. Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner eds., The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992 – power or ability to understand, intellect, reason. 127 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio 6, Per sapere adunque conchiudere molte cose dai i proprij principij, (che altro non è che havere scienza) bisogna prima acquistarsi lo intelletto: cioè l’habito, che conosce i principij. che io in questo luogo chiamerei, Intendimento, per non confondere i vocaboli delle cose: perche intelletto è nome di potenza & di virtu dell’anima, che intende: & intendimento è operatione, overo habito di quella potenza. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 128 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6. La seconda è detta Intelletto, che è habito de i principij, & delle prove, & ritiene il nome della potenza dell’anima, della quale egli si truova: la onde è nominato, Intelletto. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 129 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6-7, Arte è habito nella mente, come in vero soggetto riposto, che la dispone a fare, & operare con regola, & ragione fuori di se cose utili alla vita: come Prudenza è habito, che dispone lo intelletto a regolare la volontà in quelle cose, che alla unione, & bene della republica, & della famiglia, & di se stesso, convengono. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 130 See for example Erwin Panofsky’s “Titian’s Allegory of Prudence: a Postscript,” in Meaning and the Visual Arts, Woodstock: Overlook, 1974, 146-168. See also Liana De Girolami Cheney, The Paintings of the Casa Vasari, New York: Garland, 1985, Adolf Katzenellenbogen, Allegories of the Virtues and Vices, New York: Harper, 1962 and Tuve, Rosemond, “Notes on the Virtues and Vices. Part II: “hHly”; Two Missing Notes in the Somme Le Roi Illuminator; the Unicorn; “Sevens” in the Belleville Breviary and some Psalter and Horae, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 27(1964), 42-72. 131 See Andrea Mantegna, Prudencia, thirty-fifth tarot card in Marco Frascari “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 23. Titian also imaged the three ages of man in a single portrait see Erwin Panofsky, Problems in Titian: Mostly Iconographic, New York: New York University Press, 1969, 102ff and plate 117. 132 See Antonio Pollaiolo, ‘Prudenza,’ Galleria degli Uffizi, Florence.

272

133 Andrea Alciati, Emblematum libellus nuper in lucem editus, Veneti: Figlio di Aldus, 1546. See comments in Liana De Girolami Cheney, “Virtue,” in Helen Roberts, Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998, 907-922. 134 Cheney, “Virtue,” in Helen Roberts, ed., Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography, 1998, 911. 135 Marco Frascari “Maidens “Theory” and “Practice”,” 1988, 22. 136 See Angelini, Sapienza prudenzia eroica virtù, 1999, 18ff; Miotto, “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243; Sgarbi, “Fabrica e Ratiocinato,” 1992, 122-126. 137 Daniele Barbaro, see Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio 6, Però Vitruvio vuole, che la isperienza sia con la cognitione accompagnata. . . Dal che si comprende esser due maniere di isperienza. L’una che all’Arte è preposta, cioè che si fa prima, che s’acquisti l’Arte: come quando si dice. . . L’altra maniera è quella, che è eccitata, & desta dall’Arte. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 138 Achille Bocchi, Achillis Bocchii Bonon. Symbolicarum quaestionum, de vniuerso genere, quas serio ludebat, libri quinque, Bononiae, in aedibus Novae Academiae Bocchianae, 1555, Symb. CXII (CX). William Heckscher, Art and Literature: Studies in Relationship, Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 1985, 116. See also Elizabeth Watson, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as Symbolic Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 for a more extensive analysis of Bocchi’s work. 139 See Watson, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as Symbolic Form, 1993, 134. 140 Watson, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as Symbolic Form, 1993, 134. 141 There are four named images of Hercules in Achille Bocchi’s Symbolicae Quaestiones, the most pertinent being Symbol CXII (CX) of Hercules and Atlas. Elizabeth Watson suggests that even though Bocchi’s book was not published until 1555, as early as 1547 single and clusters of etched emblems were being circulated. Bocchi was a member of the Vitruvian Academy of Rome and had mixed in circles of scholars associated with Trissino, Palladio and Barbaro through his contacts in Bologna. Barbaro, Palladio and Giuseppe Porta would probably have known his highly popular emblem art. See Elizabeth Watson for discussion on the life and emblem art of Bocchi. Watson, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as Symbolic Form, 1993, 57ff. 142 See Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, 1923, for attitudes and expressions of melancholy in personification. 143 See Daniele Barbaro translation of Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6-7. 144 Miotto has called this figure theory as related to Vitruvius’ concept of ratiocinatio. Luciana Miotto “Le Vitruve traduit,” 1999, 233-243. Barbaro’s understanding of mathematics as of primary importance to an understanding of intellectual order is best summarised by Manfredo Tafuri when he speaks of the treatise by Francesco Barozzi, De medietate, included in his Opusculum, dedicated to Barbaro. Tafuri explains, “he maintained that mathematical objects occupy an intermediate place between divine objects and natural ones: in the end, the

273 mathematical instrument becomes a logical system when brought into contact with cognitive processes.” Manfredo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, 134, 135. The harmony that allowed Architecture to be the physical representation of the link between the ideal order of the celestial realm and the corporeal nature of the world was one of mathematics. 145 See Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, I, I, 7, Prima come discorreno, & con vie ragionevoli trovando vanno le ragioni, & le regole dell’operare. Da poi come con prontezza di mano’s affaticano in qualche materia esteriore; di qui nasce che alcune Arti hanno piu della Scienza, & altre meno. Ma conoscere l’Arte piu degne, questa è la via, che quelle, nelle quali fa bisogno l’Arte del numerare, la Geometria, & l’altre Mathematice, tutte hanno del grande, il rimanente senza le dette Arti (come dice Platone) è vile, & abietto, come cosa nata da semplice imaginatione, fallace coniettura, & dal vero abbandonata isperienza. Et quivi apparirà la dignità dell’Architettura, la quale giudica, approva l’opere, che dall’altre Arti si fanno. Ma perche non si deve lodare alcuna cosa, se prima non si sa, che cosa ella sia: giusto, & ragionevol’è, che dimostriamo l’origine, & la forza, & le parti dell’Architettura, & qual sia l’ufficio, et il fine dello Architetto, et perche il medesimo si fa dallo Auttore, come da Erudito, & ammaestrato ne i precetti dell’Arte. . . in questi uffici appare la dignità dell’ Architettura esser alla Sapienza vicina, & come virtù heroica nel mezo di tutte le arti dimorare perche sola intende le cagioni; sola abbraccia le belle, & alte cose. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 146 This conceptualisation of Architecture could have been influences by John Dee who considered God the architect of the universe and it was through him that Man would desire to know the secrets of the Universe. This discovery could only be made through Mathematics as illustrated by Proclus and through the geometry of Euclid. Euclid was regarded with suspicion by those who defended orthodoxy in various parts of Catholic Europe because certain passages of the elements suggested that knowledge could be built on bases which were independent from theological ones. See Annarita Angelini, Sapienza prudenza erotica virtù, 1999, 29. 147 See Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio 7, che è pronta & ispedita cognitione delle prove alle conchiusioni applicate. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 148 See Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio 7, dello intelletto habituato in molte scienze, & nella cognitione di molti prinicpij si ritrova il vero. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 149 In the sense of general philosophical principle that is evident in itself, axiom, and postulate. S. Battaglia, Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, Turin: UTET, 1961, 4, 416. J. A. Simpson & E. S. C. Weiner eds., The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992 – Dignity meaning no. 8 – a self-evident theorem. 150 See Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, Proemio, 6, Però Dante chiama il conoscimento di questo vero, prima notitia. & quel vero, primo vero. i Filosofi, primi concetti, o Dignità, o Massime sogliono chiamare. Da questo habito chiamato intelletto, hanno avuto vigore, & forza specialmente le Mathematice. perche in quelle

274 csono queste notitie manifestissime, & benche picciole siano di quantità, sono però di valore inestimabile. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 151 Panofsky, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, 1955, 170. 152 Morresi, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice,” in Paper Palaces, 1998, 276. 153 Morresi suggests that Giovanni Caldiera first appropriated this idea. Morresi, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice,” in Paper Palaces, 1998, 276. 154 Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, 124. 155 Tafuri, “La norma e il programma,” 1987, XVIII. 156 Una strutturazione con-sonante della pluralità, chiamata a introdurre Concordia in una bene instituta republica. Tafuri, “La norma e il programma,” 1987, xviii. Tafuri also calls attention to Plato’s Filebo and his Repubblica in this discussion. 157 Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, 124. 158 When reading Dell eloquenza, dialogo del reverendiss, Monsignor Daniel Barbaro, Eletto Patriarca D’Aquileia with Girolamo Ruscelli of the Academici Constanti di Vicenza, Venezia: Vicenzo Valgrisio, 1557 and Paolo Paruta, Della perfettione della vita politica di M. Paolo Paruta nobile vinetiani. Libri tre. Con privilegio, Venegia: Domenico Nicolini, 1599, alongside Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari one is struck by the clarity of order Barbaro brought to his thoughts. He framed these three types of worth through the same philosophical drive. 159 See Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, I, Proemio, 7 perche si come nella mente si concepe la moltitudine de sudditi sotto un Principe, cosi molti concetti dell’arte al suo principio si riferisceno. & per questo di gran laude sono degni gli inventori delle cose, iquali hanno trovato i principij senza risparmio di fatica, da i quali deriva compimento, & la perfettione dell’Arti: dove egli si può dire che la metà del fatto, è il cominciar bene. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 160 See Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura, 1556, I, Proemio, 7. Non ragionerò di quelle Arti, et dottrine, che ci sono inspirate da Dio, come è la nostra christiana Theologia; perche hora non si tende a questo fine, che ritruoviamo tutto quello, che sotto nome di Arte si contiene : imperoche non è al proposito nostro : si che io lascierò le divinationi, che mescolate sono di divina inspiratione, & humana invenzione. Sono adunque al presente bisogno quelle Arti necessarie, che serveno con dignità, & grandezza alla commodità, & uso de’mortali : come è l’Arte di andar per mare detta Navigatione, l’Arte Militare, l’Arte del fabricare, la Medicina, l’Agricoltura, la Venaggione, la Pittura, & Scoltura, il Lanificio, & altre simiglianti, lequali in due modi si possono considerare . prima come discorreno, & con vie ragionevoli trovando vanno le ragioni, & le regole dell’operare . dapoi come con prontezza di mano s’affaticano in qualche materia esteriore, quello che era riposto nella mente. Translation Marcello/Fattori. 161 This was not an example of metaphor, where Architettura became a metaphor of good government or the politician as noted by Tafuri and Morresi but an example of how Barbaro’s processes of structuring all forms of knowledge and action were consistent. See Barbaro’s Dell

275 eloquenza, 1557 and Paolo Paruta, Della perfettione della vita, 1599, alongside Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari for their conformity. 162 Manfredo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, on Domenico Morosini 104-105 and Francesco Patrizi, 107, as precedents for Barbaro’s use of Vitruvius. 163 Paolo Paruta, Della perfettione della vita politica, 1599, 282. 164 Vitruvius lived during the beginnings of a significant imperial governance of Augustus in Rome, a time that saw an increasing building program. See Rowland and Howe’s translation of Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, 1999, “Introduction.”

276 CHAPTER 6:

The term ‘architect’ separating from notions of patronage and locale: the

frontispiece to Andrea Palladio’s 1570 treatise I quattro libri

dell’architettura.

This chapter investigates the frontispiece to Andrea Palladio’s (1508-1580) I quattro libri dell’architettura published in the volgare in 1570 by Domenico dei Franceschi’s printing house in Venice.1 During 1570, Palladio’s I quattro libri was printed initially as two books: the first, I due libri dell’architettura, including Books I and II and the second,

I due primi libri dell’architettura including Books III and IV.2 Apart from minor changes to the title and chapter layout, the final publication repeats the earlier print run.3

Palladio was both author of the treatise and designer of its frontispiece. He had produced two prior publications, an unillustrated guide to Rome, L’antichità di Roma in

1554 and a description of churches of Rome, Descritione de le Chiese also in 1554.

As well, he had been involved in Daniele Barbaro’s I dieci libri dell’architettura di M.

Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, of

1556, producing many of the illustrations and the frontispiece to that treatise.4 While this chapter is a discrete case study, as were previous chapters, Palladio’s close association with Daniele Barbaro and his involvement with Barbaro’s Commentari, could account for some similarity in ideas expressed in the two frontispieces. However, in the frontispiece to I quattro libri Palladio would have had the opportunity to express ideas denied him as only artist-collaborator for Barbaro. There is also the possibility that Palladio’s own ideas may have been consolidated or changed in the interval between the printing of the two books, 1556 and 1570. For this reason some

277 comparison will be made between the two treatises, their authors and their frontispieces to examine how Palladio, while cognisant of many of the attributes of

Barbaro’s Commentari, individualised his own treatise and frontispiece.

6.1 The context for Palladio’s preparation of his books

Since at least the early 1550s, Andrea Palladio had been devising drawings and text in the preparation of his treatise. Both Francesco Doni and Daniele Barbaro had, at that time, made allusions to his forthcoming book.5 Giorgio Vasari also alluded to a meeting he had with Palladio, during May 1566, in his ‘Vita’ of Jacopo Sansovino in the 1568 edition of Le vite de’ più eccellenti architetti, pittori e scultori italiani.6 Vasari documented that at this meeting he had seen and praised Palladio’s preparatory manuscript. Lionello Puppi suggested that Vasari’s commendation was probably based on his viewing of a manuscript now preserved in the Cicogna Codex no. 3617 at the Biblioteca Correr in Venice.7 It is probable that Palladio, as was customary, had produced a number of manuscript copies of his preparations for others to view and comment.8 The evidence that Palladio had been working on the treatise for an extended number of years is well supported and portrays his concern in having the critiques of his theoretical propositions by well-known writers and theoreticians of his time.9 However, there is no indication that the frontispiece to the treatise was designed at these early stages of preparation.

It is commonly reported that Andrea Palladio had begun his career as a stonemason and was initially apprenticed to Bartolomeo di Bernardino Cavassa da Sossano who had sculpted many altarpieces in the Paduan area.10 After this position, Palladio moved to Vicenza during 1524 to the workshop of Pedemuro where, it has been suggested, Palladio focused on architectural masonry.11 By the late 1530s Palladio’s theoretical development was grounded in his local context of Vicenza with patronage

278 from Gian Giorgio Trissino.12 Trissino’s patronage did not include control of all of

Palladio’s architectural output and this allowed him to be involved in other commissions. As a wealthy province of the Venetian Republic, Vicenza provided opportunities for multiple commissions for Palladio, opportunities not equalled in the great cities of Florence or Rome.13 In Vicenza where the nobles were an educated and wealthy elite who valued debate on attitudes to culture and the urban fabric, Palladio was able to develop both his attitudes to architecture and his specialization as an architect. Trissino, a humanist and educated Vicenzian with knowledge of the work of

Bramante, Raphael and Alberti, had great interest in architecture and introduced

Palladio to the text of Vitruvius and to other influential humanists such as Alvise

Cornaro of Padua.14 Both Trissino and Cornaro engaged in writing on architecture and it is evident that their interest in Palladio stemmed from their broader architectural interests.15

It was on a visit with Cornaro that Palladio was introduced to the work of architects

Sebastiano Serlio and Giovanni Maria Falconetto.16 Cornaro had been important to

Palladio’s development as he had crystallised in his writing the notion of ‘la santa agricoltura’ or ‘Holy agriculture,’ a concept essential to understanding the ‘Veneto way- of-life,’ a concept that later influenced Palladio’s architecture and writing.17 Palladio’s understanding of architecture and its theoretical concepts continued to develop through dialogue with this growing circle of intellectuals, the study of texts and drawings by other artists, and the study of Roman architectural ruins that he examined in situ.

Palladio’s studies of Roman antiquities had been started in earnest when he accompanied Gian Giorgio Trissino on two visits to Rome during the 1540s.18 Prior to these study tours, Palladio had copied sketches produced by others or had measured and documented ruins located in nearby cities such as Verona and Vicenza.19 Later study tours such as those with Daniele Barbaro during 1548 and 1554 associated with

279 Barbaro’s preparation for his translation and Commentari, extended Palladio’s architectural experience and theories.20

It was during his patronage by Daniele Barbaro in the 1550’s that Palladio worked most closely with a theoretician of architectural concepts.21 Barbaro’s philosophical basis for structuring the conceptual processes of architecture as a discipline became fundamental to Palladio’s own treatise. However, to assume that Palladio simply repeated Barbaro’s ideas in his own treatise denies distinctive differences between the theoretical agenda of their individual projects. The importance given to the role of illustrations in Palladio’s treatise shows a marked difference when compared with his manner of composing illustrations in Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari.

Rather than being the graphic explanation of technical or difficult architectural concepts, each illustration in Palladio’s I quattro libri forms primarily a graphic statement with the most significant visual message being the compositional relationship of elements within the requirements of page design.22 This is not to say that the illustrations do not explain an architectural feature; they are accurate in their two- dimensional delineation but the majority of illustrations, isolated on a single page as independent graphic statements, are to be admired for their two-dimensional patterning within a constructed border.23 Many pages incorporate illustrations drawn using different scales but these images are brought together graphically in a balanced composition on the page. While past historians have stressed the didactic function of

Palladio’s books and their illustrations, it is the graphic and compositional clarity of these illustrations as geometric form that is paramount.24 Figure 61 and 62 Information from the drawings is orthogonal and often technically complex; their primary appeal is of a complex pattern to be admired for its density of information and its representation as a graphic puzzle.25

280

Figure 61 and 62 Book IV, 47 and 50, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture.

A second emphasis in the patterning of the illustrations in I quattro libri is the desire to reduce architectural concepts to a series of idealised conceptual species or types.

Within this notion of typology the individual variation found in specific examples could be seen to set up a dialogue between the specificities of circumstance demanding individual detailed resolution and an overall commonality of species. The illustration of building types drew on both scientific and historicist approaches: scientific in the manner of classifying and documenting architecture from the more general to the specific detail with measured accuracy, and historicist in the documentation of new and old through the same graphic technique.26 On many occasions, Palladio would comment on his re-interpretation of buildings from antiquity, “I have designed the loggias in front and the decoration inside as I imagine they would have been.”27 In this context his own designs fulfil two purposes: firstly, through their consistency of graphic format they merge seamlessly with his reinterpreted historical buildings; secondly, they represent exempla from antiquity re-conceptualised for future architectural design

281 without any ties to place or site. Thus, in his treatise, the distinct disjunction between old and new disappeared in a continuity of ideas.

Even though Palladio documented many examples with depicted differences for each of the classical orders, his historicism aimed to portray a unity in this diversity through an understanding of controlled individuality rather than present an architectural archetype to be appropriated.28 In the same way, in the production of his treatise, each page-design adheres to both variance and overall graphic control. In this, a single attitude pervades Palladio’s architecture and his treatise.29 He could reveal this consistency and conformity of his theoretical undertaking only through techniques of representation that favoured abstraction and type rather than impression and individual expressiveness. This became Palladio’s operational ‘rule’ for the development of architecture, an idea most appropriately represented through the use of orthographic projection rather than more natural viewing, which through the distortions and impressions of perspectival drawing techniques are made mathematically obscure or complex.

Other characteristics of Palladio’s I quattro libri that make it distinct from the theoretical propositions of Daniele Barbaro are implicit and involve close analysis of each text including their structuring and philosophical propositions.30 In many ways Palladio’s treatise re-focuses Barbaro’s theoretical propositions specifically for architectural practice rather than Barbaro’s broader agenda for the civic life of the republic. For

Daniele Barbaro the fundamental concepts of his Vitruvian Commentari stemmed from his understanding that the architect and architecture could be seen as metaphors for the rational division of all knowledge leading to an understanding of good civic government in the republic as distinct from its religious and spiritual governance.31

Although addressing many of the same technical issues of architecture, Palladio was more interested in presenting a structured set of ‘rules’ aimed at guiding architectural design not only through historicist understandings of Classical exempla but also

282 through the notions of intellectual and moral virtue that influenced his own built work.

In this presentation of architecture, his buildings were to be considered a physical manifestation of the practices of the architect as one expressing specialised professional knowledge and skill in his service to civic life. That is, implied throughout

Palladio’s treatise and frontispiece is the personage of Andrea Palladio as embodied in this term architect. Daniele Barbaro had been the first to attribute Palladio with such status. In Book I of his 1556 Commentari Barbaro had described Palladio as exemplifying the ‘virtuous architect’ because of his ‘scientific’ approach.32

The correlation between Palladio’s historicist yet didactic conceptual approach to the presentation of architecture and the representation of his individual genius in his own designs is implicit in Palladio’s dedicatory letter to Count Giacomo Angarano in Book I where he claims,

With my own eyes I have seen and with my own hands I have measured the fragments of many ancient buildings … [which] … still communicate their clear and illustrious testimony of Roman virtue and greatness; such that finding myself greatly experienced and enflamed in the excellent studies of this Virtue, and having with great hope placed all my thoughts with her, set myself the task of writing out the advice necessary, which must be observed by all those beautiful intellects who desire to build well and gracefully: and beyond that to show in drawing [disegno] many of those sites that have been ordered by me in different places and all those ancient buildings I have seen up to now. 33

In his opening remarks of Commentari, Daniele Barbaro discussed the conceptual basis of the discipline of architecture without reference to himself whereas Palladio’s presentation of self introduces a marked difference of approach.34 In his treatise,

Palladio described the boundaries of an abstract knowledge but as well claimed personal mastery of that knowledge as demonstrated in his own architectural projects.

By doing this, Palladio formed a correlation between the name Palladio and personification of virtue in architectural design. This notion does not form a component

283 of the allegorical program of his frontispiece but does remain an implied fundamental in its imagery.

However, it is my suggestion that despite these differences, Palladio continued to be indebted to the theoretical propositions of Daniele Barbaro throughout his life and that his text, and its frontispiece drew on many of the attitudes presented by Barbaro. As a consequence, the theoretical agenda of their approaches to architectural knowledge are tangibly implicated in each other’s work. The strengthening political presentation of

Barbaro’s ideas about society is evident in a number of dialogues of his conversations.35 One of these is by Paolo Paruta, entitled, Della perfettione della vita politica di M. Paolo Paruta nobile vinetiani and although not published until later in the century it provides a documentation of many of Barbaro’s ideas during the mid 1560s when Palladio would have been finalising his books. In the investigation of Andrea

Palladio’s frontispiece for its conceptualisation of the sixteenth-century Italian architect this book becomes an essential source to aid the interpretation of its iconography.

6.2 Describing the frontispiece to Palladio’s I quattro libri and analysing its component images

The frontispiece to I quattro libri was designed by the author with probably some collaboration from others in the depiction of the figures.36 Figure 63 Each of the four books has a similar frontispiece with only the title-plate changing.37 The frontispiece portrays a triumphal aedicule with twin columns of the Corinthian order set each side of an opening that has a ‘segmented pediment.’ Both pedestals of the portico to the aedicule have mythological figures sculpted in bass-relief and its pediment includes winged figures blowing trumpets on the outer sides of the split tympanum. The statuary of the aedicule includes three main allegorical figures and in the centre is a cartouche framed by herms enclosing an image of a boat at sea within which are smaller allegorical

284 figures. Of the three main allegorical figures, the figure at the top sits before the appellation: REGINA VIRTVS; she holds a sceptre in her hand and looks toward an opened book that she has at her right side. The lower figures stand either side of the

Figure 63 Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture.

285 aedicule; the one on the left holds an astrolabe quadrant above her head and, in her lower hand, she holds a squared ruler and tablet of geometric figures. The figure on the right holds a measuring stick above her head and, in her lower hand, a set of compasses with their points open to the ground. The title of the book and its publisher are located in cartouches arranged centrally along the vertical axis. The whole image is bound in a border of a single drawn line that touches both the bottom pedestal of the aedicule and its sculptural attic level.

6.2.1 The pedimental aedicule and its perspectival context.

The aedicule, drawn in single central point perspective, forms a symmetrical composition of near identical segments on either side of the structure. The Corinthian columns of the aedicule are highly detailed with flutes and capitals being accurate in perspectival diminution and easily identified as of that Order. The entablature has a decorative cornice showing dentils and modillions on both the front façade and its receding edges.38 The segmented pediment has volute endings to its apex. On the receding face at the frieze level of the pediment are symmetrically opposing mascaron faces and at the top of each pediment is a winged figure blowing a trumpet. Between the two sides of the pediment is a protruding cornice platform on which sits an allegorical figure that will be examined separately later. She sits in the centre of the image. Below the aedicule is a base

286 Figure 64 Anonimous minature with architectural surround attributed to Andrea Palladio, Commissione a Gasparo Contarini, Venezia, that follows its contours with pedestals under the columns. These pedestals have frieze panels of mythical figures continuing the symmetrical composition of the whole.

The difference between the frontispiece’s use of perspectival techniques for the aedicule and Palladio’s commitment, in his treatise’s illustrations, to techniques of orthographic projection provides a clue that the frontispiece has a distinctive purpose.

The perspective technique used for the frontispiece has its origin in the source of the image. Marco Frascari has recognised that the source-image for this aedicule is derived from a miniature prepared for the Commissione of Gasparo Contarini in 1528.39

Figure 64 The attribution of this painting as carried out by Palladio is not widely accepted.

Lionello Puppi, in his earlier discussion of the image in the context of the iconography of Venetian Doge, Andrea Gritti, made no such attribution.40 Palladio may not have been the artist of the complete image but this does not negate the similarity between the frontispiece and the miniature. Similarities in the two images when viewed together, makes it most likely that Palladio used the miniature as his source for the aedicule to the frontispiece retaining aspects of the aedicule and the central figure at the pediment level from this miniature.

The original miniature portrayed celebration of the commissioning of Gasparo Contarini as an extraordinary envoy to the Holy See in 1528.41 Palladio’s probable use of this image brings to the frontispiece a reference to a distinctive socio-political moment of

Venetian history as well as his own deference to potential patrons. The Contarini was one of the most influential families of Venice and were an ‘apostolic family’ present at the election of the first Doge of Venice during 697. Gasparo Contarini was a major figure in sixteenth-century Venice who had represented reform in the republic and was made Cardinal by Pope Paul III in 1535.42 It was Contarini who, with Palladio’s patron

Gian Giorgio Trissino, had attempted to encapsulate the distinctive characteristics of the Venetian State in the development of its constitution during the latter half of the sixteenth century.

