Originalveröffentlichung in: Annali di architettura : rivista del Centro Internazionale di Studi di Architettura 27.2015 (2016), S. 47-60

Hubertus Giinther comments on the architectural treatise of

in Paris where it was offered by Bonnefoi Livres Anciens and thereupon the Ernst von Siemens Foundation has acquired it for the Zentralinsti- tut fiir Kunstgeschichte in Munich 1. It attracts particular interest as Scamozzi has edited the treatise of Serlio. Serlio published his treatise gradually in in- dividual books2. The work had a huge success. It appeared in many editions and various languag- es throughout Europe. First were printed the two crucial books, both by Francesco Marcoli- ni in : in 1537 the doctrine of the orders of columns as the Fourth Book and in 1540 the presentation of ancient buildings in and throughout as Third Book. The columns doctrine remained instrumental until the early 20th century, although it had been modified in details and the principles on which it is based had changed. The book on ancient buildings re- mained unique up to 1682 when Antoine Desgo- detz had published Les e'difices antiques de Rome on behalf of the French Academy. After Serlio had left Venice and entered the service of the king of France, appeared in Paris three smaller books on the geometric basics of , and church design. In 1551 the Venetian pub- lisher Cornelio Nicolini launched the five books hitherto published in a representative collection in folio format - as was the original format. The publisher has changed hardly anything on the books; the old title pages and dedications are maintained; there is not even a special preface or a dedication. In a copy of this edition Scamozzi has written his notes. From 1566, the Venetian publisher Francesco de ’ Franceschi & Johann Kruger took charge of editing Serlio’s treatise. 1566 he brought out his first edition of Serlio’s books, 1569 a trans- lation. The same publisher has published since 1556 also Daniele Barbaro’s comment on Vit- ruvius that was exemplary for the Renaissance. The new Italian edition of Serlio’s treatise is dedicated to Daniele Barbaro. It is considerably altered. While the Latin translation maintains the original folio format, it is, as Franceschini r Sebastiano Serlio’s Collected edition Our contribution treats a copy of the archi- puts it in the dedication, “reduced in convenient °J tbefirstfive books, Venke 15)1, exemplar tectural treatise of Sebastiano Serlio, wherein form”, that is reduced to Quarto format. So the totth tbe glosses by Vincenzo Scamozzi, title page witb exlibris by Scamozzi. Scamozzi has written annotations hy his own publisher takes into account Serlio’s demand, to hand. He has indicated on its title page: “De’ libri reach a wide audience. For the smaller format all di Vic.o Scamozzi" and signed one of the glosses illustrations had to be completely remade. V> the (ills. 1-2). I came across the volume in 2011 at first five books is added the Libro Estraordinario, the Antiquarian Book Fair in the Grand Palais which had appeared meanwhile. The title pag-