287 At that time Venice was the only political state that was based on a purely institutional government rather than having a political structure based on heredity. Staale Sinding-

Larsen has recognised that it was a “state that existed and functioned by virtue of its political institutions and its body of laws without any specific regard to the dynasty or family or individual character of any particular citizen.”43 Thus writers and orators such as Contarini and Trissino could conceptualise Venice in the image of a heavenly

Jerusalem with the Doge rhetorically transformed as an image of God.44 In the process, Venice became construed as a unique state where the best forms of government were portrayed through an analogy of musical harmony that reflected a symbiosis of natural and celestial order.45 However, within this rhetoric there was never a claim that uniqueness derived from divine intervention for Venice or the

Venetians, and its statesmen were well attuned to the necessity of the relationship with the Holy See and Rome.

Trissino and Contarini’s construction of uniqueness reinforced Venice’s distinctive influence as a political power, an idea played out repeatedly in rituals of Venetian history since 1170s and portrayed again in the miniature of the Commissione of

Gasparo Contarini. In this image Contarini knelt before The Emperor, the Pope and the Doge, with the Pope gesturing the blessing and the Doge handing over the commissioning document.46 The triumvirate of political dominance in the Italian states places its imprimatur on this Commissione suggesting an equality of status in their roles. This type of imagery reinforced the primacy of the Doge in the context of the

Venetian Republic’s representation of itself in Italo-European politics.

In using the aedicule illustrated to frame the concept of this ceremony, the frontispiece recalls the memory of Gasparo Contarini not simply as a reflection of his status and the radical reforms in the Venetian constitution for which he had argued but also is a representation of the transformation of the Venetian constitution itself. This introduction of an historic representation into the contemporary context of Venice

288 reinforced a direct engagement with what Venetians saw as the fundamental concept of Venice, that is, its unique constitution. By including such a reference, Andrea

Palladio is portraying an idealised depiction of the civic and religious order of the city of

Venice through reference to its independent constitution rather than as an image depicting the city itself.47

This attribute of a symbolisation of the independent status of the constitution of the

Venetian Republic is not depicted with an abstract technique as may have been expected. The significance of the conceptual framing of this frontispiece through perspectival structuring is comprehensible when it is compared with Palladio’s design for the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari. In Barbaro’s frontispiece,

Palladio had used an orthographic projection for definite and distinctive reasons. It was in Barbaro’s commentary that Palladio depicted the Vitruvian concepts of architectural design as emerging from the Platonic concept of the ideae, a concept that relied on the illustration techniques of the plan (ichnographia), the elevation (orthographia) and the section (profilo).48 This was also a reflection of the Neoplatonic notion of the superiority of the arts tied to philosophy through arithmetic and measure.49 The narrative of the frontispiece to Barbaro’s Commentari emerges from theorising about architecture as a philosophical-mathematical practice, one that structures knowledge through abstract rational and hierarchical divisions.

By comparison, the perspectival technique used in the frontispiece to Palladio’s I quattro libri portrayed a very different message. One could expect a difference based on the fact that by 1570 the techniques of perspectival construction were better understood. A number of books documenting the mathematics behind perspectival techniques and their relationship with the ‘science’ of optics had been printed during the sixteenth century.50 Daniele Barbaro was included with these authors, with the printing of his treatise on perspective in 1569.51 However, the single point perspective of Palladio’s frontispiece to I quattro libri copies an earlier technique of the 1528

289 miniature with its representation of ‘natural’ vision rather than the more technical scientific rigour of later in the century.

Palladio had said in his letter to Count Giacomo Angarano that the illustrations throughout the text of his book showed the complexity of mathematical proportion and geometry evident in his own architectural design.52 However, his frontispiece aims to engage with the reader at a different level. The perspectival construction, being a constructed ‘natural’ observation reflecting an individual’s observation of his personal environment, represents an experiential or empirical engagement.53 Conceptually, this permits a dialogue that bridges the gap between the reader and the information contained in the books, a dialogue that allows the reader to comprehend the complexities of the knowledge of the treatise through a more ‘natural’ engagement or response.

By analogy, the aedicule represented through perspective is portrayed in a similar way to that articulated in Palladio’s text when writing about the siting of a temple. Like the siting of the temple, the frontispiece becomes an experience that engenders specific responses for its viewers. In Chapter I of Book IV Palladio said:

But we . . . should choose sites for temples in the most dignified and prestigious part of the city . . . so that every part of the temple can be seen in all its majesty and arouse devotion and awe in whoever sees and admires it. . . . If there are no elevated positions one should raise the floor of the temple . . . and one will climb the steps of the temple, so that ascent induces a greater sense of devotion and majesty.54

Palladio’s sentiments explain the demonstrative response gained through the drama of the perspectival view of the frontispiece. The frontispiece, like the temple, permitted the viewer to respond at many levels, fundamentally at a phenomenological level, but also at a representational level recalling notions of dignity, devotion and majesty, and symbolically incorporating emblems of social governance, liturgy and order. Rather than being identical to its source, the frontispiece has a heightened precision in its

290 technique suggesting that Palladio had differing aims for its portrayal in his frontispiece.55 In the perspectival setting of the frontispiece, its raised pedestal and allegorical program reinforced the experience of inferred reverence, one not able to be portrayed by orthographic techniques that are ‘scientific’ in their typology rather than

‘natural’ and experiential.

6.2.2 The two allegorical figures of the aedicule

The two figures at the sides of the aedicule form a pair portraying theoretical constructs for aspects of Architettura. The figure on the left holds an astrolabe quadrant raised in her left hand, and a squared ruler and a tablet with inscribed figures in her lowered right hand.56 She is clothed in the manner of a theoretician and has an emblem of an aged sun god at her breast denoting the wisdom of antiquity. The figure on the right is clothed in the manner of a craftsman with her arms and breast exposed and holds a measuring rod with plumb-bob in her raised right hand while her lowered left hand holds a down-turned pair of compasses.

The use of two allegorical figures makes possible the depiction of complementary attributes of the knowledge base of the discipline.

Previous chapters have interpreted oppositions of Minerva with Flora in the frontispiece of Cosimo Bartoli’s edition of Alberti’s

Figure 65 Detail of the two allegorical figures of the aedicule, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570.

291 L’architettura and the opposition of Scienza with Intelletto in Daniele Barbaro’s

Commentari. In each case, an interpretation of the particular emblems, dress and stance of the two allegorical figures has permitted different attributes to be given of the concept of Architettura to be depicted. In past investigations, the figure in the left niche of Palladio’s frontispiece has been interpreted as Theory and the figure on the right

Practice.57 However, as discussed in the previous chapter, the concepts of Theory and

Practice were not clearly defined during the sixteenth century and it is difficult to classify Palladio’s figures in I quattro libri into such clearly delineated categories.

The complexity of Palladio’s personifications is apparent when compared with the visual themes explicit in a group of frontispieces outside this study. These frontispieces preface books and treatises not included in this study because they do not cover the subject matter of those selected. Christof Thoenes has drawn attention to similarities of representation between

Palladio’s figures and those in Antonio

Labacco’s Libri d’Antonio Labacco appartenente a l’architettura nel qual si figurano alcune notabili antiquità di Roma of

1552 and in Iacomo Barozzi da Vignola’s

Regola delli cinque ordini d’architettura of

1562.58 The illustration of Labacco’s frontispiece has been attributed to

Francesco Salviati.59 That Palladio knew of

Labacco’s Libro appartenente is confirmed by the inclusion in his treatise of a representation of the plan and elevation of a Figure 66 Frontispiece, attributed to Francesco Salviati, Antonio Labacco, Libri d’Antonio Labacco temple in ruin, the Temple of Mars the appartenente a l’architettura nel qual si figurano alcune notabili antiquita di Roma, Rome: for the author, 1552. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture.

292 Avenger, in a manner similar to that devised by Labacco.60 Figure 66

Pascal Dubourg-Glatigny’s interpretation of Labacco’s frontispiece has suggested that the figure on the right is Matematica and that the figure on the left is Perfezione of operations and transparent deductions of numbers.61 The figure on the right is clothed in the manner of a scholar and pictured with astrolabe quadrant for study of the cosmos and the measure of heights and distances.62 She focuses her gaze on the tablet in her left hand where there are depictions of geometric figures suggesting that there has been a transference of cosmological order to the geometry of the Platonic solids.63 The tablet has two composite geometric figures aligned vertically. The top one is a depiction of an octahedron inscribed within a tetrahedron or three-sided pyramid, and below is an icosahedron inscribed within the circle. These figures bring together three of the ‘regular solids’ named by Plato in the Timaeus as symbolic of the elements of air, fire and water. The circle, symbolic of the point of ‘becoming’ or infinity, is the representation of the cosmos on the two dimensional tablet; inscribed within it is the icosahedron, the closest of the named figures to the geometry of the sphere.64 The geometric symbol not included on the tablet is the hexahedron or cube that was symbolic of the earth. However, this symbol was unnecessary in this narrative of transformation because the frontispiece incorporated depictions of the natural environment in a scene beyond its frame.

The aim, in Humanist representations of the transfer of celestial order to the corporeal world, was to depict the actual process of transference. The astrolabe quadrant was the device for study and the regular solids depicted on the tablet were the resultant emanation of order from the demiurge to the material world. This was the coding behind the symbol of the astrolabe quadrant and the geometric figures. The resultant geometry could then form the basis for architectural order and proportion while remaining a sign for higher notions of order. Klibansky, Panofsky and Saxl’s study of

293 Neoplatonism in Humanist imagery support an interpretation of the connection between the astrolabe quadrant and the tablet figures of the image,

The heavenly bodies were envisaged, on the one hand, as metaphysical symbols through which the various degrees in the structure of the All became visible, and, on the other, as cosmological principles according to which were ordered the emanations of the All-One into the material world, and, vice versa, the accent from the material world to the All-One.65

Salviati’s image in Labacco’s frontispiece reinforces this notion of translation with a complementary representation of the body of Matematica contorted with a circular arching of her arm to bring movement of the eye from the astrolabe quadrant to the stone tablet.

In Labacco’s frontispiece the figure on the left is Perfezione of operations and transparent deductions of numbers, and is portrayed as the embodiment of empirical understanding attained through use of instruments of measure including the compasses, rule and square. She focuses her gaze on her square and ruler, tools essential for the transfer of information from the study of Roma antica to a drawn surface, a study carried out with the aid of compasses. This figure conforms to

Renaissance interpretations of Aristotelian values of empiricism and the development of architectural knowledge through the empirical understanding of Roma antica but it also emphasises the deduction and mathematical skill needed for understanding.

Again the emphasis of the figure is one of the transference of knowledge from one mode of operation to another, portrayed by the placement of the body in a contorted curve, making the sinuous movement between the geometric emblems an essential characteristic to achieving this portrayal.

294 The figures of Vignola’s Regola and

Palladio’s I quattro libri conform, in part, to the characteristics of Francesco Salviati’s earlier depiction.Figure 67 However, in

Vignola’s frontispiece, the figures play a less significant role and are placed in profile without the emphasis on the notion of transference and without a focus on the scene of Roma anitca. In Vignola’s frontispiece these personifications and their instruments play a secondary role to the portrait of Vignola dominating the image.

First impressions of the figures of Palladio’s Figure 67 Frontispiece, Iacomo Barozzi da Vignola’s, Regola delli cinque ordini d’architettura, frontispiece suggest their similarity to the Vignola: for the author, 1562. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Labacco frontispiece designed by Salviati. Architecture.

In a manner similar to Salviati’s depiction, the figures reinforce the notion of transference of knowledge from one mode of operation to another; this is achieved through the lifting of one hand and lowering of the other forming a diagonal link between emblems.66 However, the personifications are located on opposite sides of the aedicule to those of Salviati and there are changes in their stance and the mixture of instruments and symbols giving them differing attributes. This mixing of attributes changes the clarity of the allusion to philosophic concepts about knowledge and this makes the naming of Palladio’s personifications less easily supported by their similarity to previous frontispieces. For this reason I have chosen to describe their characteristics as attributes of two complementary disciplinary modes of action

Architettura I and II.

295 The one to the left is Architettura I embodying the transfer of knowledge from rational wisdom gained through an understanding of transference of divine or Natural order to the physical geometry of architecture.Figure 68 Her emblems, additional to those portrayed in Labacco’s frontispiece, are the squared ruler and the symbol of the aged sun-god. Her stance reinforces her attributes in the diagonally linear disposition of her arms forming the visual link between her tools. Like Labacco’s frontispiece this is a transfer from an older form of Divine order, reinforced through the aged sun- god, to the geometric order depicted on the tablet.

However, the addition of the squared ruler forms a greater link with the pursuits of the architect than with Labacco’s

Figure 68 Detail of Architettura I, Matematica as the squared ruler is fundamental to the Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura architect’s design developed through drawing. Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570.

Palladio’s knowledge of these instruments was from personal experience. He had probably been introduced to the astrolabe quadrant while in the company of Gian

Giorgio Trissino whose inventory at his death included an ‘astrolabe with four plates.’67

The astrolabe would have been necessary for instructing Palladio in Vitruvian concepts, an education undertaken initially by Trissino. Daniele Barbaro also had extensive mathematical interests and had constructed astrological instruments.68 As in

Salviati’s illustration for Labacco, the inclusion of the astrolabe with the tablet suggests

Architecture I, as an emblem portrays theoretic and geometric principles as a reflection of cosmic order and the developments of ratios and geometry thus derived. However, the added inclusion of the square makes explicit her ability to draw architectural speculations rather than remain with the depiction of the pure geometric figures of the tablet. For drawing orthographic illustrations and plans of his architectural concept the

296 architect used the squared ruler. Through this transfer of knowledge this figure represents practical intellect rather than contemplative study. For Palladio, the act of drawing was a fundamental attribute of architectural practice and transforms the theoretical understanding of the cosmos to practical application in drawing a building.

The image asserts that this knowledge could be transformed into practical architectural application through drawing (disegno) with its conventions of number, proportion and geometry.

To reinforce the idea of the active transference of knowledge, Palladio wrote of the role of cosmological order for activity in the corporeal world. He said,

And we truly considering how full of marvellous ornaments this beautiful machina del mondo is, and how the Heavens with their continual turning bring the change of the seasons according to natural need, with the sweetest harmonies of temperate movement that they conserve; we cannot doubt that these small Temples that we build being similar to this great one that comes from His immense goodness and which was with his one word perfectly achieved, we are not held to place all those ornaments on them that it is possible for us to place; and in this way and with these proportions they are to be built so that all the parts together bear a sweet harmony to the eyes of those who look at them and that each gives itself for the use for which it is destined and conveniently serves.69

In this statement Palladio states that it is this active notion of transference that holds most interest for his descriptions of the discipline of architecture. In the “Del sito” chapter of Book IV he reinforces his dismay that such knowledge was understood more by the Romans for whom he coined the phrase: those “who never received the light of truth.”70

297 To the right of the frontispiece is Architettura II depicted as the transfer of knowledge gained through the examination of built form to architectural concepts.Figure

69 Her emblems, additional to those depicted in

Labacco’s frontispiece are the instruments of measure, the plumb line and bob, which are portrayed as contributing to the development of empirical wisdom.

This added instrument placed with the measuring rod are fundamental to examination of the details of built architecture. The nature of the vertical in built architecture is fundamental to an understanding of the intricacies of structure, axes and ornament that are often difficult to comprehend for those uninitiated in the

Figure 69 Detail of Architettura II, discipline. In the sixteenth century the measuring stick Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico was often a flexible piece of metal so as to enable the dei Franceschi, 1570. architect to bend it to the profile of ornament. With this device the plumb-bob and line could be used to measure depth of profile and to find the perpendicular axis to a ground plane. Howard Burns has documented that Palladio “measured projecting elements inwards from a plum line,” and drew mouldings with the aid of a thin strip of lead that could be bent.71

In addition to the idea of investigation these emblems also implied notions of disegno or the technical documentation of design through plan, elevation and section.72 In the

“Proemio a i lettori” of Book III Palladio illustrates the significance of investigation through drawing to his knowledge of architecture. He said,

One learns much more rapidly from well-chosen examples, when measuring and observing whole buildings and all their details on a sheet of paper, than one does from written descriptions, when reliable and precise information can only be

298 extracted slowly and with considerable mental effort by the reader from what he is reading and can only be put into practice with great difficulty.73

This notion of transference from investigation into the concepts defining practice is made obvious in Palladio’s use of a figure dressed as emblematic of physical labour with her arms and breast bare, combined with the intellect-driven emblems of the down-turned compass.74

Architetturs II’s stance reinforces her attributes of transference with the diagonally linear disposition of her arms forming the visual link between her instruments. Rather than repeating the symbolic transition from higher intellectual attributes to lower practical outcomes as seen in Architettura I this figure suggests the opposite direction of flow. Her direction of transfer is from knowledge gained through practical investigation symbolised by the measuring rod and plumb-bob being transferred to a higher order of intellectual speculation on architecture symbolised by the compasses.

This different interpretation for the symbol of the compasses is reinforced by the absence of Roma antica in the frontispiece. Palladio’s compasses, unlike Salviati’s in

Labacco’s frontispiece, are depicted as pointing to the ground suggesting they can be used for drawing.75 This symbolism is consistent with their representation in symbol

CXXIIII ‘la Medietas’ of Achille Bocchi, Symbolicarum Quaestionum of 1555, but unlike

Bocchi’s symbol, Palladio depicts the transference from examination of real things to the possibility of architectural speculation rather than from Divine inspiration to geometric forms. It is through the compasses that architectural speculation can be delineated, informed by investigation and measure. Through this, Palladio’s frontispiece refined and modified previous conceptualisations of theoretical knowledge that focused on the importance of empirical study of antiquities to one focusing on the importance and possibility to transfer this investigative phase to the higher order of developing concepts.

299 This movement of rational wisdom to cognitive and manual practices is reinforced through the gaze of Architettura I and Architettura II. Architettura I looks toward the bas-relief figure sculptured on the pedestal opposite under Architettura II and

Architettura II looks to the opposite figure under Architettura I.Figure 70 Below Architettura

II is the figure of Pasiphaë and the bull and has been interpreted by Marco Frascari as emblematic of the mythological origin of the relationship between knowledge and architecture.76 However,

Figure 70 Detail of Architettura I and II showing their gaze to the frieze panels below and opposite, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570.

300 Frascari did not see the connection between Architettura I and the figure of Pasiphaë.

Architettura I, shows through abstract symbols a meaning similarly evoked in the mythological figures of the pedestal opposite. Frascari explained when interpreting this bas-relief that it is an oblique reference to Daedalus and his building of the labyrinth that he suggested was, “the mythological origin of the relationship between knowledge and architecture.”77 The connection between Architettura I and the image of Pasiphaë and the bull symbolises an exemplar from antiquity who had understood the implications of and succeeded with the application of characteristics featured in the frontispiece as those of Architettura.

Below Architettura I is the depiction that Marco Frascari has interpreted as Kairos. He is linked with Architettura II by her gaze. Without suggesting a connection between the figures, Frascari has interpreted the Kairos figure as “a direct presentation of theory as a pondering activity based on the opportunity of a practice.”78 In Palladio’s frontispiece,

Kairos holds a mason’s measure depicting opportunity offered through practice rather than the depiction of Kairos holding a time device or being portrayed in the act of taking the goods from a balance.79 Architettura II gazes at this figure implying a connection of meaning between her emblems and those of Kairos. The link drawn between this figure and that of Architettura II brings together notions of the practical concerns of empirical understanding and measure being fundamental in developing architectural speculation. This is consistent with Palladio’s assertion of the link between knowledge, understanding and practice qualified by craft and physical work as being difficult to maintain. Architettura II holds the instruments of empirical understanding of built architecture, the measuring rod and plumb bob and the instrument that transformed this knowledge to drawing. In the figure of Kairos with the mason’s measure, this knowledge is transferred to actual building practice and craft.

To understand the complex relationships in the transfer of knowledge from one mode of operation to another, a fundamental for the architect, Palladio’s frontispiece depicts

301 diagonal relationships between the figures of Architettura I and II and the bas-relief sculptures of the pedestals. Seen together the two figures of Architettura in the frontispiece demonstrate the complementary interdependence of the theoretical and practical attributes of architectural activity and the necessary transference of different forms of knowledge into built form.

6.2.3 The central figure of REGINA VIRTVS

The top central figure in the composition of the frontispiece sits before the appellation:

REGINA VIRTVS inscribed in the attic level of the aedicule.Figure 71 She wears a crown and holds a sceptre in the hand that she points toward an opened book at her side.

She has the emblem of a young sun god at her breast reinforcing the idea that she represents notions of Wisdom (sapienza) that are new.80 This figure can be interpreted in a number of ways as she draws on both the political imagery of the Venetian

Republic as well as the imagery of the Artes liberales and Palladio’s interpretation of the term Regina delle Virtù.

Figure 71 Detail of Regina Virtus, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570.

302 In attributing the source of the aedicule to the Commissione painting, Marco Frascari also drew attention to the similarity of the central top figures in both the painting and this frontispiece.81 In the Commissione the figure portrayed is Justitia, a figure whose iconography had become synonymous with Venice. In clarifying the explicit use of this personification in the identification of the Venetian state (a topos common in Italy)

David Rosand explains:

Whereas the Siennese invoked the virtue [Iustitia] on behalf of their state, the Venetians effectively fused the two. As the traditional representation of Iustitia became a prime model for the figure of Venetia herself, the two merged into a single identity: Venice is Justice.”82

The image of Justitia is common in Venice adorning the Ducal Palace and other locations.83

Figure 72 Attributed to Filippo Calendario, Venecia in the form of Iustitia Ducal Palace, west façade, photo, Böhm, see David Rosand, Myths of Venice: The Figuration of State, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2001, 31. 303 It is also a feature of more ephemeral iconography of state such as the royal sea-going vessels. In various late-sixteenth-century and turn-of-the-seventeenth-century representations of the escape from the burning Palace of the Dogess, wife of Doge

Morosini Grimani, an event of 1577, the figure of Justitia is depicted as a seated figurehead on the prow of the Doge’s ship, the Bucintoro.84 Figure 73 This is consistent with a number of art works. The original Bucintoro dates from 1526 and was built at the Arsenale in Venice.85 The figure on the Bucintoro holds the sword and scales and wears the crown of the personification of Justitia. Palladio had direct contact with the iconography of the Bucintoro when, during 1554, he submitted a design for the Rialto

Bridge. A main requirement for the bridge’s central arch was that its height enabled the height and bulk of the Bucintoro to travel on the Canal.86

Figure 73 Bucintoro figurehead as Justice, Giacomo Franco, La dogaressa Morosina Morosini Grimani sul Bucintoro è condotta in Palazzo Ducale, Venezia, Museo Correr (inv P.D. 2412). See Lionello Puppi, ed., Architettura e utopia nelle Venezia del Cinquecento, Milan: Electa, 1980, 156.

304 However, this allusion to Venice is diminished in the frontispiece with its transformation to Regina Virtvs even though she retains the physical bearing of Justitia as evident in the Commissione painting. In the frontispiece the book and sceptre have replaced the emblematic scales and sword. However, this act of transformation changes the iconography of the frontispiece from one depicting Venice as the pinnacle of importance to one depicting the Artes liberales, a change that facilitated a reduced reference to patronage or location in I quattro libri. The writings and dialogues of

Daniele Barbaro are fundamental for understanding the possible scope of meaning given to Palladio’s concept of Regina Virtvs. Palladio and Barbaro had remained close associates since Palladio’s collaboration with Barbaro in his Commentari on Vitruvius.87

In a dialogue on political life, begun during the early 1560s, Paolo Paruta quotes

Barbaro as stating that, for him, Justitia or Justice is the most important of the virtues embodied in concepts of service in civic life and that Prudenza can be portrayed as the

‘captain’ of the virtues under Justice because she emerges from Ragione or Reason.88

Barbaro likened the hierarchy of the virtues to a military formation. In this model of hierarchical disposition Barbaro suggests that Prudenza is Regina delle Virtù and achieves this dominant position because she reflects both intellectual and moral virtue in the service of civic life. For Barbaro, Prudenza as Regina Virtù portrayed practical intellect bringing both intellectual and moral virtue into the defining criteria of an active moral political life.89 In his Vitruvian Commentari similar sentiments were also expressed when he stated, “In these offices Architecture appears along side Wisdom

(sapienza) and resides as an heroic virtue (virtù heroica) amongst the Arts.”90 Again,

Barbaro used a hierarchical structure for understanding the importance of the arts to civic life. Architecture involved virtues that combined both intellectual and moral interests in its applications thus distinguishing it as the virtù heroica of the Artes liberales.

305 Palladio’s image of Regina Virtvs adopts the characteristics for Prudenza brings to a symbolisation of Architettura the traits of both intellectual and moral virtues in the service of civic life.91 Just as Rosand had shown that in Venice, the two terms Justitia and Venice were accepted as synonymous, so too, for Palladio, Prudenza and

Architettura became synonymous in the figure of Regina Virtvs. Added to this, in the frontispiece to Palladio’s I quattro libri, Regina Virtvs has the remnant memory of

Justitia from its earlier source image. Barbaro had noted that Art in itself could not be a virtue because it could be used for both good and evil ends. He stated that only through the additional virtues of Temperance and Justice could the arts such as

Architettura be worthy in their service to civic life.92 This layer of meaning validates

Palladio’s representation of Regina Virtvs as enveloping the virtues of Justice by implication through the retention of the emblems of the child sun-god and the crown.

The frontispiece becomes a portrayal of the attributes of Wisdom (in the young sun god) and Justice for service to civic life that can be achieved through Architettura.

As well, notions of Temperance are inherent in the image’s portrayal of active engagement with ‘rules’ as personified by the book held by the figure.93 She points to an open page with her sceptre, thus reinforcing the necessity of conformity to ‘rules of action’ in architecture rather than to dominance of self-will that could provoke immoral or ill-informed consequences. This forms a dialogue with Sebastiano Serlio’s concept of licentiousness in design by removing innovation from personal creation to place design in a context of collective ‘good,’ conforming to ‘rules’ that are comprehensible through adherence to text and illustration. Palladio had openly used the term ‘rule’ in association with his propositions for design. For example he said in the Proemio to the third book,

Having dealt at length with private buildings and having recorded all the most necessary rules [avertimenti] that they must contain and having also included drawings of many of those houses that I designed both within and without the city as well as of those the ancients have made [that Vitruvius has] it is highly

306 appropriate that, turning my discussion to the most excellent and most magnificent structures, I should now move on to public buildings.94

In the association of ‘rules’ with Temperance and Justice and the bringing of these virtues to Prudenza through the image of Regina Virtvs, a dialogue develops between the conceptualisation of the treatise and the allegorical program for the frontispiece illustration.

In Book II, Palladio had included illustrations and text describing a number of his own designs for city and country residences. These villa designs were both idealised and actual in their representation and formed both archetypes and prototypes for the notion of a well-ordered civic life. This notion of civic life had been previously expressed particularly in the writing of Daniele Barbaro who saw the ordering of the household as a microcosm of civic life. In Paruta’s dialogues on political life Barbaro had explained that prudent action could be used to govern the city, “as a man governs over his house and his children.”95 The statement above by Palladio and the division of his treatise into books thus corresponds with Barbaro’s sentiments, which can be sourced to both

Alberti and further to Aristotle, where the ‘rules’ for the construction of the house become mirrored in the ‘rules’ for the construction of public spaces and buildings in the city.96 This use of Barbaro’s sentiments continues to the end of the books with Book IV being devoted to temples. For Barbaro, the essential characteristic of the city and the spectacles of civic life were embodied in religion, its temples and its festivals. This was a sentiment repeated by Palladio in the Proemio to Book III, where he said, “So this third book will be concluded, after which will follow that on temples which are essential for religion, without which the maintenance of civilisation of any kind is impossible.”97

While Giuseppi Barbieri and others have suggested that in the frontispiece Palladio was keen to present himself as the embodiment of these virtues, to propose himself as the living incarnation of the Vitruvian architect and Regina Virtvs and to be considered as the personal ‘living rule’ for architecture, there is little to reinforce this

307 interpretation.98 Instead, the Regina Virtvs as the dominant figure of the frontispiece reinforced the notion of the discipline of Architettura as also being dominant in its role of service to civic life. It therefore should be understood outside the notions of the individual architect, patronage and state.

6.2.4 The central maritime cartouche

The central maritime scene of the frontispiece has a representation of a female goddess similar to the dominant figure of the frontispiece’s Regina Virtvs. She sits in the stern of a vessel that has a Neptune figurehead at its prow. Standing in the prow of the vessel is an image of Fortune as Primavera.99 Outside this central image and forming a symmetrical frame of the cartouche are two female herm figureheads each attached to a timber ship’s hull. Each herm holds the end of a garland that joins at a mascaron face located centrally at the base of the cartouche. The top central axis of the cartouche is resolved with a depiction of the head of a lion.

Figure 74 Detail of central maritime cartouche, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570. 308 Although the emblems are consistent with ones depicting Venice as a maritime power, they alone do not explicitly portray the location as Venice. However, Marco Frascari’s interpretation of the frontispiece has suggested that this cartouche can be read as emblematic of Venice because of its representation of renovatio urbis in a manner similar to that of Palladio’s edition of I commentari di Giulio Cesare, published in Venice in 1575.100 In that frontispiece, a ship with a nearly identical group of figures is being driven toward a distant city with features reminiscent of Venice, but in this image the frontispiece to I quattro libri there is no such visual confirmation of Venice.

An element of the composition that could be interpreted as referring to Venice is the personification seated in the ship. This figure is similar to representations of Astraea, goddess of Justice, who having been exiled from wickedness had come to reside in

Venetian waters.101 As discussed above, the figure of Justice in the iconography of

Venice represented both virtue and Venice itself as the location. Depictions exist of

Justice as Astraea on the cornice of the Zecca building by Jacopo Sansovino of the early 1540s and in the political iconography of a flagstaff base in the Piazza S. Marco c. 1542. The flagstaff shows an image of three ships sailing toward Venice. The stern of one ship has Astraea, goddess of Justice carrying Venice’s ‘honoured sword’ in her right hand and in the left, the head of a convicted traitor. Triton guides her vessel and on the prow is a holding a staff on which hangs an image of the balanced scales of Justice.102

In the story of the flagstaff, Astraea had come to reside in Venice as a result of exile and only Fortuna could have brought her to this bountiful spot. However, unlike the figure of the flagstaff, the personification in I quattro libri does not carry emblems denoting Venice and Justice but she does wear the crown of Regina Virtvs. In I quattro libri the figure sits with her body facing the stern of the boat and she is portrayed twisting her head to gaze directly to Fortuna in the prow. In this case Fortuna appears

309 Figure 75 Detail of Astraea, Alessandro Leopardi, Bronze Pedestal, San Marco, photo, Böhm. See David Rosand, Myths of Venice: The Figuration of State, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2001, 127.

to hold only benefit for Regina Virtvs as there is no sense of query in her posture and

Fortuna is personified as Primavera or Spring. The source for this personification is

Sandro Botticelli’s Primavera, c. 1478. Edgar Wind has suggested that the source for the Botticelli’s image is the Lorenzo de’Medici poem which reads, “spring is the season

‘when Flora adorns the world with flowers’ – la primavera quando Flora di fiori adorna il mondo that is a personification of abundance and wealth.103 However, instead of the group of emblems in the ship being directed to an image of Venetian renewal, abundance and wealth as in the representations of Astraea, the figures in I quattro libri are adrift on the open sea.

Marco Frascari’s suggestion that this could be a depiction of Venetian renovatio urbis can also be re-examined in relation to the image of the ship itself. Although the ship could be traced to Venetian sources it equally could have been typical of ships from along the Adriatic coastline. However, the vessel is also similar in its design to that

310 depicted by Giacomo Franco in his later recording of a Venetian festival, with both the stern and bow of Palladio’s frontispiece boat appearing to be of a design similar to that of Franco’s. 104 The Neptune characteristic at the prow is also similar. The vessel in

Franco’s depiction is a Venetian design used for a theatrical festival enacted to reinforce the political function of particular allegorical programs. However, these similarities alone may also represent an image of the maritime life in which Palladio lived at this time. Palladio had been associated with work on buildings in the Arsenale in Venice during the 1560s. He has been documented as having designed the side

(fianco) and head (testa) for a galleon and there is also evidence to suggest that he designed a building there.105 If Palladio had designed the decorative elements of a ship such as that shown in the frontispiece it is questionable that it was a war-galleon.

Pictorial evidence would suggest that ships with decorative statuary at their prow and decorative elements at their sides were not war-galleons but would include those used for theatrical and festive occasions.106

There is no suggestion in the figures that frame the cartouche of Palladio’s frontispiece that would indicate Venice as the location. The herm-like mermaids hold no allegorical meaning other than their reference to the sea and to wealth from their garlands of plants and fruit. The faces of the lion and mascaron above and below the cartouche reflect only notions of good and evil. This would suggest that in the central maritime cartouche, emblems do not refer to a specific location such as Venice and only its general maritime origin remains.

Although this collection of emblems and personifications are reminiscent of allegories associated with Venice, their use in the frontispiece to I quattro libri is with the omission of key emblems indicating that this cartouche is symbolic of Venetian renovatio urbis or the Doge as patron. Instead the cartouche takes the idea of Regina Virtus – Prudenza, as personification of Architettura and celebrates the abundance of the future with her gaze toward the positive attributes of Primavera. In doing this, Palladio’s image again

311 mirrors a sentiment expressed by Daniele Barbaro. When asked whether a virtue is purer in its abstract form or when it takes material shape, Barbaro answered with the analogy of a ship: it is only by becoming a reality and tested on the water that the ship proves its worth and the virtue can be seen embodied by action.107 Thus, in Barbaro’s terms it is only through action and physical presence that virtues can be revealed. In the same way Palladio shows Architettura in a ship ready to prove her virtues.

6.3 Interpreting the ‘architect’ in Palladio’s I quattro libri

In her analysis of Andrea Palladio’s I quattro libri, Manuela Morresi calls attention to

Palladio’s scant reference to Venice. She asserts, “Venice is, in fact, conspicuously absent from the Quattro libri. Specific references to the city are trivial, and projects which could be relevant to Venice were ‘censored’.” Having listed a number of examples where relevant connection might have been drawn, Moressi focuses her criticism of Palladio’s treatise on the project for the Rialto Bridge “presented by Palladio with reticence and without naming the city which had rejected him.”108 In I quattro libri,

Palladio included the illustration for his competition entry for the Rialto bridge but had simply titled the chapter, “A Stone Bridge of my own Invention.”109 Morresi suggested that the absence of Venice in I quattro libri is a programmatic ‘absence’ penetrating the whole treatise and making the project of the treatise distinctive. For Morresi this project centred on the presentation of the absolute value of antique architecture legitimised by

Palladio’s own ‘modern’ interpretation.110

However, it is my claim that not only does this absence and censoring of explicit references to Venice make Palladio’s treatise and frontispiece distinctive but that this absence is essential to Palladio’s ‘thesis’ on architecture, and it is an ‘absence’ reinforced by repetition in the frontispiece. It is Palladio’s ‘thesis’ that Architettura as a collective discipline is fundamental for its role of service to civic life, a discipline that

312 should be understood outside the contribution of an individual’s architecture constrained by his skill or talents or other personal characteristics or as constrained by patronage and the state. Reducing the number of emblems in the frontispiece to a group of abstract virtues is consistent with this notion that Palladio did not wish to reference his treatise on architecture through an individual or a place or conditions of patronage having a dominant influence. The frontispiece distinctively presents itself as moving away from the referentiality of specific architecture or location-type that had previously been considered the central concerns of Architettura, to an image of a discipline developing from and constrained by both intellectual and moral philosophy. It is only this move away from images of patronage and location in Palladio’s frontispiece that is consistent with his concept of the architect moving towards an institutional and collective professional status, an architect becoming a social functionary outside of patronage and court, an architect controlling specialised knowledge and skill and able to work from the intellectual and moral philosophical basis as a member of a professional discipline making a unique and specific contribution to civic life.

1 Andrea Palladio’s name was originally Andrea di Pietro dalla Gondola and was changed to Palladio probably by Gian Giorgio Trissino, his patron during his early career. Bruce Boucher explains, “the name Palladio derives from Pallas, one of the names of the Greek goddess of Wisdom. It was also the name of a Roman writer on agriculture, and was employed by Trissino for Belisarius’s guardian angel in Italia liberata.” See Bruce Boucher, Andrea Palladio: the Architect and his Time, New York: Abbeville Press, 1994, 20, 305 fn. 26. See also his sources, Rudolf Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, London: Tiranti, 1962, 58 and Howard Burns, Lynda Fairbairn and Bruce Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580: The portico and the farmyard, London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1975, 81-82, cat. nos. 150- 51. Charlton Lewis and Charles Short, Latin Dictionary, (1879) Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996 also gives the adjective Palladius as belonging to Pallas (surname of Minerva). 2 Whether the two smaller editions were reprints or precedent to I quattro libri has been contentious stemming from a catalogue entry at the British Library. This author favours the argument that the smaller books preceded the final compilation. Those presenting the I quattro libri as a final compilation of the two editions include Tommaso Temanza, Vite dei più celebri

313 architetti e scultori veneziani, (1778) Milano: Labor, 1966, 342; Leopold Cicognara, Catalogo dei libri d’arte e d’antichità, Pisa: Nicolò Capurro, 1821, (nos. 592, 593) 106; Lawrence Fowler and Elizabeth Baer, The Fowler Architectural Collection of the John Hopkins University: catalogue, Baltimore: Evergreen House Foundation, 1961, 175; Lionello Puppi, Andrea Palladio, The Complete Works, (1973) trans Pearl Sanders, Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1989, 285 and others. Other historians suggest the two smaller books are a re-print of the original stem from a catalogue entry at the British Library include: British Library, Short-title Catalogue of Books printed in Italy and of Italian Books Printed in other countries from 1465-1600 now in the British Library, London: The British Museum, 1958, 485; and Ruth Mortimer, Harvard College Library Department of Printing and Graphic Arts Catalogue of Books and Manuscripts: Part II: Italian Sixteenth-Century Books, Vol II, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Belknap Press, 1974 cites the previous catalogue as her source for the same stance. My thanks to Sandra Richards for pointing this out. 3 The minor variations between the two editions are explained in Licisco Magagnato’s “Introduction,” in Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, eds. Licisco Magagnato and Paola Marini, Milano: Polifilo, 1980, note i, XIV. 4 See Lionello Puppi, Andrea Palladio: scritti sull’architettura (1554-1579), Vicenza: Neri Pozza Editore, 1988, has the text of both books and discussion. Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1556. The 1567 edition is titled I dieci libri dell’Architettura di M. Vitruvio, tradotti e commentati da Mons. Daniel Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileia, da lui riveduti e ampliati; & hora in piu commoda forma ridotti, Venezia: Francesco de’ Franceschi Senese & Giovani Chrieger Alemano Compagni, 1567. 5 Antonio Francesco Doni, La zucca del Doni, Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1551, in his Seconda libraria, 155, suggests that Palladio had written, “and designed numerous beautiful things pertaining to all sorts of buildings, and it is a very great pity that they are not in print. His book has no title, but from its contents it could be called ‘Principles of True Architecture’.” et disegnato, molte et bellissime cose pertinenti a tutte le sorti di Edifitij, le quali è grandissimo peccato che non si stampino. E ‘l Libro non ha titolo, ma da quello che in esso si può imparare, si puole chiamare ‘Norma di vera architettura’. From Roberto Pane, Andrea Palladio, Torino: Einaudi, 1961, 24. This is the second edition of the Doni text as an earlier printing is listed in Cecilia Marsili-Libelli, Anton Francesco Doni: scrittiore e stampatore: bibliografia delle opera e della critica e annali tipografici, Firenze: Sansoni Antiquariato, 1960, 64. The second edition of 1555 is listed on 106 of the same catalogue. Daniele Barbaro later states, “I could exert myself to describe in detail many things, Measurements and styles not mentioned by Vitruvius, but knowing that a book will soon appear on private houses composed and drawn by Palladio and having seen that it leaves nothing to be desired, I did not want to use the work of another as my own.” Io mi estenderei in discrivere particolarmente molte cose, le misure, & i modi delle quali non sono posti da Vitr, ma sapendo che presto venirà in luce un libro delle case private, composto & disegnato dal Palladio, & havendo veduto, che in quello non si può desiderare

314 alcuna cosa, non ho voluto pigliare la fatica d’altri per mia. See Magagnato I Quattro libri dell’architettura, by Andrea Palladio, 1980, 179 and see also 1567 edition of Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio, 303, from Magagnato’s “Introduction,” xi-xii. See also Daniele Barbaro, I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio, 1556, 179. 6 Giorgio Vasari, writes, “there is soon to come into the light of day a work of Palladio in which will be printed two books of ancient edifices and one book of those that he himself has built.” tosto vera in luce un’opera dell Palladio, dove saranno stampati due libri d’edifizi antichi e uno di quelli che ha fatto egli stresso edificare, Vasari, Giorgio, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori,scritte da Giorgio Vasari, pittore aretino, con nuovo annotazioni e commenti di Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols., Gaetano Milanesi, ed., Firenze: Sansoni, 1906, Vol 7, 531. See discussion Laura Conti e Margaret Daly Davis with Charles Davis, Julian Kliemann and Anna Maria Maetzke, Giorgio Vasari : principi, letterati e artisti nelle carte di Giorgio Vasari, Casa Vasari, Pittura vasariana dal 1532 al 1554, Sottochiesa di S. Francesco : [catalogo delle mostre] Arezzo, 26 settembre-29 novembre 1981, Firenze, Edam, 1981, 295-296. See also later printed edition of Conti’s Giorgio Vasari : principi, letterati e artisti nelle carte di Giorgio Vasari, with introduction by M. Marini, Roma: Newton Compton, 2002, 1315. This is within a general discussion of Palladio’s work in and around Vicenza. 7 This is a collection of written material done between 1561 and 1565 with some corrections added later in the decade. See Puppi, Andrea Palladio scritti sull’architettura, 1988, 63 and fig 39, 40, 41. 8 Puppi suggests that two or three copies of the manuscript may have existed that would have been circulated amongst a small group of critics and mentors. Puppi, Andrea Palladio: scritti sull’architettura, 1988, 62. 9 Howard Burns alludes to Palladio’s close contact with experienced authors of illustrated or architectural books. He lists Giuseppi Salviati, Daniele Barbaro, Cosimo Bartoli and Silvio Belli. See Burns, Fairbairn and Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580, 1975, 94. 10 Puppi, Andrea Palladio: the Complete Works, 1989, 8. 11 See Puppi, Andrea Palladio: the Complete Works, 1989, 9, and Burns, Fairbairn and Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580, 1975, 69. 12 On Palladio’s relationship with Trissino, see Franco Barbieri, “Giangiorgio Trissino e Andrea Palladio,” Convegno di studi su Giangiorgio Trissino, Vicenza 31 marzo - 1 aprile 1979, ed Neri Pozza, Vicenza: Accademia Olimpica, 1980, 191-211. See also James Ackerman, Palladio, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1966, 19ff. See also Puppi, Andrea Palladio: the Complete Works, 1989, 5-15. Boucher, Andrea Palladio: the Architect and his Time, 1994, calls attention to B. Morsolin, Giangiorgio Trissino, Vicenza, 1878. For a summary of each of the main figures in Palladio’s early career, Trissino, Cornaro and Barbaro see Paul Holberton, Palladio’s Villas: Life in the Renaissance Countryside, London: John Murray, 1990. Palladio praises Trissino in his book I when discussing Vicenza which, although a small town, is replete with noble intellectuals: molti gentil’huomini vi sono stati studiosissimi in quest’arte , I quali è per

315 nobilità, e per eccellente dottrina non sono indegni di esser annoverati tra i più illustri : come il Signor Giovan Giorgio Trissino splendore de’ tempi nostri. Andrea Palladio, “Proemio ai lettori,” Il primo libro dell’architettura di Andrea Palladio, in his I quattro libri dell’architettura di Andrea Palladio, Venezia: Dominico de’Franceschi, 1570, 1, 5. 13 See discussion on the context of the importance of Vicenza in Burns, Fairbairn and Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580, 1975, 10-12. 14 Palladio is first documented in the house of Trissino during 1538, see Giangiorgio Zorzi, “Ancora della vera origine e della giovinezza di Andrea Palladio secondo nuovi documenti,” Arte Veneta, III (1949), 140-2. See Boucher, Andrea Palladio: the Architect and his Time, 1994, Ch 1. On Cornaro see Giuseppi Fiocco, Alvise Cornaro: Il suo tempo e le sue opere, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1965 and Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990, Ch 7. For a comparison of Trissino with Cornaro and their effect on Palladio’s development see Puppi, Andrea Palladio: the Complete Works, 1989, 11-18. 15 Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990, 77, 86ff. Holberton suggests that Trissino had had this in mind during the 1540s when travelling with Palladio. His chapter on Cornaro alludes to his writing on la santa agricoltura where he spoke of his attitudes to the city, to architecture and to the ‘sober life’. See also Fiocco, Giuseppi, Alvise Cornaro: Il suo tempo e le sue opere, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1965. For discussion of Trissino’s draft see Lionello Puppi, Andrea Palladio, Milano: Electa, 1973, 79-86. 16 Drawings in the RIBA collection VIII/7 have been attributed to Palladio and are after Serlio’s studies 33-34 of Book III. Sebastiano Serlio, Book III, Il Terzo libro si Sebastiano Bolonese, nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antiquita di Roma, Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1540. However, the attribution is contentious. See Heinz Spielman, Andrea Palladio und die Antike: Untersuchung und Katalog der Zeichnungen aus seinem Nachlass, München, Berlin:Deutscher Kunstverlage, 1966, no.7 137. Giangiorgio Zorzi, I disegni delle antichità di Andrea Palladio prefazione di Giuseppe Fiocco, Venezia: Neri Pozza, 1959, 106-107 and fig 272; Douglas Lewis, The Drawings of Andrea Palladio, Washington: International Exhibitions Foundation, 1981, 42-43 and figure no 21. Alvise Cornaro knew Serlio who had stayed with him. Falconetto had lived in Cornaro’s house until his death in 1535. See Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990, 81 and Puppi, Andrea Palladio, The Complete Works, 1989, 14ff. 17 Holberton, Palladio’s Villas, 1990, 77, 86ff. 18 Puppi refers to a letter to Palladio dated 19th February, 1539 which shows him to be staying at the residence of Trissino, suggesting that the partnership between them was already well established by that date. See Puppi, Andrea Palladio: the Complete Works, 1989, 11. Venice was the only significant city in Italy that actually lacked Roman ruins. See Loredana Olivato, “Con il Serlio tra I ‘dilettanti de architettura’ veneziani della prima metà,” in Jean Guillaume ed., Les traités d’architecture de la Renaissance: Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1er au 11 juillet, 1981, Paris: Picard, 1988, 247-54; Loredana Olivato, “La scena dell’architettura: I fondamenti teorici della prassi,” in Puppi, Lionello, ed., Architettura e Utopia nelle Venezia del

316

Cinquecento, ex. Cat. Milano: Electa, c1980, 167-68; Patricia Fortini Brown, Venice and Antiquity: The Venetian Sense of the Past, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996, 277. 19 Douglas Lewis also suggests that Palladio visited Pola where he undertook measured studies of The Arch of Sergii, and the Roman Amphitheatre. See Douglas Lewis, The Drawings of Andrea Palladio, 1981, 34-38. Lewis explains that Pola was located eighty miles across the Gulf of Venice at the head of the Dalmatian coast. It was important to architects and masons for its proximity to quarries. It would be a logical conjecture that as Palladio had begun his education as an apprentice stonemason he would have known the importance of Pola and its collection of Roman remains. Burns and Traversari suggest that Palladio’s drawing at the Museo Civico, Vicenza are copied from prior sketches by Falconetto suggesting that those in the RIBA collection are by Falconetto. In a dispute of this attribution Lionello Puppi suggests Palladio may have copied a Sanmicheli drawing while in the workshop of Giovanni di Giacomo da Porlezza. For discussion see Lionello Puppi, Palladio Drawings, New York: Rizzoli, 1990, 95. 20 See discussion in previous chapter. See Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio, 1556. 21 For Barbaro’s work with Palladio see Antonio Magrini, Memorie intorno la vita e le opere di Andrea Palladio: pubblicate nell’inaugurazione del suo monumento in Vicenza, li agosto 1845 colla serie di ventisette scritture del medesimo architetto in parte inedite/ ed ora la prima volte unite dall' abate Antonio Magrini, Padova: Dalla Tipografia del Seminario, 1845, 27-37. This text discusses the relationship in terms of the Vitruvius Commentari and compares how Daniele Barbaro refers to and considered Andrea Palladio as collaborator and architect in the two editions, citing the Latin 1567 and the 1556. 22 Barbieri notes that this conformity to graphic layout has sometimes developed adjustments in the buildings. In Villa Malcontenta additions of sidewalls are more important to the predisposition of the page than they are to the architectural design or the actual building where they do not exist. See Franco Barbieri, “Il valore dei ‘Quattro libri’,” Bolletino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura, 14 (1972), 63-79. To some extent this is more reminiscent of Cesare Cesariano’s translation of Vitruvius than any in the intervening period. Palladio develops the ‘graphic design’ to a more precise art. Cesare Cesariano’s translation of Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de Latino in vulgare affigurati: Commentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, trans. Cesare Cesariano, Como: Gotardo da Ponte, 1521. 23 This can be seen also in details equivalent to those of the Corinthian column on page 54, full façade details of Book II page 85, and the drawings of antiquities of Book IV. See Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, 54, 85. 24 Bernhard Rupprecht has argued that Palladio’s aim for his illustrations was didactic. However, the majority of illustrations are difficult to understand for the lay or architectural reader without some effort of reconstruction and even more so for the lay reader. Bernhard Rupprecht, “Il numero e l’ordine dei disegni dipendono di volta dalle necessità della demonstrazione o della

317 documentazione,” in “Proiezione e realità nei disegni dei ‘Quattro libri’.” Bolletino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura, 21(1979), 159-75. 25 See specifically the details of the orders in Book IV, Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570. These representations take a sophisticated level of knowledge and drawing skill to understand the illustrations as anything but independent graphic displays. A contrast can be drawn also with Labacco’s treatise that attempts perspectival views of whole buildings as well as these more componential views to explain how the whole goes together. 26 See James Ackerman and his examination of botanic and medical illustration. Many parallels can be drawn to the approaches in the sciences and their documentation techniques at this time. James Ackerman, “Early Renaissance ‘Naturalism’ and Scientific Illustration,” in his Distance Points: Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994, 199-201 and James Ackerman, “The Involvement of Artists in Renaissance Science,” in John Shirley and David Hoeniger eds., Science and the Arts in the Renaissance, Washington: Folger, 1985, 94-125. 27 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, IV. X. 36. Io ho fatto le loggie davanti, & gli ornamenti di dentro come mi sono imaginato che dovessino essere havvta consideratione à quello che si vede hora sopra terra. Translations taken from Andrea Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Robert Tavernor and Richard Schofield, Cambridge Mass.: MIT, 1997. 28 Magagnato suggests that illustrations can be classified into 6 groups, p. LXIV. He documents that in Book IV there are two Ionic capitals different from Book I, twelve Corinthian capitals, and three Composite ones. Licisco Magagnato, “Introduction,” in Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, 1980, XXII ff. Manfredo Tafuri saw that the exempla formulated the problem of the difficult relationship between type and invention. See Manfredo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, trans Jessica Levine, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1995, 127. 29 Helmut Lorenz has claimed that Palladio used historic examples to comment on his own work evidenced through the primacy given to Palladio’s schemes. This changed the conceptual focus of the text. See Helmut Lorenz, “Il Trattato come strumento di ‘autorappresentazione’: Palladio e J.B. Fischer von Erlach,” Bolletino del Centro Internazionale studi di architettura Andrea Palladio, 21(1979), 141-157. 30 For discussion on Barbaro’s philosophical basis see discussion in the introductory section of the previous chapter. See also, Manfredo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, 122ff; Morresi, Manuela, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, 274ff; and Pierre Caye, Le Savoir de Palladio: architecture, métaphysique et politique dans la Venise du Cinquecento, Paris: Klincksieck, c1995 for their different sources and approaches to ‘theory.’ 31 More thorough explanation can be viewed in Chapter 5 of this study on Daniele Barbaro. 32 See Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I dieci Libri, 1556, I. VI. 40, or 1567, I, VI, 64. Ne i dissegni de le figure importanti ho usato l’opera di M. Andrea Palladio Vincentino Architetto, il