47 comments reflecting on special items. Many . ,, 0 S £i £ A ri. books of the Renaissance have indices, such as, ^ v , «• I /*,mo trrx.ttente uit ricchisfvn > e kft:i for example, Barbaro’s comment on . t E tbermi Diocktune f ^ u dp?irUin;n u ?yrx- So comprehensive indices are rare, but there are Ij-ift utggono fopri ter .f di blioni gro fzZX,cbe ti< similar ones, usually in books by ancient authors, jZft nenttyl grannumero dt Vi:lgJ0fi\rcb*cUo t as the index with explanations of the terms, that 'erto delccmp^nen oMjuftJ Jg .^ Francesco Durantino has added to his Vitruvius edition of 1535, or Francesco Sansovino ’s trans- tneche hi fono,Mxneg rL ' ° J JJ correggereitn txnto Lntperx portxriano,e qnejio no P ^ farono rtiilM lation of the Lives of Plutarch, edited in 1564 by the Venetian publisher Vincenzo Valgrisi, “con le Tavole delle cose notabili copiosissime [...], "Jnt onl cfi i cb, U (» MU t«t, <*fr» . U (■■g „...... con sommarij & utili Postille, che dichiarono i luoghi Oscuri de ‘testi per via di discorsi ”. Vincenzo Scamozzi’s father Gian Domeni- jbchiirtnt#i,fc eund che ojjvndd l oc- co has created the index to Serlio’s treatise, the w h* jnj chioie vero dico,che fe comments reflect “the opinion ” of Vincenzo t£ZSZP h Brti<,A-” Scamozzi about Serlio’s statements. A special Urc* dclla c d-ce qualii queUx C.D.tutto Ztfpt&TJZ Vediftcio dimezo farii case is how much the index is trumpeted. Un- like ordinary indexes, its authors are mentioned t** mi fneglio collocatone l’e» and in addition, two effusive “sonnets on the in- lfu h-J*> £eriore. mjr.ierd che dex of Gian Domenico ” are added. The editions tutte le ftrdde fxrUno of 1600 and 1618/19 include also a “Discourse hberejte farixno impe* on the parts of architecture” by Gian Domen- dite da cofd alcund }e co ico that Vincenzo has shortly supplemented in p queUd pxrte de I'edtft some places. The book is opened by a letter cio dimezo notdtd. A. from Lodovico Roncone, a friend of Vincenzo che efce di fuori del di * Scamozzi, to Francesco de ’ Franceschi, contain- ritto uerfo ilthedtro; ing an exuberant and lengthy obituary of the late tionimpediridldftrddct Gian Domenico who had died two years ago and inZi ui rimdrrtd quel a eulogy to Vincenzo. Roncone submits here also that it was him who had the manuscripts of Gian fjpdtio frd e(fo,cr H thed Domenico found between the papers of Vincen- tro, che fi dddimxndd zo and rnade sure that they were included in the prcfcenio ne i ueri thed editions. All this happened, as he emphasizes, iri, CT d quefto modo commissioned by Vincenzo. tutte le flrdde intorno There is little known of Vincenzo ’s father4. faridno fpdtiofe ,doue Roncone attaches to him “unique value in the che tuto Vedificio hdue * profession of the buildings ”. Contemporary docu- rid hitA hfTlj r/l.wr ft.Ati. ments describe his profession as carpentario, faleg- name or marangon (carpenter). Fle is never called 2. Sebastiano Serlio’s Collected edition es are largely changed, the old dedications are an architect, but he worked as such. He once is of the first five books, Venice 1551, exemplar deleted, in spite of the diminishment the illus- referred to as mercante di lcgname (merchant of tim- viith tbe glosses by Vincenzo Scamozzi, Third Book, signed gloss by Scamozzi at trations are not markedly changed, the texts are ber). The trade apparently hrought him enough the representation ofthe . reset, but only quite superficially revised. wealth to afford an elitist antiquarian training for After the antiquarian Jacopo Strada had pub- his son. Roncone and Francesco Sansovino ’s Guule lished in 15 7 5 posthumous Serlio’s Seventh Book in of Vmice assign an interest in architectural theory Frankfurt, Francesco de ’ Franceschi & Johannes to him5. There is no conclusive reason to doubt Kruger in 1584, 1600 and 1618/19 brought out that Gian Domenico possessed the mental capacity new editions in Quarto format in which it is add- for that, though he did not rise to high fame. He ed (ill. 3)3. In the edition of 1584 the dedication has written a striking number of architectural ex- to Barbaro is maintained, even though he had pertises. The necessary measurements presuppose died in 1570; in the following editions, it is de- that he was trained in mathematical terms. First leted. The newly attached Seventh Book is ded- of all, he was apparendy a clear mind, because this icated to Vincenzo Scamozzi, who is addressed should be, besides integrity, particularly important like a potent magnate as “molto magnifico sig. for expertises. Many Italian architects, who became mio osservandissimo ”. Franceschi emphasises in not so prominent that they attract much attention the dedication how much cure and work he had nowadays, emerged from the craft, pursued their invested in the edition, as he “wanted to satisfy craft in addition to the tasks of the architect and his antiquarian and right desire with it”. operated trading building materials and the likert. The new editions also contain an unusual- Generally comparable with Gian Domenico are ly detailed index that does not simply list the Andrea Palladio as one of the few fainous arehitects keywords, but partly appends observations and who emerged from the craft, or Giovanni Battis-