318 quale ha con incredibile profitto tra quanti ho consciuto . . . acquistato la vera Architettura, non solo intendendo le belle, e sottili ragioni di essa, ma anco ponendola in opera si ne i sottilissimi, e vaghi disegni dei piante, di gli alzati, e dei profili, come nelo esequire e far molti superbi Edificij ne la patria sua, e altrove, che contendendono con gli antichi, danno lume a moderni, e daran meraviglia a quelli che verranno. Translations taken from Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Tavernor and Schofield, 1997. See discussion in Manfredo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, 126 and 250, fn 123, however, Tafuri and others including Fontana (who cites p.49) have given the wrong source to this text. See Vicenzo Fontana, “Il ‘Vitruvio’ dell 1556: Barbaro, Palladio, Marcolini,” in Trattati Scientifico nel Veneto fra il XV e XVI secolo, ed Ezio Riondato, Venezia: Università Internationale dell’Arte, 1985, 39-72. My thanks to Branko Mitrovi for clarifying its location. 33 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, Dedication to Conte Giacomo Angaranno. Con gli occhi proprij ho veduto , & con le proprie mani misurato i fragmenti di molti edificij antichi … [che] … rendono anco nelle grandissime ruine loro chiaro , & illustre testimonio della virtù & della grandezza Romana : in modo che ritrovandomi io grandemente esercitato, & infiammato ne gli ottimi studij di questa qualità di Virtù, & havendo con gran speranza messo in lei tutti i miei pensieri : mi posi anco all’impresa di scriver gli avertimenti necessarij, che si devono osservare da tutti i belli ingegni, che sono desiderosi di edificar bene, & leggiadramente : & oltra di ciò di mostrar in disegno molte di quelle fabriche, che da me sono state in diversi luoghi ordinate, & tutti quelli antichi edifici c’ho finora veduti. Translations taken from Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Tavernor and Schofield, 1997. 34 This is consistent with Daniele Barbaro’s belief that the virtuous man never presented himself as the primary beneficiary of his actions but dedicated all his moral and intellectual energies to the common good. See Paolo Paruta Della perfettione della vita politica di M. Paolo Paruta nobile vinetiani. Libri tre. Con privilegio. (1579) Venezia: Domenico Nicolini, 1599, 210- 211. In this section Barbaro presents the idea of prudence being not simply for the good of the individual but used to govern the city as a man governs over his house and his children. Thus public prudence became of worth to the common good. 35 Manfredo Tafuri lists texts by Sperone Speroni, Bernadino Tomitano, Paolo Paruta, Bernado Navegero, and Anton Francesco Doni. Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, 126. 36 It has been suggested that Palladio was insecure in his depiction of human forms and that he had used other artists to carry out his figures in a number of works. The frontispiece could have been made in collaboration with Bernardino India but there is no hard evidence for this. See Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, II, III, 12 and II, XV, 58. India worked collaboratively with Palladio during the 1550s and Palladio’s drawings of the Rialto Bridge in the Museo Civico Vicenza D20r have figures attributed to India. India did the frescoes for a number of the private villas as Palladio himself states in his text. However, the figures for this project and those of the frontispiece are of significantly different styles. The figures of both of his frontispieces to Daniele Barbaro’s I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio and his own treatise seem consistent

319 in style and line work and were probably done by the same artist. In the previous chapter I have suggested that there was evidence that Palladio had more likely collaborated with Giuseppe Porta Salviati who had worked in association with the Marcolini printing house during the 1550s and 1560s. For information on Giuseppe Porta see Catherine Goguel, Philippe Costamagna and Michel Hochmann, Francesco Salviati et la bella maniera, Roma: Ecole Française de Rome, 2001, and esp William Rearick’s “Francesco Salviati, Giuseppe Porta and Venetian Draftsmen of the 1540s,” in Catherine Goguel, Philippe Costamagna and Michel Hochmann, Francesco Salviati et la bella maniera, Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2001, 455-478 and David McTavish, Giuseppe Porta called Giuseppe Salviati, PhD Dissertation submitted to Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, New York: Garland Publishing, 1981. The relationship between Andrea Palladio and Bernardino India is now well accepted but no distinctive evidence has been found to attribute the design of the frontispieces. It was first suggested by Licisco Magagnato, “I collaboratori Veronesi di Andrea Palladio,” Bollettino del Centro internazionale di studi di architettura Andrea Palladio, X (1968), 170-187. Lionello Puppi recognises that this collaboration is now well accepted by scholars in a discussion of Palladio’s design for the competition for the Rialto Bridge, Venice, in Lionello Puppi, Palladio Drawings, New York: Rizzoli, 1990, 98-100. 37 Sandra Richards has drawn attention to the changing title plates from the earlier publications and the seeming better fit of the earlier titles to the size of the cartouche. See Sandra Richards, “The Genesis and Publication of Andrea Palladio’s I Quattro libri dell’architettura,” Thesis, MA, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada, 1998, 38, fn 37. 38 Sebastiano Serlio had commented on the inappropriateness of this detail in his treatise and frontispiece. Sebastiano Serlio, Libro terzo, 1540, CVI. See Hart and Hicks, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, 1996, 196. 39 The miniature is now at the Museo Correr, Venice, phot. 5969. Marco Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” Assemblage 7(Oct., 1988), 20. Frascari suggests a further similarity between the images saying that for the frontispiece Regina Virtus replaces the personification of Venice found on the miniature. He argues that by retaining many of the emblemata of the Venice the frontispiece figure takes on a regional value. 40 Frascari suggests that the miniature is by two artists and that the architectural components are by the young Palladio. Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 21. Palladio was resident in Vicenza at the time and is documented as developing friendships with other members of the Contarini family. There is no indication of his involvement at this time while apprenticed to the stone masons, Giovanni da Pedemuro and Girolamo Pittoni. However, it is significant that by 1570 Palladio was living in Venice with Giacomo Contarini, Palazzo Contarini delle Figure at San Samuele. See Giangiorgio Zorzi, Le opere pubbliche e i palazzi privati di Andrea Palladio, Venezia: Neri Pozza, 1965, 131ff. Gasparo Contarini was a Venetian reformist, and Palladio may have been aware of the miniature through his family connections and aware of the ideas it represented. See Bruce Boucher, Andrea Palladio: The Architect and His Time, 1994, 284. For a discussion of the

320 miniature see, Lionello Puppi, “Iconografia di Andrea Gritti” in Manfredo Tafuri, ed., Renovatio Urbis: Venezia nell’età di Andrea Gritti (1523-1538), Roma: Officina, 1984, 224 and Plate 6. For an explanation of Palladio’s early connection with the Contarini family see Lionello Puppi, Andrea Palladio: the Complete Works, 1989, 108. He directs attention to Giangiorgio Zorzi, Le opere pubbliche e i palazzi privati di Andrea Palladio, Venezia: Neri Pozza, 1965, for an outline of Giacomo Contarini. 41 See Staale Sinding-Larsen, Christ in the Council Hall: Studies in the Religious Iconography of the Venetian Republic, Roma: L’erma di Bretschneider, 1974, 178 and Lionello Puppi, “Iconografia di Andrea Gritti,” in Manfredo Tafuri, ed., Renovatio Urbis: Venezia nell’età di Andrea Gritti, 1984, 224. Gaspare Contarini, 1484-1542, was a Venetian patrician and cardinal. He wrote, De magistratibus et republica Venetorum, Basel: Hieronymus Froben,1544. See Franco Gaeta, “L’idea di Venezia, “ in Storia della cultura veneta, Neri Pozza ed., Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1981 for a description of Contarini’s influence on the Venetian constitution. 42 Alvise Zorzi, Venetian Palaces, New York: Rizzoli, 1989, 298ff. 43 Staale Sinding-Larsen, Christ in the Council Hall, 1974, 140. 44 Larsen cites Trissino, “un principe giusto, e santo, e simile a Dio; che’l Principe buono è proprio la imagine di Dio in terra.” (Jacopo Sansovino, Delle Orationi, 2) Seen in Staale Sinding-Larsen, Christ in the Council Hall, 1974, 140. 45 To quote Contarini, Eam verò in hac Republica moderationem ac temperamentum adhibuere, eamque mistionem omnium statuum, qui recti sunt, ut haec Republica & regium principatum & optimatium gubernationem, & civile item regimen referat: adeo ut omnium formas pari quodam libramento commiscuisse videantur, quod clarè ex operas processu liquebit. Gasparo Contarini, De magistratibus, cols. 7f. In Contarini’s introductory material to Liber III of De magistratibus he claimed that the republic’s constitution imitated Nature and the celestial harmonies. See Gasparo Contarini, De magistratibus, Liber III, 1544. See also Sinding-Larsen, Christ in the Council Hall, 1974, 140. 46 Both Puppi, “Iconografia di Andrea Gritti,” in Tafuri, Renovatio Urbis: Venezia nell’età di Andrea Gritti, 1984, and Sinding-Larsen, Christ in the Council Hall, 1974, speak of the iconography of the Doge. In an enactment of 1501, the Great Council prohibited any representation of anyone kneeling before the Doge to receive a commission. The enactment of the commission was not a moment of reverence to the Doge as the Doge was acting as a material representation of St Mark or the Virgin in the commission. 47 At another more political level, the use of the miniature could be read as recognition by Palladio of his debt to his friend Giacomo Contarini. This was a friendship that became more useful in the years to follow when Contarini helped Palladio in gaining commissions of state works. Palladio had had a difficult time gaining work in Venice. He was well established in Vicenza and other country centres but his failure in Venetian projects was only reversed with the support of Giacomo Contarini. In many ways Palladio’s investment in the personal iconography of the Contarini family can be seen as having been advantageous to his appointment to design the entry of Henry III to Venice, a commission influenced by Giacomo Contarini. On the project

321 associated with the Entry of King Henry III of France, representations of this are seen in several images, see M. Preÿs, Enrico III di Francia sbarca al Lido e si accinge a passare sotto l’arco innalzato dal Palladio, Venezia, Museo Correr, inv. P.D. 2417; see Puppi, ed., Architettura e utopia, 1980, 160-162 plates 157, 158, 159 for Domenico Zenoni, L’arco e la loggia eretti al Lido dal Palladio in onore di Enrico III di Francia, Venezia, Museo Correr, inv. Stampe Gherro, 1741 and Fra.co Bertelli, L’arco e la loggia eretti al Lido dal Palladio in onore di Enrico III di Francia, Venezia, Museo Correr, inv. P.D. 2416. See also Brown, Venice and Antiquity, 1996, 310, and Lionello Puppi, Andrea Palladio, The Complete Works, (1973) Pearl Sanders, trans., Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1989, 189, 256, illus 401. 48 See commentary in Chapter 5 of this book. Daniele Barbaro La pratica della perspettiva di Monsignor Daniele Barbaro eletto patriarca d’Aquileia, opera molto profittevole a pittori scultori et architetti, Venetia: Camillo e Rutilio Borgominieri, 1569. See commentary in Alberto Pérez Gómez and Louise Pelletier, Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1997, 46ff. These terms are also defined and explained in Barbaro’s commentary to Vitruvius’s I dece libri I, 2, 20 (1556); I, 2, 29-30 (1567). What is interesting is that in Barbaro’s 1556 translation and commentary each term is set out and explained clearly while in the 1567 edition he brings all the definitions and all the explanations together. 49 Plato, Philebus, 57, in The Dialogues of Plato, trans Benjamin Jowett, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952, 634. 50 See Martin Kemp, The Science of Art, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990, Part I. 51 These would include Daniele Barbaro’s La pratica della Perspettiva, Venetia: Camillo e Rutilio Bergominieri, 1569, printed only one year before Palladio’s books. 52 See the claim made in the statement quoted from his letter of dedication in Palladio’s, I quattro libri, 1570, Dedication to Conte Giacomo Angaranno. 53 The only other illustrations using perspectival technique were those associated with bridge construction, Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, 1, 11-14 and III, 12. These are discussed in Roberto Pane, “I quattro libri,” Bolletino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura, 11(1967), 129. 54 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, IV. I. 5. Manoi, che siamo per la gratia special di Dio da quelle tenebre liberati, havendo lasciata la lorvana, e falsa superstitione; eleggeremo quei siti per i Tempij, che saranno nella più nobile, & più celebre parte della Città, lontani da’luoghi dishonesti, e sopra belle, & ornate piazze, nellequali molte strade mettano capo; onde ogni parte del Tempio possa esser veduta con sua dignità, & arrechi divotione, & meraviglia à chiunque lo veda e rimiri. E senella Città vi saranno colli, si eleggerà la piu alta parte di quelli. Ma non vi essendo luoghi rilevati, si alzerà il piano del Tempio dal rimanente della Città, quanto sarà conveniente; e si ascenderà al Tempio per gradi : conciosia che il salire al Tempio apporti seco maggior divotione, & Maestà. Translations taken from Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Tavernor and Schofield, 1997.

322

55 Many authors have commented on the haste in final production. See Puppi, Andrea Palladio: Scritti sull’architettura, 1988, 59-60 and Boucher, Andrea Palladio: The Architect and His Time, 1994, 238. James Ackerman also concluded that there was haste in the final production, in his comments on the errors found in the illustration of Villa Mocenigo. James Ackerman, Palladio’s Villas, New York: JJ Augustin, 1967, 66. 56 Martin Kemp suggests that the astrolabe was the most popular astronomical instrument of the middle ages and the Renaissance. He explains, “Its construction involved the projection of the orbs of a celestial sphere onto a plan using the south celestial pole as the centre of projection.” See Martin Kemp, The Science of Art, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990, 86. 57 Marco Frascari “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 15-27. 58 Antonio Labacco, Libri d’Antonio Labacco appartenente a l’architettura nel qual si figurano alcune notabili antiquita di Roma, Roma: Casa Nostra, 1552. Iacomo Barozzi da Vignola’s, Regola delli cinque ordini d’architettura, Vignola: for the author, 1562. See Christof Thoenes, “La ‘Regola delli Cinque ordini’ del Vignola,” in his Sostegno e adornamento: saggi sull’architettura del Rinascimento: disegni, ordini, magnificenza, Milano: Electa, 1988, 95. 59 Francesco Salviati, Windsor Castle, Inv. Nr. 19243. See Christof Thoenes, “Vignola’s ‘Regola delli cinque ordini’,” Römisches Jahrbuch die Kunstgeschichte, XX(1983), 365, fn. 112. He directs attention to A.E Popham and J. Wilde, The Italian Drawings of the XV and XVI Centuries in the collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, London: Phaidon Press, 1949, 327 and Iris Hofmeister Cheny, Francesco Salviati (1510-1563), PhD dissertation submirtted to New York Univ., Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms Inc., 1963, II, 630. More recent texts only assert attribution of the image to Salviati. This is based on the similarity of the naked figures on the cornice to his frescoes in the Palazzo Farnese, however some experts believe Salviati was only responsible for the figures on the frontispiece and elsewhere in Labacco's treatise, while Labacco himself took care of the architectural drawings. It is also interesting to note that Labacco's treatise was dedicated to the Cardinal Giovanni Salviati who was Francesco's protector. See Pascal Dubourg-Glatigny, "Disegno per il frontespizio del libro di Antonio Labacco", in Catherine Monbeig Goguel (ed.), Francesco Salviati o la Bella Maniera, Milano, Electa, 1998, 332. This entry suggests that Philip Pouncey was the first to attribute the frontispiece to Francesco Salviati. See Philip Pouncey, “Recensione di Arthur Hind, Early Italian Engraving . . . “ in The Burlington Magazine, XCI, 557 (Aug. 1949), 234-236. 60 See Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, IV, 7, 16-17. In Erik Forssman Palladio’s Lehrgebäude: Studien über de Zusammenhang von Architektur und Architekturtheorie bei Andrea Palladio, Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1965, 170 Forssman suggests this is because of the similarity in the figure seated in the Temple, also see Erik Forssman, “Palladio e l’antichità,” Mostra del Palladio, ex. cat., Vicenza: Basilica Palladiana, 1973, 20. This is reinforced by Burns in Burns et al.,, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580: the portico and the farmyard, 1975, 101.

323

61 See Pascal Dubourg-Glatigny’s catalogue entry “Disegno per il frontispizio del libro di Antonio Labacco,” 1998, 332. His interpretation names the figures Matematica and Perfezione. Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 15-27 sees them as Theory and Practice. 62 The astrolabe quadrant is depicted as a source for understanding the order of the celestial bodies since its depiction in Gregor Reisch’s Margarita philosophica, 1504 where Ptolemy is guided in his study of the stars using the astrolabe quadrant, by Astronomia. It is also depicted in the Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius, I dece libri (1567) IX, III, 361. For more information on the astrolabe quadrant and other scientific instruments see J. A. Bennett, The Divided Circle: A History of Instruments for Astronomy, Navigation and Surveying, Oxford: Phaidon, 1987, 7-26 and Maurice Daumas, Scientific Instruments of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and Their Makers, London, Batsford, 1972 especially Part One Section 1, “Scientific Instruments at the End of the Sixteenth Century.” See also Paolo Galluzzi, ed., Renaissance Engineers From Brunelleschi to , Firenze, Giunti, 2001, 133. 63 See Plato’s Timaeus and Critas, trans., Desmond Lee, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1965, 72ff. 64 Plato spoke of a more symbolic figure closer to the sphere but did not name it. Scholars have alluded to the dodecahedron as this figure. 65 Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, London: Nelson and Sons, 1923, 151. 66 Annarita Angelini draws attention to this curve of the body and the upward and downward actions of gaze and hands in her interpretation of the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s frontispiece and the later designed Vicenzo Scamozzi frontispiece to his treatise. See Annarita Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtù. Il mediomondo di Danile Barbaro. Firenze: Olschki, 1999, 19. 67 Burns et al., Andrea Palladio 1508-1580: The portico and the farmyard, 1975, 85. 68 See Daniele Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius I dece libri, Book IX. Fontana explains that the astronomical drawing showing the movement of the sun during 1556 is attributable to Daniele Barbaro. Vincenzo Fontana, “Il “Vitruvio” del 1556: Barbaro, Palladio, Marcolini”, in E. Riondato ed., Trattati scientifici nel Veneto fra il XV e il XVI secolo, Venezia: Universtà Internazionale dell’Arte, 1985, 58. 69 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, IV, 1, “Proemio ai lettori,” E veramente considerando noi questa bella machina del Mondo di quanti meravigliosi ornamenti ella sia ripiena ; & come i Cieli co’l continuo lor girare vadino in lei le stagioni secondo il natural bisogno cangiando, & con la soavissima armonia del temperato lor movimento se stessi conservino; non possiamo dubitare, che dovendo esser simili i piccioli Tempij, che noi facciamo; à questo grandissimo dalla sua immensa bontà con una sua parola perfettamente compiuto, non siamo tenuti à fare in loro tutti quelli ornamenti, che per noi siano possibili; & in modo, e con tal proporzione edificarli, che tutte le parti insieme una soave armonia apportino à gli occhi de’ riguardanti, & ciascuna da per se all’uso, al quale sarà destinata convenevolmente serva. Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri

324 dell’architettura, Licisco Magagnato and Paola Marini, eds., Milano: Polifilo, 1980, 249. Translations taken from Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Tavernor and Schofield, 1997. 70 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, IV, I, 2, siamo superati in ciò da coloro , che nessun lume haveano della verità. Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, eds. Magagnato and Marini, 1980, 251. Translations taken from Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Tavernor and Schofield, 1997. 71 Burns, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580, 1975, 85. 72 See Daniele Barbaro La pratica della perspettiva, Venetia: C& R Borgominieri, 1569. 73 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, III, 1, “Proemio ai lettori,” essendo che molto più s’impari da i buoni essempi in poco tempo co’l misurarli; e co’l veder sopra una picciola carta gli edificij intieri, e tutte le parti loro; che in lungo tempo dalle parole ; per le quali solo con la mente e con qualche difficultà può il lettore venir in ferma , e certa notitia di quel , ch’egli legge, e con molta fatica poi practicarlo. Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, eds. Magagnato and Marini, 1980, 189. Translations taken from Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Tavernor and Schofield, 1997. 74 These themes develop from images of Saturn in earlier Renaissance art. The most significant of these was an engraving by Giulio Campagnola during the early fifteenth century. This image is suggested by Klibansky, Panofsky and Saxl to be a development of the sculpted figures on the Arch of Trajan at Benevento, 114AD. See Klibansky, Panofsky and Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, 1923, 210-211. 75 This symbolism is much more consistent with the Neoplatonic ideas emerging from symbol CXXIIII ‘la Medietas’ of Achille Bocchi, Achillis Bocchii Bonon. Symbolicarum quaestionum, de vniuerso genere, quas serio ludebat, libri quinque, Bononiae, in aedibus Novae Academiae Bocchianae, 1555. 76 Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 21 77 Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 21 78 Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 21 79 See the relief of Kairos, the Greek god of the propitious moment, probably from the 1st century B.C., is kept in the Benedictine nunnery with the church of St. Nikola. The Greek inscription from the 4th - 3rd century B.C., the oldest written monument in the area of Trogir, is also built in the wall of the cloister of this nunnery. See also Rudolph Wittkower’s discussion in “Chance, Time and Virtue,” in his Allegory and the Migration of Symbols, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977, 98. 80 The significance of the sun god or gorgon is reinforced by Anarita Angelini who suggested that for both Barbaro and Palladio, “Architecture reigns over all the arts and she has appropriated those symbols which Medieval and Renaissance iconology associated with philosophy and wisdom (sapienza) such as the crown, the sceptre and the Gorgon's head on her breast.” See Angelini, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtù. Il mediomondo di Danile Barbaro, 1999, 19.

325

81 Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 19. 82 David Rosand, Myths of Venice: The Figuration of a State, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2001, 26. 83 Listed in Rosand, Myths of Venice, 2001, 32ff. 84 See, Giacomo Franco, La Dogessa Morosini Grimani sul Bucintoro è condotta in palazzo Ducale, Museo Correr (inv. P.D. 2414), seen in Puppi, ed., Architettura e utopia, 1980, 156, 157. See also images of battle ships on following pages compared with that by Giacomo Franco, 1610, Habiti d’huomini et donne venetiane con la procession della Ser.ma Signoria et altri particolari cioè trionfi, feste, ceremonie pubbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia, Museo Correr, Stampe E. 9 bis, in folio. Puppi, Architettura e utopia, 1980, 162-63. 85 Puppi, ed., Architettura e utopia, 1980, 157. 86 For explanations of the Rialto and the Rialto Bridge projects see Donatella Calabi and Paolo Morachiello, Rialto: le fabbriche e il ponte: 1514-1591, Torino: Einaudi, 1987. 87 Palladio remained the main benefactor in Daniele Barbaro’s will. See Bruce Boucher, “The Last Will of Daniele Barbaro,” Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XLII, 1979, 277-282. 88 Paolo Paruta Della perfettione della vita politica di M. Paolo Paruta nobile vinetiani. Libri tre. Con privilegio (1579), Venezia: Domenico Nicolini, 1599, 113. This book was first published in 1579 but stated that the dialogue was copied from an actual set of meetings during the Council of Trent during the 1560s. 89 See Paruta Della perfettione della vita politica, 1599, 115-116. See also Tafuri’s Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, comment in footnote on n.145. 90 See Barbaro’s translation of Vitruvius’s, I dieci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro 1556, I, 7. 91 The analysis of these images shows accord with Rudolph Wittkower’s understanding of Palladio: “It would be strange if Palladio could have escaped Aristotelian influence; his practical sense seems to reflect a belief in Aristotle’s doctrine of experience and his adherence to ancient prototypes a familiarity with Aristotle’s doctrine of imitation; the latter, established in the Poetics as the supreme principle of the arts, found an intense echo in the Northern Italian circles from Trissino to Castelvetro. A fusion of these Aristotelian tenets with Plato’s conception of ideas seems marked in Palladio’s architecture; and an attentive reader will find in his Quattro libri clear traces of this synthesis.” Rudolph Wittkower, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, 1962, 68. 92 While Daniele Barbaro had begun his discussion stating that Justice was important to civic life this virtue became a component part of Prudenza being portrayed both as an outcome or state of being as well as an attribute of the individual. See Paruta Della perfettione della vita politica, 1599, 110-120. 93 Although Temperance is most often represented through a vessel pouring liquid into a second vessel (eg. Perugino’s Cambio series in Perugia, 1507) or holding a harness (eg. Raphael’s “To Each his Due: Justice, Prudenza flanked by Fortitude and Temperance,” Vatican,

326

1511). See also the printer’s mark used by Bolognino Zaltieri between 1555 & 1576 which has Venice as Justice: seated holding palm and olive branches, scales on knees, sword resting diagonally on one knee sitting on two lions with the motto “In te domino speravit” Giuseppina Zappella, Le marche dei tipografi e degli editori italiani del Cinquecento: repertorio di figure, simboli e soggetti e dei reliativi motti, Veneto: Editrice Bibliografica, 1986, vol 2, figs. 1185 & 1186. Temperance was the most mutable of the virtues in its iconography. Pieter Bruegel (1560) in his depiction of Temperance has used the emblem of a figure with a horses bridle in his mouth and in the background included men using measuring instruments and counting devices. See Ernst Gombrich, Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, London: Phaidon, 1972, 85-101. See also, Helene Roberts, ed., Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998, 909ff. That Palladio had provided an architectural theme for his iconography would have been consistent with its context. 94 Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, III, 1 “Proemio ai lettori,” Havendo io trattato à pieno degli edificij privati, e ricordato tutti quelli più necessarij avertimenti , che in loro si devono havere : & oltre acciò havendo posto i disegni di molte di quelle case, che da me sono state ordinate dentro, e fuori delle Città, & di quelle, che (come ha Vitruvio) facevano gli antichi : è molto convenevole che indrizzando il parlar mio à più eccellenti, & a più magnifiche fabriche, passi ora à gli edificij publichi. Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, eds. Magagnato and Marini, 1980, 189. Translations taken from Palladio, The Four Books on Architecture, trans., Tavernor and Schofield, 1997. 95 Paruta Della perfettione della vita politica, 1599, 210-211. “Moreover, as the collective good is more excellent and more perfect than the individual good so must we consider prudence a more noble and true virtue when it is used to the advantage of many than when it is used to look after ourselves alone. But a man who, placed as governor of his home, has his children taught well and has his servants kept at their duties, and looks after and increases the riches and dignity of his family is worthy of greater praise than one who does naught other than look after his own needs even if he does provide for himself most excellently. But if he who, when applying himself to the governance of the City, makes an effort [applying intellect] to exercise this governance in such a way that through his work the City always abounds with necessities & is kept safe and calm from domestic turmoil and external wars, Citizens become virtuous by obeying good laws and the fine arts bloom in the City, then he will, without doubt, acquire that truest and highest honour that is proper to civil prudence, where a single wise man takes care of the well being of many, and acts as their guide to bring them to happiness.” anzi che, come il bene de molti è più eccellente, e più perfetto, che quello d’un solo non è; cosi la prudenza deve stimarsi più nobile, & pro vera virtù, quando à pro di più persone ella si adopra, che quando tutta si occupa della cura di noi stessi. Però l’huomo, che è posto al governo della sua casa; s’egli fa ben ammastreare i figliuoli, tenere i servi nel loro ufficio, conservare, & accrescere le ricchezze, & la dignità della famiglia; merita maggior lode, che quell altro non fa, che alle bisogne di se solo, benche ottimamente, provede. Ma chi applicandosi al reggimento della Città, s’ingegna d’essercitarlo in maniera; che per opera di lui li Cittadini

327 ubedendo alle buone leggi riescano virtuosi, che fioriscano le buone arti nella Città, che ella sia delle cose necessarie sempre abondante; & che sicura, & quieta si conservi dalle domestiche discordie, & dalle guerre esterne, questi senza dubbio n’acquista quel vero, & sommo honore, che è proprio della prudenza civile; per cui un solo huomo saggio provede alla salute di tanti, & è loro guida per condurgli alla felicità. 96 Andrea Palladio II, 12 says the city is nothing more than a big house and the house a small city. Erik Forssman has shown that this comes from Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria I, 9 and Tafuri also showed that Leon Battista Alberti was taking this from Aristotle's Politics book I where he discusses the chief differences between politics and economics, between the governing of the city (over free subjects) and the governing of the household (over the efficient use of slaves, who are not). Forssman, “Palladio e l’antichità,” 1973, 20. See also the prominent Aristotelian, Speroni who writes of this and is quoted in, Giuseppi Barbieri, "La Natura Discendente: Daniele Barbaro, Andrea Palladio e l’arte della memoria," in Lionello Puppi, ed., Palladio e Venezia, Firenze: Sansoni, 1982, 23. 97 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, III, 6, “Proemio ai lettori,” E cosi sarà posto fine à questo Terzo libro: dietro alquale seguirà quel de’Tempij appartenente alla religione, senza laquale è impossibile che si mantenga alcuna Civilità.” 98 See Giuseppe Barbieri, Andrea Palladio e la cultura Veneta de rinascimento, Roma: Il Veltro, 1983, 79ff. 99 See Chapter 4 in this book on Bartoli for discussion of Primavera. 100 Frascari, “Maidens ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the sides of Lady Architecture,” 1988, 20. 101 Jennifer Fletcher has attributed the source for this program to Pietro Contarini (1477- 1543) who held minor posts in Istria and Dalmatia. For the total program see David Chambers and Brian Pullan eds, Venice: a Documentary History, 1450-1630, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001, 398-99. 102 See Rosand Myths of Venice, 2001, 127. See also Chambers and Pullen, eds, Venice: A Documentary History, 2001, 398-399. 103 Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, London: Faber and Faber, 1958, 102. 104 See Puppi, Architettura e utopia, 1980, 162-3 copy of Giacomo Franco, Habiti d’huomeni et donne venetiane con la processione della Ser.ma Signoria, et altri particolari cioè trionfi, feste, ceremonie pubbliche della nobilissima città di Venetia, Museo Correr, Stampe E. 9 bis, in folio. There is a specific image of the Dogaressa getting in her boat with a retinue of noblewomen on her way to the Ducal palace. Page 14 counting the frontispiece as 1. The plates are not numbered in this 1610 edition. 105 Tafuri cites a letter by Giacomo Contarini recently discovered by Antonio Manno as evidence for Palladio’s involvement in building at the Arsenale. He also refers to a letter of July 31, 1560 by Palladio in which he alludes to the construction of the galleon. Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, 1995, 136. Tafuri gives Lionello Puppi as the source of the information regarding the letter. Lionello Puppi, Andrea Palladio, (1973) Milano: Electa, 1996, 332.

328

106 See representations of Venetian ships in Puppi, Architettura e utopia, 1980, 27, 33, 162, 163, 165 107 Paruta, Della perfettione della vita politica, 1599, 104. 108 Morresi, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” Hart and Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces, 1998, 278. For discussion on the Rialto Bridge competition and Palladio’s entry see Calabi and Morachiello, Rialto: le fabbriche e il ponte, 1987. 109 Palladio, I quattro libri, 1570, Book III, XIII. 110 Morresi, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” Hart and Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces, 1998, 278.

329 CONCLUSION

The first section of my conclusion collates and summarises from Chapters Two-Six, my interpretations of the attributes of the architect portrayed in frontispieces of selected sixteenth-century architectural treatises. The second section of this concluding chapter reviews the three aims stated in the Introduction to this study.

7.1 Four distinctive attributes of the sixteenth-century ‘architect’ visually represented in selected frontispieces

The conclusion to this study will address four attributes distinctive in visual representations of frontispieces in the sixteenth century that concern the emerging concept of the

‘architect.’ Discussion of these attributes will focus on evidence found in each chapter’s investigation of individual frontispieces. The first attribute emerging in the first half of the sixteenth century and retained in later frontispieces was the delineation of knowledge, as

‘architects’ recognised the need to determine architecture’s specific categories of knowledge and to delineate its distinctive boundary – thus raising architecture from a craft to a discipline. The second attribute, the depiction of the intellectual ‘architect,’ was represented in frontispieces through groups of images with values set in dialogic relationship with each other. This juxtaposition of values focused on the need for interpretation of the fundamentals in architecture transforming architectural practice to an

330 intellectual activity based on a capacity to form judgments in the resolution of competing interests in building designs. The third attribute of the architect represents him personally as having a specific domain of activity in the design of civic spaces of magnificence not only for patrons but also for the city per se. In this, architecture became an essential component of the representation of good governance of the city. The fourth attribute represented a change in perception of the architect’s role from it being determined by specific patrons, courts and localities to it being determined by a common conformity to the principles of a discipline relevant to its time. This discussion of changes emerging to architecture as a discipline in the one hundred years of the sixteenth century, does not suggest that these changes were all complete during that time; these changes started and continued to change over a long period of time.

7.1.1 The architect as ‘professional’: architects determining the distinctive boundaries and categories of knowledge of their profession

The frontispieces of sixteenth-century architectural treatises portrayed the distinctive knowledge of the architect through abstracted concepts. Influenced by the sixteenth century’s concept of the scientification of all knowledge, these categories of architectural concepts were represented in frontispieces as within a boundary reflecting the comprehension of architecture as a discipline distinct from other disciplines or other occupations in building. Portrayal of these categories included representation of: the transformation of natural order into systems of representation in architecture; the reformulation of classical knowledge from antiquity based on intellectual engagement and practical investigation of its relevance for the formation of present day concepts of order and implementation of the classical; representation of a change in skills needed for investigation, measurement and documentation of buildings and their elements – skills

331 based on new technology and concepts; the recognition that each new architectural enterprise required not only conformity to defined architectural principles, but also,

‘innovation’ because of each enterprise’s distinctive context; the necessity to develop the ability to make appropriate judgments when innovating; and, the moral and ethical standards relevant to being a professional ‘architect.’

The sixteenth-century interpretation of the categories of architectural knowledge, their boundaries and interactions were distinctive when compared with those that had been described earlier. At that time, texts based on Vitruvius’s De architectura had emphasised the broad knowledge areas for those practicing architecture. In these texts, the necessity of the concept of judgement and a knowledge of the liberal arts were seen as necessary but there was little reference to the intellectual basis of architecture. However, in the mid- fifteenth century, this was starting to be recognised with Alberti, in De re aedificatoria, giving some indication of these characteristics. In mid-sixteenth-century Italy while knowledge specific to architecture still formed the content of treatises, the categorisation of knowledge types and their independence and hierarchical importance was emphasised in the frontispieces to architectural treatises. Each frontispiece did not attempt to encapsulate a position for every category of knowledge or every attribute of the architect, but portrayed a proposed hierarchy of importance for a range of knowledge categories, values and intellectual processes exemplifying the discipline and reflecting relevance to propositions of the treatise’s content.

Sebastiano Serlio’s frontispieces portray the beginnings of conceptualising the discipline of architecture as a distinct field with distinctive categories of knowledge. In the frontispieces to Regole generali di architetura, Serlio represented the discipline as a garden of speculative thought emulating natural order in its inclusion of variety ranging from the beautiful to the monstrous. The metaphor of the discipline as garden is reinforced by the

332 aedicule’s traditional use as an entry to a garden or for separation of sections in a garden and by the depictions of the fruit hung to the sides of the portico and cascading down on top of the aedicule structure; the metaphor of ‘categorising’ is reinforced by this fruit at the sides being sorted and tied in distinctive groups. With the image’s representation of the female herm gazing toward the title of the book, Serlio directed the architect-reader, to his treatise for guidance in making prudent judgments informed by learning, when selecting from the range that variety made available. Serlio’s frontispiece to Il terzo libro continued the metaphor of ‘natural order,’ established with the garden concept, in representation of the potential metamorphosis of Nature in architecture. This is portrayed in the rustic portico and it’s setting, reflecting the rough qualities of natural rock and compositionally located in a dialogue with ‘corrected’ fragments of ornamented stone.

Later frontispieces were less relevant to the delineation of boundaries of knowledge in the discipline but represented attributes for determining the importance of categories for architectural knowledge. While Cosimo Bartoli’s and Giorgio Vasari’s frontispiece to

L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti focused mainly on a representation of the Florentine court of Cosimo I de’Medici, it also represented other attitudes underlying the discipline of architecture, particularly those referring to the transformation of natural order into systems of representation in architecture. In comparison to Sebastiano Serlio’s frontispieces, the frontispiece to this translation of L’architettura drew on a different conceptualisation of

‘Nature.’ Through their representation of Flora, Bartoli and Vasari portrayed Nature’s transformative capacity to metamorphose into architecture and architecture’s transformative powers in changing natural materials into the handcrafted forms of buildings. Their frontispiece also depicted a distinctive role for Roma antica and antiquity interpreted through Florentine conceptualisations of the nature of sources. In the treatise’s title on the veil that is partly drawn to reveal this past and the Florentine Academy’s

333 portrayal as the river God, direct attention to Bartoli’s translation and commentary of Leon

Battista Alberti’s text for explanation of these conceptualisations.

It is in the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari on Vitruvius that Andrea Palladio and Barbaro visualised the scope and hierarchy of abstract concepts for the discipline of architecture. A rational structure for knowledge and the development of concepts in architecture is portrayed by Architettura’s foundation in Rhetorica and Matematica being separated into the attributes of Scienza and Intelletto to emphasise the formation of good habits and judgments. The relationship and dominance of Architettura over the Artes liberales was established through the mathematical arts of Geometria, Musica, Astrologia and Arithmetica and represented by either the upward or downward gaze of the personifications symbolising the transformation of the mathematical arts from higher order concepts into the practices of the everyday. This transference from concept to practice was reversed in the depiction of experience in lower order practices leading as well to the development of higher order concepts in architecture.

An essential component of the habits of Intelletto and Scienza were the presentation of proposals for the formulation of prudent judgments: one relying on principles gained through the contemplations of the soul and the other acquired through investigation of objects and intellectual contemplation of natural order to discern the necessarily true.

These attributes are depicted through the inclusion of the armillary sphere and the compasses as emblems with the figures. Their location in the niches of a triumphal arch, depicted through the precise technical documentation form of orthographia, reinforced the necessity for the architect to be in command of specific techniques essential for practice of his discipline. For Barbaro and Palladio architectural concepts could only be developed through a clear rational hierarchy with implementation of knowledge thus derived leading to appropriate outcomes. Their representation of the necessity for the architect to include

334 both higher-order and lower-order knowledge concepts is depicted in each personification by its location in the frontispiece.

The frontispiece to Andrea Palladio’s I quattro libri portrayed a trilogy of abstract concepts for categorising architectural knowledge. This frontispiece portrayed Architettura I and

Architettura II as knowledge of architecture having two different operative requirements with each reacting to the other with transference, as necessary, from one type of activity to the other. The first, with depiction of its concepts through technical illustration, included knowledge focused on geometry with the necessity for an understanding of the divine geometry of cosmic order as well as the geometry of the platonic solids and the geometry of architecture. The second, which includes forms of empirical knowledge derived from practical investigation involving drawing, measurement and comparisons. This is represented as fundamental to portraying architectural concepts in the technical illustrations associated with disegno. Palladio’s representation of Regina Virtus suggests that concepts of architecture become concrete only through the active intellectual and moral political life of the architect. This brought to architecture a new requirement that its distinctive discipline be based on a combination of contemplative study and an active engagement in the production of buildings, an interdependency seen as essential to the role and status of the ‘professional’ architect committed to the politics and the ‘good’ of the city.

335 7.1.2 The architect as ‘intellectual’: the representation of the ‘architect’ depicted in frontispieces in allegorical images with supplementary values dialogically connected to one another

In the illustration of the frontispieces, this attribute, although a component of the first attribute, focuses on the dialogic connections between categories of architectural knowledge and values as the bases for showing the complexity of the discipline’s knowledge and practice. This complexity of values was a concept not easily resolved in the treatises more technical textual content. However, frontispiece artists relied on a visual equivalent of a rhetorical method that traditionally overcame such complexity. Their method was to use a visual equivalent to a dialogue in which the author highlighted two differing points of view on any given subject to resolved the conflicting points of view, with the resolution of discussion being a single proposition. The portrayal of values in dialogic connection in sixteenth-century frontispieces enabled visual presentation of the complexity apparent in different aspects of a concept and the apparent conflict between different concepts and the resolution of this conflict, to be more immediately comprehended.

With one exception, this notion of supplementary and complementary categories of architectural concepts set in a dialogic connection is represented in all frontispieces as a separation of two allegorical personifications. Sebastiano Serlio’s frontispiece to Il terzo libro is the exception. The complex dialogue he visualises is presented as a dialogue between a sequence of attributes: the representation of human values of the spiritual, intellectual and experiential attributes of the architect set against and a concept of ‘the

Natural’ and natural order.

The frontispiece to Sebastiano Serlio’s Regole generali di architetura portrays two herm characters located either side of an aedicule. The male herm representing the ‘man of action’ and depicted with the attributes of ‘rustic folk’ is placed opposite the female herm

336 representing contemplation with the attributes of ‘men of letters’ and the ‘contemplative life.’ At one level, attention is drawn to these two representations being in dialogue by the gaze and face of the female herm being turned toward the book title, emblematic of current relevant architectural knowledge, whilst the male herm turns away still focusing on traditional ways for action. However, Serlio also indicates by giving equal prominence to each figure that both are necessary but separate components of architectural speculation and important consideration for a discipline with a tradition of conventions. Serlio represents these images in dialogic relation to emphasise the notion that architecture cannot emerge alone either from scholarly learning or only action based on the past and learned craft skills.

Serlio’s two frontispieces represent personal investigation using currently acceptable techniques of measure and documentation as fundamentally important to being an architect. It was through investigation that personal values and giuditio in design practices would develop. For Serlio, architectural speculation did not rely simply for its source on the authority found in the study of the texts from antiquity; his frontispieces focus on the variation found between information from these texts and evidence found in antique ruins and suggests that it is necessary for the architect to engage at a practical level and intellectually with these variations in order to develop understanding.

In his frontispiece to Il terzo libro depiction of knowledge of architecture gained through and understanding of antiquity was tied, at a fundamental level, to a complex notion of the past rather than simply attributing the single source of knowledge of classical architecture to Rome. Architettura as giuditio emerges from the Natural setting of the rustic portico with empirically informed practice and craft experience as her main attributes. In this representation of Architettura, her compasses give the allusion to the necessity for mastery of the techniques of disegno and technical documentation, an attribute drawing

337 attention to Serlio’s text’s presentation of the different techniques of documentation necessary in architecture. These techniques are represented by the depiction of the architectural fragments of the cartouche in the Regole frontispiece and the corrected classical fragments in the frontispiece to Il terzo libro being different in technique to the perspectival depictions of each frontispiece’s frame and visual context.

In the frontispiece to Cosimo Bartoli’s L’architettura, Bartoli and Vasari isolate concepts of

‘intellect’ represented in the figure of Minerva from concepts of physical transformation represented in the figure of Flora. These attributes, while similar to Serlio’s division based on the opposition of herm figures, are more specifically aligned to Neoplatonic theory of the Florentine context that distinguishes art as coexisting in two worlds: the divine and the corporeal. Through this coexistence artistic creation was considered to reflect the principle

‘ideae’ of divine creativity in its transformation to beauty in the world of matter. In the

Bartoli/Vasari frontispiece, this act of transformation is presented in the complementary attributes of the physical act of transformation and the intellectual processes that governed the act. One aspect that is similar for Serlio and Bartoli is the concept that the intellectual or that learned through intellectual processes was made distinct from learning through the operative processes of architecture; however, the concept of an active craft was a transformative concept, transforming idea into building. To represent two different considerations for the ‘thinking’ architect, the concept of Art as an essential component to the architectural discipline and architecture as described by the Florentine architect, Leon

Battista Alberti, Bartoli and Vasari have connected these dialogically in a central position in the frontispiece. A partly drawn veil or curtain reveals the scene of Roma antica and the allusion to the dominance of Florence in culture and art; the title of the book is located on the partly drawn veil fronting the central space.

338 There is a different focus in the separation of two complementary attributes for architecture represented in the frontispieces to Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari and Andrea Palladio’s I quattro libri. Palladio’s frontispiece to Barbaro’s Commentari takes the two concepts of

Scienza and Intelletto from Barbaro’s Proemio to portray dialogic attributes in the architectural discipline: Scienza as necessary truth and Intelletto as architectural speculation, a contingent truth. The attribute of Intelletto, emphasising the training necessary for making good judgments, is the operative habit essential for appropriate architectural speculation. However, an understanding of the power of Scienza is essential for an architect when developing his invenzione. It is only through Scienza that the architect understands the role of principle and the necessary truths derived from ‘the soul’ as distinct from experience and individual’s concepts. These two complementary attributes are distinct from those found in either Serlio’s frontispieces or the frontispiece of

Bartoli’s translation of Alberti. Barbaro and Palladio portray Intelletto as the operative concept transforming the principles of Scienza and utilising this knowledge to develop a habit of contemplation that results in an ability to make appropriate judgments in design.

When Palladio illustrated his own frontispiece he made a distinct modification to the portrayal of attributes of this dialogic pair of concepts. For Palladio, Architettura I and

Architettura II are both operative and engaged with the transformative requirements of the architectural discipline. Architettura I represented transference of divine or natural order to the physical geometry of architecture through the practical drawing techniques used by the architect. Architettura II represented knowledge gained through investigation of built form being transferred to architectural concepts that defined its practices. The interaction and interdependence of these attributes is reinforced in the representation by their gaze connecting the figures below their complementary concept on the opposite side of the frontispiece. Architettura I gazes at Pasiphaë and the bull, emblematic of the mythological

339 relationship between knowledge and architecture and Architettura II gazes at Kairos, emblematic of theory as the contemplation of practice. Unlike a dialogue resolving in favour of one attribute over the other, Palladio presents a resolution of values based on their equivalence, interdependence and interaction.

By representing the discipline of architecture through dialogic categories of operation set in complementary opposition, architecture was presented as a discipline requiring the architect to operate on a number of entwined levels. The characteristics of the complex relations of its operations required flexibility for the development of an individual and appropriate architecture for each new circumstance. This representation of the attributes of architecture brought to the reader’s attention the modus operandi of the architect, and the significance of his role: creating settings for the civic and social portrayals of power in sixteenth-century Italy. This changed the perception of the status of the architect. He now had high social status, having social discourses with the wealthy and politically powerful as an intellectual equal, regardless of that status ascribed by his birth or his Patron’s status.

7.I.3 The ‘civic’ architect: represented in frontispieces as having a specific domain of activity in the design of civic spaces of magnificence not only for patrons but for the activities of the city

This attribute as represented in the frontispieces gained greater significance in treatises printed later in the sixteenth century. The Introduction of this study explained that during the fifteenth century in Italy there were many occupations involved with the creation of urban, institutional and household spaces for aristocratic patrons and the church. Terms used to describe those involved in architecture in Italy included capomaestro, caputmagister, protomaestro, ingegneri and the design of buildings could also emanate

340 from the patron himself. The distinctions between patron, designer and supervisor of the building process were blurred with each individual often being involved across a number of processes and with the societal role of the architect reliant on individual circumstance.

However, treatise frontispieces of the sixteenth century had increasingly focused on representing the architect as the societal occupation responsible for the design of spaces for the city, emphasising both the magnificence of the patron and also the city itself.

In the frontispieces to Serlio’s books of 1537 and 1540, in establishing the categories of concepts and the boundaries of knowledge for the architectural discipline, the idea of civic magnificence and social ‘good’ is represented as intertwined concepts. The frontispieces of these two books portrayed concepts of the Natural and of open discussion, free from externally imposed pressures. This is represented by the metaphor of the garden as a secluded, intellectual terrain where a variety of concepts and the interdependence of architectural speculation on the Natural as well as the experiential knowledge of artistic production, could be explored in order to formulate the type of occupation that architecture should be. For Serlio, architecture for the ‘good’ of the city was at least equally paramount to the traditional interpretation of architecture as reinforcing the magnificence of the

Patron.

Cosimo Bartoli’s and Giorgio Vasari’s frontispiece still focussed presentation of the architect as in service to the court, the Court of the Medici in Florence, and introduced more specific domains of his occupation. The visual representation of the imprese and symbols of power of their patron, his court and city, portrayed architecture and the architect as central to reproducing the status of a court and city and conveying this to others. By placing symbols of power on an aedicule, a building type often used in the triumphal entry and decoration of the city for festivities, the frontispiece reinforces the notion that the architect’s activities relate to civic space and the performance of

341 institutional forms of social interchange. In the frontispiece to Bartoli’s translation of

Alberti’s L’architettura, the significant symbolism given to the book’s new printing focused attention on the continuing importance of the antique form of rhetoric that Alberti had considered an important attribute of the architect and, as his intellectual heir extends this primacy of status to the Accademia Fiorentina. Magnificence in the city was constituted through its structures of patronage and hierarchies of civic power and this notion was embedded in the frontispiece in the narrative of emblems and allegories alluding to the city itself. Eloquence, another attribute considered essential by Alberti, and artistic endeavour were fundamental for portraying this magnificence of the patron and his city to others. The

Bartoli/Vasari frontispiece reinforced Alberti’s premise by portraying the status and influence of the architect as emanating from the context of the court as an innate talent and education.

Palladio’s frontispiece in Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari could have been a response to

Vasari’s exclusive focus on Florence and the Medici in his conceptualisation of the role of the architect in the frontispiece to Bartoli’s L’architettura. Included in Palladio’s frontispiece were significant representations of Venetian emblems pertinent to the political importance of architectural development in Venice during the mid-sixteenth century. The image of his earlier Rialto project was not only the backdrop to the personifications symbolising the important modes of operation of the ‘architect,’ but it also brought to the frontispiece a powerful reminder that the Rialto Bridge, the centre of Venetian commercial influence, was a symbol representing what architecture could contribute to the image of the city.

The frontispiece to Andrea Palladio’s I quattro libri is the first frontispiece to abstract the separation of the architect’s occupation from the idiosyncrasies of a particular city or patron. He symbolised the concept of the architect’s fundamental area of influence as

342 creating civic magnificence in cities and private dwellings. By portrayal of Regina Virtus,

Palladio extends Daniele Barbaro’s concept of the architect having an active, moral and political life, and suggests that it is the architect’s occupation, based on the knowledge concepts and skills of his discipline that transfers this sense of moral and intellectual virtue, not only to the palazzo of the patron, but importantly to cities as well. For Palladio, architecture as a discipline had the potential, through organisation of concepts emerging from many types of knowledge, for its architects to create symbols of intellectual and moral worth that enabled civic space to be transformed to a higher order of representational space in the service of ‘good’ governance and magnificence.

7.1.4 The ‘universal’ architect: the frontispiece’s portrayal of the ‘architect’s’ role as common to all ‘architects’ of sixteenth-century Italy – a role changing from having an attachment to a single patron and location to having a societal occupation with its own discipline

The concepts of patronage and location were still very important in the artistic occupations of the sixteenth century. However, it is at this time that a group sense of architectural knowledge as a discipline with distinctive categories and associations also became important. From the later part of the sixteenth century, in frontispieces to architectural treatises, the portrayal of the architectural discipline and its idiosyncrasies were more dominant. This meant that, rather than representation emphasising individual courts or locations, the characteristics common to the occupation of the architect regardless of locality or patron were being depicted. The representation of the architect serving a wider clientele was an important change in the representation of the architect’s role because it reflected not only that architecture had at its core a set of principles able to be transferred

343 beyond the constraints of particular clients and locations but also the growing acceptance that ‘architects’ would have multiple clients and locations of work.

This change, first evident in the frontispiece to Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari, recognised that the discipline of architecture could be governed not only by its compendium of practical knowledge but also by an implicitly hierarchical and logical structure of intellectual processes. The term architect had shifted meaning: it now went beyond the idiosyncrasies of understanding the individual architect and the serendipities of individual experiences contingent on the specific courts and city-states. The term architect could now be understood as having a theoretical knowledge based in philosophy and its concepts classified and structured into an hierarchy and its practice applying to individuals committed to, and active in, making judgments for architecture and civic magnificence for the good of society.

Building on Barbaro’s ideas, Palladio’s frontispiece abstracts the notion further. While

Barbaro’s frontispiece, also by Palladio, had remained tied to Venice as a locale for its intellectual setting, the frontispiece of Palladio’s I quattro libri did not represent its propositions about the architect as sited in a specific physical locality. Thus, the societal figure of the architect could be understood as performing an occupation determined only by adherence to the principles of his discipline and its scope of knowledge. Palladio’s frontispiece focuses all attributes of its symbolism on the actual discipline of architecture and the intricacies and interdependence of its operations rather than any sense of individual attribute. This focus was perhaps an acknowledgement by Palladio that in his own occupation he relied on commissions coming from a range of patrons and locations and his recognition that this was not unique but a growing trend for most architects.

His representation of architecture and the architect was of the primacy of a discipline, not simply an occupation interpreted from the work of ‘best’ individual architects such as was

344 portrayed in the treatises of Vitruvius and Alberti. From this time, the architect was a term that represented a recognised professional functionary with requirements for moral and ethical social practices in the broad range of societal settings related to civic life. Their practices based on specific concepts, though mindful of the requirements of church and state and the demands of patronage could be understood as conceptually distinct from and not determined by them.

A later treatise written prior to 1615 by supported the recognition of the ‘universality’ of the practice of architecture in the sixteenth century. His treatise title,

L’Idea della architettura universale . . . divisa in X libri, or The Idea of Universal

Architecture emphasises the notion of the universality of architectural knowledge and although Scamozzi does not document the specifics, he does make reference to this new

‘universality’ of the discipline of architecture.

7.2 Review of the three aims of this study

In selecting a distinctive archival source for this study its three aims were: firstly, to investigate the frontispieces and note which attributes of the architect or his practice were emphasised and to interpret whether this emphasis signified change specific to the sixteenth-century in Italy; secondly, to contribute to the history of the sixteenth-century

Renaissance architect and his practice; and thirdly, to evaluate whether frontispieces are a unique source of information that can be read and interpreted in order to contribute to historical research.

345 7.2.1 Aim 1: to investigate the frontispieces and note which attributes of the architect or his practice were emphasised and to interpret whether this emphasis signified change specific to the sixteenth-century in Italy

Each frontispiece examined focused on a distinct set of attributes of architecture as a practice and the societal role and status, and the ethical and moral values, relevant for those who undertook the occupation of the ‘architect.’ This often emphasised a specific meaning, one that could aid an interpretation of the text but this emphasis could also draw attention to a change or addition to something about the sixteenth-century architect or his practice.

The architect in the frontispieces represented what might be considered an abstraction of the practitioner rather than, as previously in treatises, a focus on what were, or what should be, the attributes of the ‘best’ recent or current practitioners. This ‘abstract practitioner’ was an idealisation based, for each author, on what he considered to be important attributes of the architect of sixteenth-century Italy. The frontispieces portray the idea that by the mid-sixteenth century in Italy there was something about the architect’s role per se that gave him a higher societal status than when his role was tied to a notion of a craft or when the significance of his occupation depended on his patron. More specifically, the frontispiece portrays the growing prominence of the sense of an architectural discipline or emerging profession, having categories of specific knowledge and in the process of delineating its distinctive practices. By the later part of the sixteenth century, frontispiece illustrations focused on portraying not only the boundaries and categories of knowledge necessary for architecture and their hierarchies of importance, but also the ethical attributes necessary for taking responsibility for issues of judgment with regard to moral and ethical ‘good’ in the context of the use of urban spaces and meeting the lifestyle needs of a civic society.

346 Prior to Serlio’s Book IV and then III of the first half of the sixteenth century, the role of the architect had been tied to describing and conceptualising an occupation in relation to notions of an individual’s context; his patronage and location, his innate talent, and his education and training. This study has shown through analysis of the frontispieces that in contrast to Alberti’s fifteenth-century stipulation that the architect’s education and training be based on the authority of Vitruvius albeit converted for relevance to humanist Italy, the frontispieces examined for this study portrayed emblems depicting the variety of specific and technical knowledge on which the individual architect should base the essential development of his personal judgment and proposed an hierarchy of their importance and interdependence. Whereas studies evaluating the role and attributes of the fifteenth- century Italian architect focused on the lack of collegiate organisation of the knowledge and practices associated with the term ‘architect,’ the frontispieces to sixteenth-century treatises provide evidence for a distinctive change. Those choosing to work under the title architect could be distinctively recognised by their title and intellectually influenced practices.

7.2.2 Aim 2: to contribute to the history of the sixteenth-century Renaissance architect and his practice

Two specific issues need to be addressed in evaluating the ‘usefulness’ of my research.

These issues concern the validity of my results raising questions regarding whether the correct identification of emblems and elements of frontispieces has been carried out and whether interpretations have been reliable in the sense that others have produced results consistent with mine or I have been able to justify incompatibility. Without going into any of the philosophical arguments about what constitutes ‘validity’ and ‘reliability’ of

347 interpretation in historical research, issues relevant to this review question whether I have

‘read’ frontispiece illustrations correctly.

Problems encountered in my research that had to be resolved in order to ensure correct identification and interpretation include four issues. Whereas in the case study carried out in my chapter on method Cesare Cesariano’s illustration was accompanied by textual explanation of each allegorical personification providing undisputed interpretation of the figures this was not so in the frontispieces to architectural treatises of the sixteenth century. The frontispieces examined generally had more elements and emblems and no explanation for their interpretation. It is the combination of allegorical figures, emblems and symbols that has contributed to meaning in the frontispiece. Interpretations in this study have investigated broadly the context of the use of each allegorical symbol and examined the textual content associated with the frontispiece in the treatise it prefaces to reveal the idiosyncrasies of each frontispiece.

A second difficulty encountered in interpreting allegorical personifications and symbols was that in the author’s combining of elements and emblems, he made subtle changes to their traditional depictions in order to signify the interaction of elements and emblems needed for development of narrative in the frontispiece. In instances such as Palladio’s representation of Geometria on the attic level of Daniele Barbaro’s Vitruvian Commentari, her portrayal changes from the traditional inclusion of compasses to the inclusion of a lock of the hair of an Ionic woman. This was a distinctive change that has made the figure difficult to interpret. However, the overall specificity of each of the personifications in this frontispiece suggested that interpreting the figure as Geometria was essential in the formation of the frontispiece’s structured narrative. By replacing the emblem of the compasses with the hair of the Ionian woman Palladio used a recognisable geometric

348 symbol but as well enabled the personification of Scienza to include notions of ideal geometry amongst her attributes.

A third difficulty stemmed from interpretations given for some symbols and personifications in past historical analyses. An example of this difficulty is in interpreting Andrea Palladio’s depiction of two attributes of Architettura in his frontispiece. Historians have usually interpreted these personifications as having the attributes of Theory and Practice. While this can be argued superficially as true, this interpretation is based on an anachronism as the depiction and naming of personifications with similar emblems did not occur until the seventeenth century. To name Palladio’s figures Theory and Practice overlooks their representation of a transformative power for architecture between one type of activity and another; it also dismisses the figure’s connection with other elements of the frontispiece in its build-up of narrative.

A fourth difficulty derived from interpreting the meaning embedded in the combination and interaction of elements and emblems. To interpret meaning, close attention had to be given to identifying signs that interaction was occurring in the formation of the frontispiece’s narrative. For example, in Sebastiano Serlio’s frontispiece to Il terzo libro, the distinctive elements of the frontispiece combine to form the narrative: the interaction of the elements of the lemma, the rustic portico depicting the ‘Natural,’ the classical elements in the foreground and the perspectival structuring of the three focuses of the horizontal axis was essential to making meaning of the frontispiece explicit. I claim that to interpret these elements singly would have undermined the power of meaning embedded in the narrative of the frontispiece.

Checks of my interpretations included questioning whether propositions I presented were consistent with what the author of each treatise explicitly stated, or strongly implied, in his text or whether there was support from other sources directly associated with the text. It

349 was often this checking for consistency of interpretations that provided the support for my

‘reading’ of the frontispiece.

7.2.3 Aim 3: to evaluate whether frontispieces are a unique source of information that can be read and interpreted in order to contribute to historical research

My investigation of the application of the term architect in Italy during the sixteenth century has shown that frontispiece illustrations to architectural treatises are, at the very least, fertile primary archival sources of information. They visually structure important ideas by providing a narrative with meaning as an integral part of the illustration. They prioritise concepts found in the accompanying text and impose a hierarchical structure of importance for its fundamental ideas. They historicize and politicise emblematic imagery documenting the importance of architecture and the architect to the organisation of civic life. They depict the then current and well-known and readily-comprehensible imagery portraying an abstraction of the characteristics of the ‘architect,’ an architect who, both individually and collectively, had an ethical and moral role in the social application of the term ‘architect.’ In these ways, frontispieces portrayed the change in the attributes considered essential for the architect and the delineation of the boundaries of the discipline of architecture in sixteenth-century Italy.

350 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 Leon Battista Alberti, De re aedificatoria, edited by Angelus Politianus, Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 1485, f102. New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library PML44056. Photo J. Zehavi. Figure 2 Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruvio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, trans., Cesare Cesariano, Como: Gottardo da Ponte, 1521, LXXXXII. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 3 Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, Venezia: Marcolini, 1537, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 4 Frontispiece, Giardino dei pensieri composto per Francesco Marcolini da Forli, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Biblioteca Nazionale Firenza. Figure 5 Detail of herms, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura, 1537. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 6 Frontispiece: M. Tullii Ciceronis, Opera omnia, Venetiis: Iunta, 1537, Biblioteca Angelica Roma. Figure 7 Female herm: Jacopo Sansovino, Entry to the Biblioteca Marciana Venezia, the author. Figure 8 Fruit and ribbon detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura, 1537. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 9 Classical fragments detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura, 1537. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 10 Meander details, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura, 1537. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 11 Detail, Temple of Mars Transitorium, Rome, the author. Figure 12 Agostino Veneziano after Sebastiano Serlio, Corinthian Bases, 1528. Bartsch XIV, No. 532. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 13 Agostino Veneziano after Sebastiano Serlio, Ionic Bases, 1528. Bartsch XIV, No. 529. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 14 Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture.

351 Figure 15 View of Rome, fresco in the Palazzo Ducale, Mantua, image from Margaret Aston, The Panorama of the Renaissance, London: Thames and Hudson, 1996, 56. Figure 16 Title page, Giovanni Battista de Rossi, Piante iconografiche e prospettiche di Roma anterior al Secolo XVI, Roma: Salviucci, 1879, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 17 Classical portico detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 18 Page XXIX, Sebastiano Serlio, Regole generali di architettura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, Venezia: Marcolini, 1537. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 19 Perspectival construction, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Artwork, the author. Figure 20 Città ideale panel, architectural perspective, known as the Berlin Panel, Berlin, Staatliche Museen. Seen in Hubert Damisch, The Origins of Perspective, trans., John Goodman, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1994, 176- 7. Figure 21 Three centres of interest for the perspective construction, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Artwork, the author. Figure 22 Classical fragments detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Artwork, the author. Figure 23 Page CVII, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 24 Architettura, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Artwork, the author. Figure 25 Title page, Gianbattista Caporali, Vetruvio in vulgar lingua rapportato, Perugia: Stamparia del conte Iano Bigazzini, 1536. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 26 Commemoriation coin celebrating Bramante’s work on S. Peter’s Rome, Caradasso, Florence, Museo Nazionale del Bargello. See entry 285 by C.L.F. “Caradosso (Christoforo Foppa) Commemorative Medal in Honour of Bramante, 1506,” in, The Renaissance from Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, ed., Henry Millon and Vittorio Lampugnani, London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 602. Figure 27 Inscription detail, Frontispiece, Sebastiano Serlio, Il terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e descrivono le antichita di Roma, Venezia: Marcolini, 1540. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture.

352 Figure 28 Giorgio Vasari: Illustration, Uffizi, Gabinetto Disegni e Stampe V, 47a. The Museum. Figure 29 Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cossimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 30 Wall panel detail, Michelangelo Buonarotti, Vestibule, West wall detail, Laurentian Library, San Lorenzo, Florence, 1519-1559. The author. Figure 31 Details of allegorical figures and imprese, Frontispiece, Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cossimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 32 Primavera, Alessandro Botticelli, Uffizi, Florence, Inv. 1890, 8360. See Caterina Canerva, Alessandro Cecchi, Antonio Natali, The Uffizi: Guide to Collections and Catalogue of all Paintings, Florence, Giusti di Becocci, 1986, 70. Figure 33 Details of allegorical figures on the pediment, Frontispiece, Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cossimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 34 Medal of Giuliano de’Medici with Virtù and Fortuna-Occasio, Washington, National Gallery of Art, Samuel H. Kress Collection, Seen in Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, Princeton: Princeton Universtity Press, 1984. Figure 35 Bronzino, Portrait of Cosimo de’Medici in Armour, Kassel, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen. Seen in Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Figure 36 Domenico di Polo, Medal of Duke Cosimo I de’Medici showing Capricorn, London, British Museum, seen in Janet Cox-Rearick, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. Figure 37 Details of river god and Roma antica, Frontispiece, Giorgio Vasari and Cosimo Bartoli, Frontispiece, L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cossimo Bartoli, Gentilhuomo, & Academico Fiorentino, Florence: Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 38 Illustration depicting Temple of Vesta Rome, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura di Andrea Palladio, Venetia, Appresso Dominico de’Franceschi, 1570, libro quarto, 53 (reprint 1945). The Author. Figure 39 Frontispiece, Antonio Francesco Doni, La zucca del Doni, Venzia: Francesco Marcolini, 1551. Biblioteca Nazionale Firenze. Figure 40 Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture.

353 Figure 41 Verso of Frontispiece, Attributed to Giuseppe Porta, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 42 Trajan Arch of Ancona, Plaster model, Museum of Roman Civilization, EUR. The author. Figure 43 Andrea Palladio, Rialto Bridge Project, Ink drawing, D 20r, Museo Civico, Vicenza. See Douglas Lewis, The Drawings of Andrea Palladio, Washington: International Exhibitions Foundation, 1981. Figure 44 Preparatory drawing, Vittore Carpaccio, Consignment of the Umbrella, Sacramento, Crocker Art Museum. See, Patricia Fortini Brown, Venetian Narrative Painting in the Age of Carpaccio, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, 85. Figure 45 Girolamo Gamberato, Consignment of the Umbrella, Venice Ducal Palace, Great Council Hall. See Patricia Fortini Brown, Venetian Narrative Painting in the Age of Carpaccio, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988, 86. Figure 46 Detail Geometria, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 47 Detail, Giuseppi Porta, Frontispiece verso, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 48 Detail of Musica, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 49 Detail of musical instrumenta and scorpion, Frontispiece verso, Giuseppi Porta, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 50 Detail of Astrologia, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 51 Ptolemy and Astrologia, Gregor Reisch’s Margarita Philosophica, Strasbourg, 1504. Digitized image from Giancarlo Truffa, seetThe Cambridge Illustrated History of Astronomy Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, ed., M. Hoskin. Figure 52 Detail of reversed astrolabe quadrant, Frontispiece verso, Giuseppi Porta, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini,

354 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 53 Detail of Aritmetica, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 54 Composite details of Scienza and Intelletto, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 55 Detail of Scienza, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 56 Detail of Intelletto, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 57 Prudenza attributed to Andrea Mantegna, Tarocchi di Mantegna, see Rafal Prinke, “Mantegna’s Prints in Tarot History, Manteia, 4(1990), 9. Figure 58 Verso of Frontispiece, Attributed to Giuseppe Porta, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 59 Symbol CXII (CX), Achille Bocchi, Symbolicarum Quaestionum de universo genre quas serio ludebat libri quinque, Bononiae, in aedibus Novae Academiae Bocchianae, 1555, See Elizabeth Watson, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as Symbolic Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, 134. Figure 60 Detail of Architettura, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio and Daniele Barbaro, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Venezia: Marcolini, 1556. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 61 Book IV, 47, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 62 Book IV, 50, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 63 Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570, Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture.

355 Figure 64 Anonimous minature with architectural surround attributed to Andrea Palladio, Commissione a Gasparo Contarini, Venezia, Museo Correr. Figure 65 Detail of the two allegorical figures of the aedicule, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 66 Frontispiece, attributed to Francesco Salviati, Antonio Labacco, Libri d’Antonio Labacco appartenente a l’architettura nel qual si figurano alcune notabili antiquita di Roma, Rome: for the author, 1552. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 67 Frontispiece, Iacomo Barozzi da Vignola’s, Regola delli cinque ordini d’architettura, Vignola: for the author, 1562. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 68 Detail of Architettura I, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 69 Detail of Architettura II, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 70 Detail of Architettura I and II showing their gaze to the frieze panels below and opposite, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 71 Detail of Regina Virtus, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 72 Attributed to Filippo Calendario, Venecia in the form of Iustitia Ducal Palace, west façade, photo, Böhm, see David Rosand, Myths of Venice: The Figuration of State, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2001, 31. Figure 73 Bucintoro figurehead as Justice, Giacomo Franco, La dogaressa Morosina Morosini Grimani sul Bucintoro è condotta in Palazzo Ducale, Venezia, Museo Correr (inv P.D. 2412). See Lionello Puppi, ed., Architettura e utopia nelle Venezia del Cinquecento, Milan: Electa, 1980, 156. Figure 74 Detail of central maritime cartouche, Frontispiece, Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura Venezia: Domenico dei Franceschi, 1570. Montreal, Centre Canadien d’Architecture/ Canadian Centre for Architecture. Figure 75 Detail of Astraea, Alessandro Leopardi, Bronze Pedestal, San Marco, photo, Böhm. See David Rosand, Myths of Venice: The Figuration of State, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2001, 127.

356 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Accademia della Crusca, Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca. con tre indici delle voci, locuzioni, e proverbi Latini e Greci, posti per entro l'Opera. Con privilegio del Sommo Pontefice, Del Re Cattolico, della Serenissima Repubblica di Venezia, e degli altri Principi, e Potentati d'Italia, e fuori d'Italia, della Masta Cesarea, del Re Cristianissimo, e del Sereniss, Arciduca Alberto, ed., Firenze: Licosa Reprints, [1974] reprinted from Venezia: G. Alberti, 1612. Ackerman, James, “Architectural Practice in the Italian Renaissance,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 13, 3(Oct., 1954), 3-11. Ackerman, James, Palladio’s Villas, New York: J. J. Augustin, 1967. Ackerman, James, “The Involvement of Artists in Renaissance Science,” in John Shirley and David Hoeniger eds., Science and the Arts in the Renaissance, Washington: Folger, 1985, 94-125. Ackerman, James, “The Tuscan/rustic Order: A Study in the Metaphoric Language of Architecture,” Distance Points: Essays in Theory and Renaissance Art and Architecture, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1991. Ackerman, James, “Daniele Barbaro and Vitruvius,” in Cecil L Striker, ed., Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern, c1996, 1-5. Ackerman, James, The Reinvention of Architectural Drawing 1250-1550: The Annual Soane Lecture, London: The Soane Museum, 1998. Adams, Janet, et al., Ornament and Architecture: Renaissance Drawings, Prints and Books: An exhibition by the Department of Art, Brown University, Bell Gallery, List Art Center, March 8 through April 6, 1980, Providence, R.I.: The University, c1980. Alberti, Leon Battista, De re aedificatoria, Angelus Politianus, ed., Firenze: Nicolaus Lorentii, Alamanus, 1485. Alberti, Leon Battista, La pittura di Leonbattista Alberti, M. Lodovico Domenichi, trans., Vinegia: Gabriel Giolito de Ferrari, 1547. Alberti, Leon Battista, L’Architettura di Leonbatista Alberti tradotta in lingua fiorentina da Cosimo Bartoli con la aggiunta de designi, Firenze: Appresso Lorenzo Torrentino, 1550. Alberti, Leon Battista, On Painting, John Spencer, trans., London: Routledge, 1956. Alberti, Leon Battista, Della Pittura, John Spencer, trans., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Alberti, Leon Battista, Ten Books on Architecture by Leon Battista Alberti: Translated into Italian by Cosimo Bartoli and into English by James Leoni, Venetian Architect, Joseph Rykwert, ed., London: Tiranti, 1965. Alberti, Leon Battista, L’architettura, Giovanni Orlandi, ed., Milano: Polifilo, 1966. Alberti, Leon Battista, On The Art of Building in Ten Books, Joseph Rykwert, Neil Leach and Robert Tavenor, trans., Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1988. Albertini, Francesco, Opusculum de mirabilibus novae & veterris urbis Romae, Romae: Iacobum Mazochium, 1510. Alciatus, Andreas, Viri clarissimi D. Andre Alciati . . . ad D. Chronradum Peutiner Augustum . . . Emblematum liber, per H. Steynerum : Augustae Vindelicorum, 28 Feb, 1531. Alciati, Andrea, Emblematum libellus nuper in lucem editus, Veneti: Figlio di Aldus, 1546.

357 Alpers, Svetlana, “Ekphrasis and Aesthetic Attitudes in Vasari’s Lives,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXIII(1960), 190-215. Ames-Lewis, Francis, ‘Early Medicean Devices.’ Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute, XLII(1979), 122-143. Ames-Lewis Francis, The Library and Manuscripts of Piero di Cosimo de’Medici, New York: Garland Publishing, 1984. Andrews, Lew, “Ordering Space in Renaissance Times: Position and Meaning in Continuous Narration,” Word & Image 10, 1(Jan-Mar., 1994), 84-94. Angelini, Annarita, Sapienza, prudenza, eroica virtù. Il mediomondo di Danile Barbaro, Firenze: Olschki, 1999. Angelus, Johannes, Astrolabium planum, Impressum Venetijs: Per Iohanne[m] Emericu[m] de Spira, [9 June 1494]. Aretino, Pietro, Lettere. Il primo e il secondo libro, F. Flora, A. Del Vita, eds., Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori, 1960. Azzi Visentini, Margherita, L’orto botanico di Padova e il giardino del Rinascimento, Milano: Polifilo, 1984.

Barbaro, Daniele, Exquisitiae in Porphirium commentatione Danielis Barbari, Venetiis: Apud Aldi filios, M. D. XLII.[1542]. Barbaro, Daniele, Rhetoricorum Aristotelis Libri Tres, Interprete Hermolao Barbaro P. V. Commentaria in Eosdem Danielis Barbari, Venetiis: Pauli Gerardi, 1544. Barbaro, Daniele, Compendium ethicorum librorum Hermolai Barbari, Venetijs: Apud Cominum de Tridino Montisferrati, 1544. Barbaro, Daniele, Hermolai Barbari Patrittii Beneti Compendium scientiae naturalis, ex Aristotele, [Paris]: Apud Ioannem Roigny, 1547. Barbaro, Daniele, Della eloquenza, dialogo del reverendiss. Monsignor Daniel Barbaro, eletto Patriarca d’Aquileia. Nuovamente mandato in luce da Girolamo Ruscelli. A i Signori academici costanti di Vicenza, Con Privilegii dell’Illustriss. Senato Veneto, & d’altri Principi, per anni XX, Venezia: Vicenzo Valgrisio, 1557. Barbaro, Daniele, La pratica della perspettiva di Monsignor Daniele Barbaro eletto patriarca d’Aquileia opera molto prodittevole a pittori scultori, et architetti, Venetia: Camillo e Rutilio Borgominieri, 1569. Barbaro, Daniele, I dieci libri dell’Architettura di M. Vitruvio, tradotti e commentati da Mons. Daniel Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileia, da lui riveduti e ampliati; & hora in piu commoda forma ridotti, Venezia: Francesco de’ Franceschi Senese & Giovani Chrieger Alemano Compagni, 1567. Barberi, Francesco, Il frontespizio nel libro italiano del Quattrocento e del Cinquecento, Milano: Polifilo, 1969. Barberi, Francesco, “Il Frontespizio nel Libro Italiano del Seicento,” in Il Libro Italiano del Seicento, Roma: Editrice Gela Reprints, 1985, 73-84. Barbieri, Franco, “Giangiorgio Trissino e Andrea Palladio,” Convegno di studi su Giangiorgio Trissino, Vicenza 31 marzo- 1 aprile 1979, Neri Pozza, ed., Vicenza: Accademia Olimpica, 1980, 191-211. Barbieri, Franco, “Il valore dei ‘Quattro libri’,” Bolletino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura, 14(1972), 63-79. Barbieri, Giuseppi, "La Natura Discendente: Daniele Barbaro, Andrea Palladio e l’arte della memoria," in Lionello Puppi, ed., Palladio e Venezia, Firenze: Sansoni, 1982, 29- 54. Barbieri, Giuseppe, Andrea Palladio e la cultura Veneta de rinascimento, Roma: Il Veltro, 1983.

358 Barozzi da Vignola, Iacomo, Regola delli cinque ordini d’architettura, Vignola: for the author, 1562. Bartsch, Adam, Le peintre graveur, Leipzig, Chez J. A. Barth, 1866. Barthes, Roland, Mythologies, Myth Today, Annette Lavers, trans., London: J Cape, 1972. Bartoli, Cosimo, Ragionamenti accademici di Cosimo Bartoli Gentil’huomo et Accademico Fiorentino, sopra alcuni luoghi difficili di Dante. Con alcune inventioni et significati, et la Tavola di piu cose notabili, Venezia: Francesco de Franceschi Senese, 1567. Battaglia, S., Grande dizionario della lingua italiana, Turino: UTET, 1961. Baune, Colette, The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France, Susan Ross Huston, trans., and Fredric L. Cheyette, ed., Berkeley: University of California Press, c1991. Bell, Robert, Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Santa Barbara: ABC CLIO, 1982. Bell, Robert, Women of Classical Mythology, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1991. Bennett, James, The Divided Circle: A History of Instruments for Astronomy, Navigation and Surveying, Oxford: Phaidon, 1987. Betts, Richard, The Architectural Theories of Francesco di Giorgio, PhD Dissertation submitted to Princeton University, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation, 1981. Bialostocki, Jan, “Iconography and Iconology,” Encyclopedia of World Art, vol. VII. London: McGraw-Hill, 1963, 770-786. Bialostocki, Jan, “The Renaissance Concept of Nature and Antiquity,” Studies in Western Art II, Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963, 19-30. Bocchi, Achille, Achillis Bocchii Bonon. Symbolicarum quaestionum, de vniuerso genere, quas serio ludebat, libri quinque, Bononiae, in aedibus Novae Academiae Bocchianae, 1555. Bodnar, E.W., “Athens in April 1436,” Archeology, XX(1970), 96-105, 188-199. Boholm, Asa, The Doge of Venice: the Symbolism of State Power in the Renaissance, Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, 1990. Böker, Hans, “Respiciendo et Prospiciendo: Political Allegories of Architecture and Sculpture on the Frontispieces of Leoni’s Editions of Palladio and Alberti,” in Hans Böker and Peter Daly eds., The Emblem and Architecture: Studies in Applied Emblematics from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century, Turnhout: Brepols, 1999, 231-245. Böker, Hans, and Peter Daly, eds., The Emblem and Architecture: Studies in Applied Emblematics from the Sixteenth Century to the Eighteenth Century, Turnhout: Brepolis, 1999. Borsi, Franco, Leon Battista Alberti: The Complete Works, New York: Electa/Rizzoli, 1973. Borsi, Franco, Leon Battista Alberti, R. G. Carpanini, trans., New York: Harper & Rowe, 1977. Boucher, Bruce, “The Last Will of Daniele Barbaro,” Journal of Warburg and Coutauld Institutes, XLII(1979), 277-282. Boucher, Bruce, Andrea Palladio: the Architect and his Time, New York: Abbeville Press, 1994. Bouwsma, William, Venice and the Defence of Republican Liberty: Renaissance Values in the Age of the Counter Reformation, Berkley: University of California Press, 1968. Boyer, Christine, The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Entertainments, Cambridge Mass: MIT Press, 1994. Brezzi, Paolo, ed., Umanesimo a Roma nel Quattrocento:atti del convegno, Roma: Instituto di Studi Romani, 1984. Briggs, Martin, The Architect in History, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1927.

359 British Library, Short-title Catalogue of Books printed in Italy and of Italian Books Printed in other countries from 1465-1600 now in the British Library, London: The British Museum, 1958. Brown, Baldwin, ed., Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, Louisa Maclehose, trans., New York: Dover, 1960. Brown, Beverley, and Diana Kleiner, “Giulio da Sangallo’s Drawings after Ciriaco d’Ancona: Transformations of Greek and Roman Antiquities of Athens,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XLII(Dec., 1983), 321-335. Brown, Horatio, The Venetian Printing Press 1469-1800, Amsterdam: Heusden, 1969. Brown, Patricia Fortini,Venetian Narrative Painting in the Age of Carpaccio, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Brown, Patricia Fortini, “Measured Friendship, Calculated Pomp: The Ceremonial Welcomes of the Venetian Republic,” in Barbara Wisch and Susan Scott Munshower eds., “All the World’s a Stage”: Art and Pagentry in the Renaissance and Baroque: Part 1, Triumphal Celebrations and the Rituals of Statecraft, University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University, 1990, Ch 4. Brown, Patricia Fortini, Venice and Antiquity: The Venetian Sense of the Past, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1996. Bryce, Judith, Cosimo Bartoli: The Career of a Florentine Polymath, Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1983. Bruschi, Arnaldo, et al, eds., Scritti rinascimentali di architettura, Milano: Il Polifilo, 1978. Bruschi, Arnaldo, “Introduction,” in Arnaldo Bruschi, Adriano Carugo and Francesco Paolo Fiore, eds., Vitruvio: De Architectura: Translato Commentato et Affigurato da Caesare Caesariano, 1521, Milano: Edizioni Il Polifolio, 1981. Bruschi, Arnaldo, Adriano Carugo and Francesco Paolo Fiore, eds., Vitruvio: De Architectura: Translato Commentato et Affigurato da Caesare Caesariano, 1521, Milano: Edizioni Il Polifolio, 1981. Buonarroti, Michelangelo, Sonnet CIX, 8, translated in Robert Clements, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961. Burckhardt, Jacob, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, London: Phaidon, 1944. Burckhardt, Jacob, The Architecture of the Italian Renaissance, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1985. Burns, Howard, “I disegni del Palladio,” in Bollettino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura “A Palladio”, XV(1973), 169-191. Burns, Howard, Lynda Fairbairn and Bruce Boucher, Andrea Palladio 1508-1580: the portico and the farmyard, London: The Arts Council of Great Britain, 1975. Burns, Howard, “Baldassarre Peruzzi and Sixteenth-Century Architectural Theory,” in Jean Guillaume ed, Les traités d’architecture de la Renaissance, Paris: Picard, 1988, 207-226. Buonarroti, Michelangelo, La lettere di Michelangelo Buonarroti, pub. coi ricordi ed i contratti artistici per cura di Gaetano Milanesi, Firenze: Coi tipi dei successori Le Monnier, 1875.

Calabi, Donatella and Paolo Morachiello, Rialto: le fabbriche e il ponte. 1514-1591, Torino: Einaudi, 1987. Caporali, Gianbatista, Architettura con il svo comento et figure Vitruvio in volgar lingua raportato per M. Gianbatista Caporali di Pervgia, Perugia, Stamparia del conte Iano Bigazzini, 1536. Carpo, Mario, Alberti, Raffaello, Serlio e Camillo, Genève: Librairie Droz, 1993.

360 Carpo, Mario, La maschera e il modello : teoria architettonica ed evangelismo nell’Extraordinario libro Sebastiano Serlio (1551), Milano: Jaca Book, 1993. Carpo, Mario, “The Architectural Principles of Temperate Classicism,” Res, 22(1993), 135- 151. Carpo, Mario, “The making of the Typographical Architect,” in Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Architectural Treatise, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, 158-169. Casali, Giovanni, Annali della tipografia veneziana di Francesco Marcolini, Forlì: M. Casali unknown, 1861. Casali, Scipione, Gli annali della tipografia veneziana di Francesco Marcolini / compilati da Scipione Casali. Prima integrale e fedele ristampa dell'unica rara edizione del 1861. A cura di Alfredo Gerace. Introd. di Luigi Servolini, Bologna: A. Gerace, 1953. Cassidy, Brendan, ed., Iconography at the Crossroads: Papers from the Colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University, 23-24 March 1990, Princeton, N.J.: Dept of Art and Archeology, Princeton University, c1993. Cast, David, “Reading Vasari Again,” Word & Image, 9, 1(Jan-Mar., 1993), 29. Cast, David, “Vasari on the Practical,” in Philip Jacks, ed., Vasari’s Florence: Artists and Literati at the Medicean Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998, 70- 80, 265-267. Castiglione, Baldesar, The Book of the Courtier, Sir Thomas Hoby, trans., London: Dent,; New York: Dutton, 1974. Caye, Pierre, Le savoir de Palladio: architecture, métaphysique et politique dans la Venise du Cinquecento, Paris: Klincksieck, c1995. Chambers, David, and Brian Pullan eds., Venice: a Documentary History, 1450-1630, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Chastel, André, “’Vues urbaines’ peintes et théâter,” in Fables, Formes, Figures, Paris: Flammarion, 1978. Cheney, Liana De Girolami, The Paintings of the Casa Vasari, New York: Garland, 1985. Cheney, Iris Hofmeister, Francesco Salviati (1510-1563), PhD Dissertation submitted to New York University, 1963, Ann Arbor, Mi.: University Microfilms Inc., 1963. Choay, Françoise, “Alberti and Vitruvius,” Architectural Design 49, 5-6(1979), 26-35. Choay, Françoise, The Rule and the Model: On the Theory of Renaissance Urbanism, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1997. Ciapponi, Lucia, “Fra Giocondo da Verona and his Edition of Vitruvius,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 47(1984), 72-90. Ciavolella, M., and A. Iannucci, Saturn from Antiquity to the Renaissance, Ottawa: Dovehouse, 1992. Cicero, M. T., M. Tullii Ciceronis Opera omnium quae hac tenus excusa sunt, castigates sima nunc primum in lucem edita, Venezia: Caeantonii Giuntae, 1537. Cicognara, Leopold, Catalogo dei libri d’arte e d’antichità, Pisa: Nicolò Capurro, 1821. Clements, Robert, Michelangelo’s Theory of Art, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961. Clifford, Gay, The Transformation of Allegory, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974. Close, A. J., “Commonplace Theories of Art and Nature in Classical Antiquity and in the Renaissance,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 30, 4(Oct., - Dec., 1969), 467-486. Conforti, Claudia, Vasari architetto, Milano: Electa, 1993. Contarini, Gaspare, De magistratibus et republica Venetorum, Basel: Hieronymus Froben,1544. Conti, Laura, and Margaret Daly Davis, with Charles Davis, Julian Kliemann and Anna Maria Maetzke, Giorgio Vasari : principi, letterati e artisti nelle carte di Giorgio Vasari, Casa Vasari, Pittura vasariana dal 1532 al 1554, Sottochiesa di S.

361 Francesco : [catalogo delle mostre] Arezzo, 26 settembre-29 novembre 1981, Firenze, Edam, c.1981. Conti, Laura, and Margaret Daly Davis, Giorgio Vasari : principi, letterati e artisti nelle carte di Giorgio Vasari, with introduction by M. Marini, Roma: Newton Compton, 2002 Corbett, Margery, and Ronald Lightbrown, The Comely Frontispiece: the Emblematic Title- page in England 1550-1660, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979. Cox-Rearick, Janet, Dynasty and Destiny in Medici Art: Pontormo, Leo X and the Two Cosimos, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984. Cox-Rearick, Janet, The Collection of Francis I: Royal Treasures, Antwerp, Fonds Mercator, 1995. Cropper, Elizabeth, “Bound Theory and Blind Practice: Pietro Testa’s notes on Painting and the Liceo Della Pittura,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 34(1971), 262-296.

Dacos, Nicole, La découverte de la Domus Aurea et la formation des grotesques à la Renaissance, London: Warburg Institute, 1969. Damisch, Hubert, The Origin of Perspective, Nelson Goodman, trans., Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1994. Daumas, Maurice, Scientific Instruments of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and Their Makers, London, Batsford, 1972. Davis, Charles, “Frescos by Vasari for Sforza Almeni, coppiere to Duke Cosimo I,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 14(1980), 127-99. Davis, Natalie, Society and Culture in Early Modern France: Eight Essays, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1975. Dee, John The mathematical praeface to the Elements of geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570) reprinted New York: Science History Publications, 1975. De Rossi, Giovanni, Piante iconografiche e prospettiche di Roma anteriori al sec. XVI, Roma: Salviucci, 1879. D’Evelyn, Margaret, Word and Image in Architectural Treatises of the Italian Renaissance, PhD Dissertation submitted to Princeton University, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services, 1995. D’Evelyn, Margaret, “Varietà and the Caryatid Portico in Daniele Barbaro’s ‘Commentaries’ on Vitruvius,” Annali di architettura, 10-11(1998-9), 157-174. Dinsmoor, William, “The Literary Remains of Sebastian Serlio,” Art Bulletin, 24, 1(1942), 55-91 and 2(1942), 115-154. Di Pasquale, Salvatore, et al., eds., “2000 Anni di Vitruvio” Special Edition of Studi e Documenti di Architettura 8(1978). Doni, Antonio Francesco, La zucca del Doni, Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1551. Dubourg-Glatigny, Pascal, "Disegno per il frontespizio del libro di Antonio Labacco", in Catherine Monbeig Goguel ed., Francesco Salviati o la Bella Maniera, Milano: Electa, 1998, 332. Durkheim, Emile, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology, Joseph Ward Swain, trans., Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1947.

Edgerton, Samuel, The Renaissance Rediscovery of Linear Perspective, New York: Basic Books, 1975. Eisenbichler, Konrad, ed., The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’ Medici, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Eisenstein, Elizabeth, The Printing Press as an Agent of Social Change, Vol 1, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979.

362 Ettlinger, Leopold, “The Emergence of the Italian Architect during the Fifteenth Century,” in Spiro Kostof, ed., The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 96-123.

Fagiolo, Marcello, ed., Natura e artificio: l’ordine rustico, le fontane, gli automi nella cultura del Manierismo europeo, Roma: Officina, 1981. Febvre, Lucien, and Henri-Jean Martin, The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450-1800, London: National Library Britain, 1976. Filarete, Antonio, Trattato di Architettura circa 1461-4, see Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known as Filarete, John R Spencer, trans., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Fiocco, Giuseppi, Alvise Cornaro: Il suo tempo e le sue opere, Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1965. Fiore, Francesco Paolo, “The Trattati on Architecture by Francesco di Giorgio,” in Vaughan Hart with Peter Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces:The rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998, 66-85. Fiore, Francesco Paolo, “Introduction,” in Francesco Paolo Fiore, ed., Sebastiano Serlio, Architettura Civile, Milano: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1994, xi-li. Fleischer Roland and Susan Scott, eds., Rembrandt. Rubens, and the Art of Their Time: Recent Perspectives, Pennsylvania: Penn State University, 1997 Fontana, Vincenzo “Arte e isperienza nei trattati veneziani del Cinquicento,” Architectura 8,1(1978), 49-72. Fontana, Vicenzo, “Il ‘Vitruvio’ dell 1556: Barbaro, Palladio, Marcolini,” in Ezio Riondato, ed., Trattati Scientifico nel Veneto fra il XV e XVI secolo, Venezia: Università Internationale dell’Arte, 1985, 39-72. Forssman, Erik, Palladios Lehrgebäude: Studien über de Zusammenhang von Architektur und Architekturtheorie bei Andrea Palladio, Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1965. Forssman, Erik, “Palladio e l’antichità,” Mostra del Palladio, ex. cat., Vicenza: Basilica Palladiana, 1973. Forster, Kurt, “Metaphors of Rule: Political Ideology and History in the Portraits of Cosimo I de’ Medici,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 15(1971), 70- 71 and 77-79. Fowler, Lawrence, and Elizabeth Baer, The Fowler Architectural Collection of the John Hopkins University: catalogue, Baltimore: Evergreen House Foundation, 1961. Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Trattati di architettura ingegneria e arte militare, Turin, Biblioteca Reale, Codice Torinese Saluzziano 148. Frascari, Marco, “Maiden’s ‘Theory’ and ‘Practice’ at the Sides of Lady Architecture,” Assemblage 7(Oct 1988), 15-27. Frommel, Sabine, Sebastiano Serlio architetto, Milano: Electa, 1998. Frutaz, Amato Pietro, Le piante di Roma, Roma: Instituto di studi romani, 1962.

Gaeta, Franco, “L’idea di Venezia, “ in Storia della cultura veneta, Neri Pozza ed., Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1981. Galichon, Emile, Domenico Campagnola: peintre-graveur du XVIe siècle, Paris: Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1864. Galluzzi, Paolo, ed., Renaissance Engineers From Brunelleschi to Leonardo da Vinci, Firenze: Giunti, 2001. Garin, Eugenio, Science and Civic Life in the Italian Renaissance, Garden City, New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday and Company, 1969. Gerulaitis, Leonardas, Printing and Publishing in Fifteenth-Century Venice, Chicago: American Library Association, 1976.

363 Giordano, Luisa, “On Filarete’s Libro Archittonico,” in Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces, 1998, 51-65. Gioseffi, Decio, "Palladio e l'antichita," Bolletino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio, 15(1973), 29-66. Giunta, Jacopo, The Divine Michelangelo: The Florentine Academy’s Homage on his Death in 1564, Introduced, translated and annotated by Rudolf & Margot Wittkower, London: Phaidon, 1964. Gnoli, D., Mostra di topografia romana ordinata in occasione del Congresso storico inaugurato in Roma il 2 aprile del 1903, Roma: Tipografia cooperative sociale, 1903. Goguel, Catherine, Francesco Salviati 1510-1563 o la bella maniera, Milano: Electa, 1998. Goguel, Catherine, Philippe Costamagna and Michel Hochmann, Francesco Salviati et la bella maniera, Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2001. Goldschmidt, E. P., The Printed Book of the Renaissance: three lectures on type, illustration, ornament, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Goldthwaite, Richard, The Building of Renaissance Florence: An Economic and Social History, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1980.

Gombrich, Ernst, Symbolic Images: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, London: Phaidon, 1972. Grendler, Paul, Critics of the Italian World 1530-1560: Anton Francesco Doni, Nicolo Franco and Ortensio Lando, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Grendler, Paul, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press, 1540-1605, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Gronau, George, “Diario autobiografico di G. B. Beluzzi,” in Documenti artistici urbinati : con una tavola fuori testo, Firenze: G. C. Sansoni, 1936. Guillaume, Jean, ed., Les traités d’architecture de la Renaissance: Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1er au 11 juillet, 1981, Paris: Picard, 1988. Günther, Hubertus, “Studien zum venezianischen Aufenthalt des Sebastiano Serlio,” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, XXXII(1981), 42-94. Günther, Hubertus, Das Studium der antiken Architektur in den Zeichnungen der Hochrenaissance, Tübingen: Wasmuth, 1988.

Harford, John, The Life of Michael Angelo Buonarroti with translations of many of his Poems and Letters, London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts,1857. Harris, Eileen, British Architectural Books and Writers: 1556-1785, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990. Harris, John, Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, The King’s Arcadia: Inigo Jones and the Stuart Court, London: Arts Council of Great Britain, 1973. Hart, Vaughan, with Peter Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces:The rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, New Haven, C.T.: Yale University Press, 1998. Heckscher, William, Art and Literature: Studies in Relationship, Egon Verheyen, ed., Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, and Baden-Baden: Verlag Valentin Koerner, 1985. Herald, Jacqueline, Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400-1500, London: Bell & Hyman, 1981. Hersey, George, “The Classical Orders of Architecture as Totems in Vitruvian Myth,” in Paolo Brezzi, ed., Umanesimo a Roma nel Quattrocento atti del convegno, Roma: Istituto di Studi Romani, 1984, 213-214. Hindman, Sandra, ed., Printing the Written Word: The Social History of Books, circa 1450- 1520, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

364 Holberton, Paul, Palladio’s Villas: Life in the Renaissance Countryside, London: John Murray, 1990, Hollingsworth, Mary, “The Architect in Fifteenth-Century Florence,” Art History, 7(Dec., 1984), 385-410. Holly, Michael Ann, Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984. Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spawforth, eds., The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Howard, Deborah, “Sebastiano Serlio’s Venetian Copyrights,” Burlington Magazine, CXV, 845, (Aug., 1973), 512-516. Howard, Deborah, Venice & the East: the Impact of the Islamic World on Venetian Architecture 1100-1500, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Ingersoll, Richard, The Ritual Use of Public Space in Renaissance Rome, PhD dissertation submitted to the University of California, Berkley, Ann Arbor, Mi: UMI Dissertation, 1985.

Jacks, Philip, ed., Vasari’s Florence: Arts and Literati at the Medicean Court, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Jarzombek, Mark, On Leon Baptista Alberti: His Literary and Aesthetic Theories, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1989. Jelmini, Alberto, “Sebastiano Serlio. Il Trattato d’Architettura” Doctoral Thesis presented to the Faculty of Letters, University of Freiburg, 1975, Locarno, Switzerland: Tipografia Stazione], c1986. Johnson, Alfred Forbes, A Catalogue of Italian Engraved Title-Pages in the Sixteenth Century, London: Oxford University Press, 1936.

Kahn, Victoria, Rhetoric, Prudence, and Skepticism in the Renaissance, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985. Kamholtz, Jonathan, “Spenser and Perspective,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 39, 1(Fall 1980), 59-66. Kanerva, Liisa, Defining the Architect in Fifteenth Century Italy: Exemplary architects in L.B. Alberti’s De re aedificatoria, Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1998. Katzenellenbogen, Adolf, Allegories of the Virtues and Vices, New York: Harper, 1962. Kemp, Martin, The Science of Art, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Kertzer, David, Ritual, Politics and Power, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Klibansky, Raymond, Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy, London: Nelson and Sons, 1923. Kostof, Spiro, ed., The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Krautheimer, Richard, “Alberti and Vitruvius,” International Congress of the History of Art, Acts of the Twentieth Congress, Studies in Western Art, 2, 42-52. Krautheimer, Richard, “Alberti and Vitruvius,” in Studies in Early Christian, Mediaeval and Renaissance Art, New York: University Press, 1969, 323-332. Krautheimer, Richard, “The Panels in Urbino, Baltimore and Berlin Reconsidered,” in Henry A. Millon and Vittorio M. Lampugnani, eds., The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 1994, 233-258. Krinsky, Carol, “Seventy-eight Vitruvius Manuscripts,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 30, 1967, 36-70.

365 Krinsky, Carol, “Introduction,” Vitruvius De architectura: Nachdruck der kommentierten ersten italianischen Ausgabe von Cesare Cesariano (Como 1521), München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1969, 5-28. Krinsky, Carol, “Cesariano and the Renaissance without Rome,” Arte Lombarda, XVI(1971), 211-218. Kristeller, Paul, Renaissance Thought and the Arts, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Kuntz, Marion, Venice, Myth and Utopian Thought in the Sixteenth Century: Bodin, Postel and the Virgin of Venice, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.

Labacco, Antonio, Libri d’Antonio Labacco appartenente a l’architettura nel qual si figurano alcune notabili antiquita di Roma, Roma: Casa Nostra, 1552. Lacey, W.K., Cicero: Second Philippic Oration, London: Aris and Phillips, 1986. Lane, Frederick, Venice, a Maritime Republic, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973. Laven, Peter, “Daniele Barbaro, Patriarch Elect of Aquileia: with special reference to his circle of scholars and to his literary achievement,” PhD Dissertation submitted to Courtauld Institutes, University of London, 1957. Laven, Peter, “The Causa Grimani and its Political Overtones,” Journal of Religious History IV(1967), 182-205. Lewis, Douglas, The Drawings of Andrea Palladio, Washington: International Exhibitions Foundation, 1981. Lewis, Charlton, and Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Lodynska-Kosinska, Maria, “Quelques remarques au sujet du dessin d’Antonio di Vicenso et de la gravure de Cesare Cesariano,” in Maria Perer, ed., Congresso internazionale, Milano, Museo della scienza e della tecnica, 8-12 settembre 1968, Milano: Editore la Rete, 1969, 129-131. Lomazzo, Giovanni Paolo, Trattato dell'arte de la pittvra di Gio. Paolo Lomazzo, milanese pittore. Diuiso in sette libri. Ne' quali si contiene tutta la theorica, & la prattica d'essa pittura, Milano: Paolo Gottardo Ponte, 1584. Long, Pamela, The Vitruvian Commentary Tradition and Rational Architecture in the Sixteenth Century: A Study in the history of Ideas, PhD Dissertation submitted to Graduate School, University of Maryland, 1979, Ann Arbor, Michigan: UMI Dissertation, 1980. Lorenz, Helmut, “Il Trattato come strumento di ‘autorappresentazione’: Palladio e J.B. Fischer von Erlach,” Bollettino del Centro internazionale di studi di architettura Andrea Palladio, 21(1979), 141-157. Lotz, Wolfgang, Studies in Italian Renaissance Architecture, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1977. Luhrs, Kathleen, ed., In August Company: The Collections of the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, 1993.

MacDonald, William, The Architecture of the Roman Empire, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Maclehose, Louisa, ed., and trans., Vasari on Technique: Being the Introduction to the Three Arts of Design, Architecture, Sculpture and Painting, Prefixed to the Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors and Architects, New York: Dover, 1960. Machiavelli, Niccolò, Il principe: e altri scritti / Niccolò Machiavelli , introduzione e commento di Gennaro Sasso, Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1963. Magagnato, Licisco, “I collaboratori Veronesi di Andrea Palladio,” Bollettino del Centro internazionale di studi di architettura Andrea Palladio, X(1968), 170-187.

366 Magagnato, Licisco, ed., Cinquant’anni di pittura veronese 1580-1630, exhibition catalogue, Verona: N. Pozza, 1974. Magagnato, Licisco, “Introduction,” in Andrea Palladio, I quattro libri dell’architettura, Licisco Magagnato and Paola Marini, eds., Milano: Polifilo, 1980, xi-lxvi. Magrini, Antonio, Memorie intorno la vita e le opere di Andrea Palladio: pubblicate nell’inaugurazione del suo monumento in Vicenza, li agosto 1845: colla serie di ventisette scritture del medesimo architetto in parte inedite / ed ora la prima volte unite dall'abate Antonio Magrini, Padova: Dalla Tipografia del Seminario, 1845. Manion, Margaret, and Bernard Muir, eds., Medieval Texts and Images: Studies of Manuscripts from the Middle Ages, Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers, c1991. Marcolini, Francesco, Le Sorti de Francesco Marcolini da Forli . . . ., Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1540. Marcucci, Laura, “Giovanni Sulpicio e la Prima Edizione del De Architectura di Vitruvio” in Luigi Vagnetti, et al, eds., 2000 Anni di Vitruvio, Firenze: Cattedra di composizione architettonica I A di Firenze, 1978, printed as Special Edition of Studi e Documenti di Architettura 8(1978), 185-95. Marsili-Libelli, Cecilia, Anton Francesco Doni: scrittiore e stampatore: bibliografia delle opera e della critica e annali tipografici, Firenze: Sansoni Antiquariato, 1960. Martin, Henri-Jean, The History and Power of Writing, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Martini, Francesco di Giorgio, Trattati di architettura civile e militare, Codex Saluzzianus 148 Biblioteca Reale, Turin. McGowan, Margaret, The Vision of Rome in Late Renaissance France, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000. McTavish, David, Giuseppe Porta called Giuseppe Salviati, PhD Dissertation submitted to Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, New York: Garland Publishing, 1981. Metternich, Franz Wolff, and Christof Thoenes, Die frühen St.-Peter-Entwürfe, 1505-1514, E. Wasmuth: Tübigen, 1987. Millon, Henry, and Vittorio Lampugnani, eds., The Renaissance, Brunelleschi to Michelangelo: The Representation of Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 1994. Miotto, Luciana, “Le Vitruve traduit, commenté et illustré de Daniele Barbaro (1556),” in Michel Plaisance, ed., Le livre illustré italien au XVIe siècle, Klincksieck: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 1999, 233-243. Mitchell, William, Picture Theory, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. Mitrovi, Branko, “Paduan Aristotelianism and Daniele Barbaro’s Commentari on Vitruvius’ De architetura,” The Sixteenth Century Journal, XXIX, 3(Fall 1998), 667-687. Mitrovi, Branko, “Palladio’s Theory of the Classical Orders in the First Book of I quattro Libri dell’architettura,” Architectural History, 42(1999), 1-31. Morachiello, Paolo, “”Rialto: le misure del ponte in legno e il primo progetto di Andrea Palladio,” Arte Veneta, XXXVII(1983), 175-179. Morresi, Manuela, “Treatises and the Architecture of Venice in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, eds., Paper Palaces: The Rise of the Renaissance Architectural Treatise, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998, 263- 280. Morrogh, Andrew, et al., eds., Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth, Florence: Giunti Barbèra, 1985.

367 Mortimer, Ruth, Harvard College Library Department of Printing and Graphic Arts Catalogue of Books and Manuscripts: Part II: Italian 16th Century Books, Cambridge, Mass: Belknap, 1974. Mozzarelli, Cesare, Roberto Oresko and Leandro Ventura, eds., La Corte di Mantova nell’età di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550, Roma: Bulzoni, c1997. Muir, Edward, Ritual in Early Modern Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Murray, Peter, ed., Five Early Guides to Rome and Florence, Farnborough: Gregg, 1972.

Nagel, A. F., “Rhetoric, Value, and Action in Alberti.” Modern Language Notes 95, 1, 39- 65. Nellhaus, Tobin, “Mementos of Things to Come: Orality, Literacy, and Typology in the Biblia pauperum,” in Sandra Hindman ed., Printing the Written Word: The Social History of Books, circa 1450-1520, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991, 292-321.

Olivato, Loredana, “Dal teatro della memoria al grande teatro dell’architettura: Giulio Camillo Delminio e Sebastiano Serlio,” Bollettino del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio, XXI, 1979, 233-252. Olivato, Loredana, “La scena dell’architettura: I fondamenti teorici della prassi,” in Lionello Puppi, ed., Architettura e utopia nella Venezia del Cinquecento, Venezia, Palazzo Ducale, luglio-ottobre 1980 / [impaginazione, Eva Bozzi ; redazione, Anna Della Valle; catalogo a cura di Lionello Puppi]. Milano: Electa, c1980, 167-186. Olivato, Loredana, “Con il Serlio tra I ‘dilettanti de architettura’ veneziani della prima metà,” in Jean Guillaume ed., Les traités d’architecture de la Renaissance: Actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 1er au 11 juillet, 1981, Paris: Picard, 1988, 247-54. Onians, John, Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, Princeton: Princeton Architectural Press, 1988. Ottley, William, An Inquiry Into the Origin and Early History of Engraving, London: J. and A. Arch by J. McCreery, 1816. Ottley, William, An Inquiry Concerning the Invention of Printing: in which the systems of Meerman, Heinecken, Santander, and Koning are reviewed : including also notices of the early use of wood-engraving in Europe, the block-books etc., London: J. Lilly, 1863.

Paci, Gianfranco, and Sergio Sconocchia, Ciriaco d'Ancona e la cultura antiquaria dell'umanesimo, Reggio Emilia: Diabasis, c1998. Pacioli, Luca, De divina proportione, Venezia: Paganino da Brescia, 1509. Pade, Marianne, Lene Petersen and Daniela Quarta, eds., La Corte di Ferrara e il suo mecenatismo, 1441-1598, Modena: Edizioni Panini, c1990, 129-149. Palladio, Andrea, I quattro libri dell’architettura di Andrea Palladio, Venezia: Dominico de’Franceschi, 1570. Palladio, Andrea, I quattro libri dell’architettura, Licisco Magagnato and Paola Marini, eds., Milano: Polifilo, 1980. Palladio, Andrea, The Four Books on Architecture, trans Robert Tavernor and Richard Schofield, Cambridge Mass.: MIT, 1997. Pane, Roberto, Andrea Palladio, Torino: Einaudi, 1961. Pane, Roberto, “I quattro libri,” Bolletino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura, 11(1967), 121-138. Panofsky, Erwin, Studies in Iconology: Humanist Themes in the Art of the Renaissance, New York: Oxford University Press, 1939, 1962.

368 Panofsky, Erwin, The Life and Art of Albrecht Dürer, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. Panofsky, Erwin, Meaning in the Visual Arts, New York: The Overlook Press, 1955. Panofsky, Erwin, The Iconography of Correggio’s Camera di san Paolo, London: The Warburg Institute, 1961. Panofsky, Erwin, Problems in Titian: Mostly Iconographic, New York: New York University Press, 1969. Panofsky, Erwin, Perspective as Symbolic Form, Christopher Wood, trans., New York: Zone Books, 1997. Paruta, Paolo, Della perfettione della vita politica di M. Paolo Paruta nobile vinetiani. Libri tre. Con privilegio, (1579), Venezia: Domenico Nicolini, 1599. Payne, Alina, The Architectural Treatise in the Italian Renaissance: Architectural Invention, Ornament, and Literary Culture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Perer, Maria, ed., Il Duomo di Milano: congresso internazionale Milano, Milano: Editore la Rete, 1969. Pertile, F., and E. Camesasca, eds., Pietro Aretino Lettre sull’arte, Milano: Rizzoli, 1957- 60. Pérez-Gómez, Alberto, and Louise Pelletier, Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge, Cambridge Mass., MIT Press, 1997. Pevsner, Nikolaus, “The Term Architect in the Middle Ages,” Speculum XVII(1942), 549- 562. Plaisance, Michel, ed., Le livre illustré italien au XVIe siecle, Klincksieck: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 1999. Plato, The Timaeus of Plato, R. D. Archer-Hind, trans., London: Macmillan, 1888. Plato, ‘Philebus, 57,’ in The Dialogues of Plato, Benjamin Jowett, trans., Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1952. Plato, Timaeus and Critas, Desmond Lee, trans., Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1965. Pollak, Martha, et al, The Mark J. Millard Architectural Collection Volume IV, Italian and Spanish Books: Fifteenth through Nineteenth Centuries, Washington: National Gallery of Art Washington and Braziller, 2000. Pollard, A. W., Last Word on the History of the Title-page with Notes on Some Colophons and Twenty-seven Fac-similes of Title-Pages, London: J. C. Nimmo, 1891. Popham, A.E., and J. Wilde, The Italian Drawings of the XV and XVI Centuries in the collection of His Majesty the King at Windsor Castle, London: Phaidon Press, 1949. Porta, Giuseppe, Regola di far perfettamente col compasso la voluta et del capitello ionico et d'ogn'altra sorte / per Iosephe Saluiati pittore ritrouat, Vinetia: Per Francesco Marcolini, 1552. Pouncey, Philip, “Recensione di Arthur Hind, Early Italian Engraving . . . “ in The Burlington Magazine, XCI, 557(Aug., 1949), 234-236. Puppi, Lionello, Andrea Palladio, Milano: Electa, 1973. Puppi, Lionello, ed., Architettura e Utopia nelle Venezia del Cinquecento, ex. Cat. Milano: Electa, c1980. Puppi, Lionello, “Iconografia di Andrea Gritti” in Manfredo Tafuri, ed., Renovatio Urbis: Venezia nell’età di Andrea Gritti (1523-1538), Roma: Officina, 1984, 216-235. Puppi, Lionello, and Romanelli, Giandomenico, eds., Le Venezie possibili: Da Palladio a Le Corbusier, Milano: Electa, 1985. Puppi, Lionello, Andrea Palladio: scritti sull’architettura (1554-1579), Vicenza: Neri Pozza Editore, 1988. Puppi, Lionello, Palladio Drawings, New York: Rizzoli, 1989. Puppi, Lionello, Palladio: Corpus dei disegni al Museo Civico di Vicenza, Milano: Berenice, 1989.

369 Puppi, Lionello, Andrea Palladio, The Complete Works, (1973) Pearl Sanders, trans., Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1989. Puppi, Lionello, Palladio Drawings, New York: Rizzoli, 1990. Puppi, Lionello, ed., Palladio e Venezia, Firenze: Sansoni, 1982.

Quondam, Amedeo, “Varietà: Nel giardoni del Marcolini un editore veneziano tra Aretino and Doni,” Giornale storico dell letterature italiane 157, 4(1980), 75-112.

Rearick, William, “Francesco Salviati, Giuseppe Porta and Venetian Draftsmen of the 1540s,” in Catherine Goguel, Philippe Costamagna and Michel Hochmann, Francesco Salviati et la bella maniera, Rome: Ecole Française de Rome, 2001, 455-478. Recht, Roland, “Codage et fonction des illustrations: l’exemple de l’edition de Vitruve de 1521,” in Jean Guillaume, ed., Les Traites D’Architecture De La Renaissance, Paris: Picard, 1988, 61-67. Ricci, Antonio, “Lorenzo Torrentino and the Cultural Program of Cosimo I de’Medici,” in Konrad Eisenbichler, ed., The Cultural Politics of Duke Cosimo I de’Medici, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001, 103-119. Richards, Sandra, “The Genesis and Publication of Andrea Palladio’s I Quattro libri dell’architettura,” Thesis, MA, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada, 1998. Riondato, Ezio, ed., Trattati scientifici nel Veneto fra il XV e XVI secolo, Venezia: Università Internationale dell’Arte, 1985. Ripa, Cesare, Iconologia overo descrittione dell'imagini universali cavate dall'antichità et da altri luoghi da Cesare Ripa, Roma, Giovanni Gigliotti, eredi, 1593. Ripa, Cesare, Iconologia overo descrittione dell'imagini universali cavate dall'antichità et da altri luoghi, Padua: Tozzi, 1611. Also reprinted by New York: Garland Pub., 1976. Roberts, Helen, Encyclopedia of Comparative Iconography, Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1998. Rodríguez-Salgado, M. J., “Terracotta and Iron, Mantuan Politics (ca. 1450-1550),” in Cesare Mozzarelli, Roberto Oreski and Leandro Ventura, eds., La Corte di Mantova nell’età di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550, Roma: Bulzoni, c1997, 15-59. Rosand, David, Myths of Venice: The Figuration of a State, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Rosenfeld, Myra Nan, “Emergence of the Italian Architect During the Fifteenth Century,” in Spiro Kostof ed., The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 96-123. Rosenfeld, Myra Nan, “Sebastiano Serlio’s Contributions to the Creation of the Modern Illustrated Architectural Manual,” in Christof Theones, ed., Sebastiano Serlio, Milano, Electa, 1989, 102-110. Rosenfeld, Myra Nan, Serlio on Domestic Architecture, (1978) New York: Dover, 1996. Rosenfeld, Myra Nan, "From Bologna to Venice and Paris: The Evolution and Publication of Sebastiano Serlio's Books I and II, On Geometry and Perspective, for Architects," in Lyle Massey, ed., Studies in the History of Art, 59, Center for Advanced Studies in the Visual Arts, Symposium Papers XXXVI, The Treatise on Perspective: Published and Unpublished, Washington: National Gallery of Art Washington and Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 281-322. Rossi, Marco, “Cesariano in Duomo,” in Cesare Cesariano e il classicismo di primo Cinquecento, Milano: Vite e Pensiero, 1996, 45-66. Rubin, Patricia, Giorgio Vasari: Art and History, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

370 Rupprecht, Bernhard, “Il numero e l’ordine dei disegni dipendono di volta dalle necessità della demonstrazione o della documentazione,” in “Proiezione e realità nei disegni dei ‘Quattro libri’.” Bolletino del Centro Internazionale Studi sull’Architettura, 21(1979), 159-75. Rykwert, Joseph, “On The Oral Transmission of Architecture,” Architectural Association Files, 6(Spring 1984), 15-27.

Saalman, Howard, Antonio di Tuccio Manetti The Life of Brunelleschi, Catherine Enggass, trans., Philadelphia: Penn State Univ, 1970. Sarpi, Paolo, Historia dell Concilio Tredentino (English), London: Printed by Bonham Norton, 1629. Saslow, J. M., The Medici Wedding of 1589: Florentine Festival as Theatrum Mundi, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Satkowski, Leon, Giorgio Vasari: Architect and Courtier, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Scaglia, Gustina, Francesco Di Giorgio: Checklist and History of Manuscripts and Drawings, London: Associated University Presses, 1992. Scaglia, Gustina, “The Etruscology of Sienese and Florentine artists and humanists: Antonio da Sangallo Il Giovane, Baldassarre Peruzzi, Salustro Peruzzi and Cosimo Bartoli,” Palladio, 10(1992), 21-36. Scaglia, Gustina, “The Anonymous not Cronaca’s Drawings: A Leucippidae Sarcophagus in Casa Fazio Santoro, other Antiquities, and Obelisks in Rome,” Palladio, 18(Dec., 1996), 5-18. Schneider, Johann, Marci Vitruvii Pollionis, De architectura libri decem…, Lipsiae, Göeschen, 1807-1808. Serlio, Sebastiano, Regole generali di architetura sopra le cinque maniere de gli edifici cioè, Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, et Composito, con gli essempi dell’antiquita, che, per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruvio, Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1537. Serlio, Sebastiano, Il terzo libro / di Sebastiano Serlio, Bolognese; nel qval si figvrano e descrivono le antiqvita di Roma, e le altre che sono in Italia, e fvori d'Italia ... Venetia : Impresso per F. Marcolino, 1540. Serlio, Sebastiano, Il primo libro d’architettura, di Sebastiano Serlio, Bolognese, also titled Le premier liure d’architecture de Sebastiano Serlio, Bolognois, mis en langue francoyse, par Iehan Martin secretaire de monseigneur le reverendissime Cardinal de Lenoncourt, Paris: Jean Barbé, 1545. Serlio, Sebastiano, Quinto libro d’architettura di Sebastiano Serlio Bolognese, nel quale se tratta de diuerse forme di tempij sacri secondo il costume christiano, & al mondo antico, Paris: Michel de Vascosan, 1547. Serlio, Sebastiano, Extraordinario libro di architettura di Sebastiano Serlio, architetto del re christianissimo, nel quale si dimostrano trenta porte di opera rustica mista con diuersi ordini, et venti di opera dilicata di diuerse specie con la scrittura dauanti, che narra il tutto, Lyon: Giovan di Tournes, 1551. Serlio, Sebastiano, Sebastiano, Architettura Civil: libri sesto, settimo e ottavo nei manoscritti di Monaco e Vienna, Francesco Paolo Fiore ed, foreword and notes Tancredi Carunchio and Francesco Paolo Fiore, Milano: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1994. Serlio, Sebastiano, Sebastiano Serlio on Architecture, Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks, trans., and eds., Vol., I, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996. Serlio, Sebastiano, L’architettura, i libri I-VII e extraordinario nelle prime edizione, Paolo Fiore, ed., Milano: Polifilo, 2001.

371 Shirley, John, and David Hoeniger, eds., Science and the Arts in the Renaissance, Washington DC: Folger Shakespeare Library; London: Associated University Presses, 1985. Simpson J. A., and E. S. C. Weiner, eds., The Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Sinding-Larsen, Staale, Christ in the Council Hall: Studies in the Religious Iconography of the Venetian Republic, Roma: L’erma di Bretschneider, 1974. Smith, Christine, Architecture in the Culture of Early Humanism: Ethics, Aesthetics and Eloquence 1400-1470, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Smith, Margaret, The Title-Page: Its Early Development 1460-1510, London: British Library; New Castle DE: Oak Knoll Press, 2000. Spencer, John, Leon Battista Alberti, On Painting, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956. Spencer, John, Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture: Being the Treatise by Antonio di Piero Averlino, Known as Filarete, John R. Spencer, trans., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Spielmann, Heinz, Andrea Palladio und die Antike: Untersuchung und Katalog der Zeichnungen aus seinem Nachlass, München; Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1966. Strauss, Walter, ed., The Illustrated Bartsch, New York: Abaris Books, 1978-, vol 24, 25. Striker, Cecil, ed., Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer, Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern, c1996. Strong, Roy, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals, 1450–1650, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1984.

Tafuri, Manfredo, “Cesare Cesariano e gli studi vitruviani nel Quattrocento,” in Arnaldo Bruschi et al, eds., Scritti rinascimentali di architettura, Milano: Il Polifilo, 1978, 414. Tafuri, Manfredo, “Renovatio urbis: Venezia nell’eta di Andrea Gritti, 1523-1538, Roma: Officina edizioni, 1984. Tafuri, Manfredo, “La norma e il programma: il Vitruvio di Daniele Barbaro,” in Vitruvio. I dieci libri dell’architettura; tradotti e commentati da Daniele Barbaro, 1567, con un saggio di Manferdo Tafuri e uno studio di Manuela Morresi, Milano: Polifilo, 1987, xi-xl. Tafuri, Manfredo, Venice and the Renaissance, Jessica Levine, trans., Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press, 1995. Tayler, Edward, Nature and Art in Renaissance Literature, New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Temanza, Tommaso, Vite dei più celebri architetti e scultori veneziani nel seculo decimosesto, (1778) Milano: Edizioni Labor, 1966. Thoenes, Christof, “Vignolas ‘Regola delli cinque ordini’”, Römisches Jahrbuch die Kunstgeschichte, XX, 1983, 347-74. Thoenes, Christof, “La ‘Regola delli Cinque ordini’ del Vignola,” in Sostegno e adornamento: saggi sull’architettura del Rinascimento: disegni, ordini, magnificenza, Milano: Electa, 1988, 77-107. Thoenes, Christof, ed., Sostegno e adornamento: saggi sull’architettura del Rinascimento: disegni, ordini, magnificenza, Milano: Electa, 1988. Thoenes, Christof, ed., Sebastiano Serlio: Sesto seminario internazionale di storia dell’architettura, Vicenza 31 agosto – 4 settembre 1987, Milano: Electa, 1989. Thoenes, Christof, “Vitruvio, Alberti, Sangallo: La teoria del disegno architettonico nel Rinascimento,” in his Sostegno e adornamento : saggi sull’architettura del Riascimento : disegni, ordini, magnificenza, Milano: Electa, 1998, 161-175.

372 Thoenes, Christof, “Prolusione: Serlio e la trattatistica,” in Christof Thoenes, ed., Sebastiano Serlio, Vicenza 31 agosto – 4 settembre 1987, Milano: Electa, 1989. Thoenes, Christof, “Notes on the Architectural Treatises of the Renaissance,” Zodiac 15(Mar/Apr., 1996), 12-31. Toker, Franklin, “Alberti’s Ideal Architect: Renaissance - or Gothic?” in Andrew Morrogh et al., eds., Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh Smyth, Florence: Giunti Barbéra, 1985, 667-674. Tuohy, Thomas, Herculean Ferrara: Ercole d’Este, 1471-1505, and the Invention of a Ducal Capital, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Tuttle, Richard, “Sebastiano Serlio bolognese,” in Christof Thoenes, ed., Sebastiano Serlio: Sesto seminario internazionale di storia dell’architettura, (1987), Milano: Electa, 1989, 22-29. Tuve, Rosemond, “Notes on the Virtues and Vices. Part I; Two Fifteenth Century Lines of Depandence on the Thirteenth and Twelfth Centuries,” Journal of the Warburg and Cautauld Institutes 26(1963), 264-303 Tuve, Rosemond, “Notes on the Virtues and Vices. Part II: “hHly”; Two Missing Notes in the Somme Le Roi Illuminator; the Unicorn; “Sevens” in the Belleville Breviary and some Psalter and Horae, Journal of the Warburg and Cautauld Institutes 27(1964), 42-72.

Luigi Vagnetti, et al, ed., 2000 Anni di Vitruvio, Firenze, Cattedra di composizione architettonica I A di Firenze, 1978, Special Edition of Studi e Documenti di Architettura 8(1978). Vagnetti, Luigi, L'architetto nella storia di Occidente, Padua: CEDAM, 1980. Vasari, Giorgio, Le vite de piu eccellenti pittori scultori et architetti, italiani, Firenze: Torrentino, 1550. Vasari, Giorgio, Le vite de piu eccellenti pittori scultori et architetti, italiani, Firenze: Giunti,1568. Vasari, Giorgio, Le vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori e architettori,scritte da Giorgio Vasari, pittore aretino, con nuovo annotazioni e commenti di Gaetano Milanesi, 9 vols., Gaetano Milanesi, ed., Firenze: Sansoni, 1906. Vasari, Giorgio, Lives of the Painters Sculptors and Architects, Gaston du C. de Vere, trans., London: David Campbell, 1996. Verzone, Paolo, “Cesare Cesariano,” Arte Lombarda XVI(1971), 203-210. Vitruvius, Pollio L., De architectura…, manuscript, Harleanus 2767, British Library. Vitruvius, Pollio L., L. Victruuii Pollionis ad Cesarem Augustum De architectura liber primus[-decimus], Giovanni Sulpicio da Veroli, trans., Roma: George Herholt s.n., 1486 or 1487. Vitruvius, M., M. Vitrvvivs per Iocvndvm solito castigatior factvs cvm figvris et tabvla vt iam legi et intelligi possit. Impressum Venetiis : ac magis qunquam aliquo alio tempore emendatum sumptu miraq; diligentia Ioannis de Tridino alias Tacuino, 1511. Vitruvius, Di Lucio Vitruuio Pollione De architectura libri dece: traducti de latino in vulgare affigurati: comentati: & con mirando ordine insigniti, Cesare Cesariano, trans., Como: Gottardo da Ponte, 1521. Vitruvius, Architettura con il svo comento et figure Vitruvio in volgar lingua raportato per M. Gianbatista Caporali di Pervgia, Perugia: Stamparia del conte Iano Bigazzini, 1536. Vitruvius, In decem lobros M. Vitruvii Pollionis De architectura annotationes, G. Philandrier, trans., Roma: Apud Io. Andream Dossena Thaurinen, 1544. Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Daniele Barbaro, trans., and ed., Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1556.

373 Vitruvius, I deci libri dell’architettura di M. Vitruvio tradutti et commentati da monsignor Barbaro eletto Patriarca d’Aquileggia, Daniele Barbaro, trans., and ed., Venezia: Francesco Marcolini, 1567. Vitruvius, De architectura, libri decem : ex fide librorum scriptorum recensuit, emendavit, suisque et virorum doctorum annotationibus illustravit, Gottlob Schneider trans., and ed., Lipsiae: G.J. Göschen, 1807-1808. Vitruvius, Vitruvio: De Architectura: Translato Commentato Et Affigurato Da Caesare Cesariano, 1521, Arnaldo Bruschi, Adriano Carugo and Francesco Paolo Fiore, eds., Milano: Il Polifilo, 1981. Vitruvius, I dieci libri dell’architettura, tradotti e commentati da Daniele Barbaro, Manfredo Tafuri and Manuella Morresi, eds., Milano: Polifilo, 1997. Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, Ingrid Rowland and Thomas Noble, trans., and com., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Wamberg, Jacob, “Art as the Fulfillment of Nature: Rock Formations in Ferrarese Quattrocento Painting,” in Marianne Pade, Lene Waage Petersen and Daniela Quarta, eds., La Corte di Ferrara & il suo mecenatismo, 1441-1598 = The court of Ferrara & its patronage : atti del convegno internazionale, Copenaghen, maggio 1987, Modena: Edizioni Panini, c1990, 129-149. Watson, Elizabeth, Achille Bocchi and the Emblem Book as Symbolic Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Wiebenson, Dora, ed., Architectural Theory and Practice from Alberti to Ledoux, [Chicago, Ill.]: Architectural Publications, 1982. Wilkinson, Catherine, “The New Professionalism in the Renaissance,” in Spiro Kostof ed., The Architect: Chapters in the History of the Profession, New York: Oxford University Press, 1977, 124-160. Wilinski, Stanislaw, “Cesare Cesariano elogia de la geometria architettonica della Cattedrale di Milano,” Maria Perer ed., Il Duomo di Milano. : Congresso internazionale, Milano, Museo della scienza e della tecnica, 8-12 settembre 1968, Milano: Editore la Rete, 1969, 132-143. Wind, Edgar, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance, London: Faber and Faber, 1958. Wisch, Barbara, and Susan Scott Munshower, eds., “All the World’s a Stage”: Art and Pagentry in the Renaissance and Baroque: Part 1, Triumphal Celebrations and the Rituals of Statecraft, University Park, Pa: Penn State University, 1990. Witcombe, Christopher, “Giuseppe Porta’s Frontispiece for Francesco Marcolini’s Sorti,” Arte Veneta, XXXVII(1983), 170-174. Wittkower, Rudolf, “Principles of Palladio’s Architecture,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 7(1944), 102-122. Wittkower, Rudolf, Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, London: Tiranti, 1962. Wittkower, Rudolf, Allegory and the Migration of Symbols, London: Thames and Hudson, 1977.

Zappella, Giuseppina, Le marche dei tipografi e degli editori italiani del Cinquecento: reportorio di figure, simboli e soggetti e dei relativi motti, Veneto: Editrice Bibliografica, 1986. Zappella, Giuseppina, Il ritratto nel libro italiano del cinquecento, Milano: Editrice Bibliografica, 1988. Zorzi, Alvise, Venetian Palaces, New York: Rizzoli, 1989. Zorzi, Giangiorgio, “Ancora della vera origine e della giovinezza di Andrea Palladio secondo nuovi documenti,” Arte Veneta, III(1949), 140-2. Zorzi, Giangiorgio, I disegni delle antichità di Andrea Palladio, Venezia : Neri Pozza, 1959.

374 Zorzi, Giangiorgio, Le opere pubbliche e i palazzi privati di Andrea Palladio:12 tavole e 385 illustrazioni, Venezia: Neri Pozza, 1965.

375