48 gv. • I .. Qucfio Tcnipio diBdcco i tnolto ttntico, & i offai mtcro,& ricco di lauori.&di Irlle & r utrfcpictrc,& di mufaichi, si nelpammcnto comcneUcmuru.Cr ancora nel ciclodim'ero X Tutte I’Opere d ’Archi'tettura mlle bottc chcgira intorno,& 'edi opera compoftta. Tutto tl diamctro tlctro da nturo a tnurt, l palmi ccnto,& ilcorpo dimcxoricintodallccolonuc ipalmi cmquanta.mlltffattt iacolonna a celonnaio ci trouogran differcntia dali r>no alTaltro-.pcrciocheil ffatio dinic7oali'entrar( f DI sebastiano serlio deUo antiportobpaltni nouey& tninuti tretita,& I'altro aU incontro epalnii nouc, minuti noueiquelli all'incontro dc i nicchi maggtorifono palrm otto, & miuutitrent'*nc:gli dtn qnat BOLOGNESE; tro rcfianti fono alcunipalmifette, & minuti otto, & alcunipalmifettc l.&- minuti dodici, ia largbczga dcU' antiportoy & cofi qudla dcUa capella aU incotro riffonde alloffatio fa lecolon Donc fi trattano in difegno , quclle cofc, cbe fono pii* ne: & il rnedcfimo fanno i duc niccbi tnaggiori,gli altn ntccbi tninori fono palmi fttte, es'mi. nttti cittquc.Le mifure delporticofipoffon ptgliare da queUe dcl Tevapio,ilqualportico c rolta. neccjfarte all ’Arcbitctto; 1oabotte,dauanti delqualeei cra rrt cortile in forma ouale, tlqu.'Jc tra lungopahtlt cinnacccu to & ottantaotto, & era in larghc^apalmi ccnto & quaranta, & per quanto fi vcvgon le ET HORA DI NVOVO AGGIVNTO rcfliyc, era molto ornato di colonne, nmefipuo comprendcrc ncllafi^ucntc ftgura. (oltrc il libro delle portc) gran numerodxcafc priuatcnclla Citta,&invilla,

ET VETINDICE COP JOS ISS 1MQ Tercbcquefli Edificij jlntichi fono flati mifurati alcttni a Tahni utntichi, ahri a Ticdi , C~ a Braccia affai diffcrcnti; percib nceparfo bcne d mctter tutte qtteflcmifure, trajportate Raccolto per via di confiderationi con ntolta dtligcntta ; acctb che con maggiorfhcilitd ifiudiofifc nepojjino feruirc, DA M- GIO. DOMENICO SCAMOZZI. La mctd dcL Talmo fomano dittifo in oncie xij. nominato a Tac. 50.

1------I------1------X------X------i------T

La quartapartc d'vn Itraccio Ccmunc diiiifo in oncie iv. nominatoa Fac. 59. t.

1------X------1------T------X------f------X------i

Lamcta dclTicdcFptnanodittifo inoncie v 1. e dita xvm. nominato a Fac.dg.t.

T------X------1------* ------x------,------x------T

LaTerxaTartc d'vnBraccio Comuncdiuifoin xx minttti: nominatoa Tac. 5 8. t.

T—j—t—1—1—I------* ------:—* ------—3 lametddelTiedcMoierno,oucro Vtnctiano diuifo in oncic vi.e minuti xxx.nom.a Fae.qt.t.

------j------1------X——------1------J—

3. Sebastiano Serlio, Tutte l’Opere ta Bertani, who demonstrated on the facade of his of the buildings. Therefore he illustrates scales d ’Architettura, Venice 1584, title page. house in Mantua, how to construct the Ionic order and explains them in the text. The circumstance

4. Sebastiano Serlio, Tutte l’Opere as described by Vitruvius, and behind the house that five different units are used hampers the un- d ’Architettura et Prrospetiva [sic], Venice operated a brickyard factory. derstanding of the measurements. In the Quar- 1600, Third Book, comparison The copy of Serlio’s treatise in which Vin- to edition, the scales are of course reduced, but of measurement units. cenzo has written, probably constitutes an heir- unfortunately the texts are only partially adapt- loom front his father because Vincenzo was only ed to their new length. In the edition of 1551 three years old, when it appeared. At what time Scamozzi has added a striking number of expla- Vincenzo has written its annotations, is uncer- nations of scales and of new scales and at the very tain. At one point he refers to the “memory of outset he specifies how the Roman palmo and pie- my father” (p. 52). As Gian Domenico died in de is converted in the Venetian piede (ill. 5, 19). 1582, one might suppose that the postils served All this, in contrast to the other glosses, is writ- to prepare the edition of 1584. But it is possi- ten in calligraphy. These supplements could well ble that they emerged at different times. If they have been intended for the print. However, only should have helped to prepare the copy of 1584, in the edition of 1600 an overview of the units of it would have made more sense to use the former measures is inserted, and this is otherwise predis- edition of the same publishing house (of 1566). posed than the glosses are (ill. 4). Anyway, they surely did not serve to prepare Vin- None of the writings accompanying the new cenzo ’s comments in the index. Parallels between editions indicate what has particularly attracted the two are very rare. Perhaps part of the glosses the publisher and the two Scamozzi to Serlio’s served for a supplement that was actually neces- treatise. There is no eulogy on the author as was sary for the Quarto editions: in the title page of otherwise common. For Gian Domenico might the First book, which serves as title of the whole have been appealing, next to the seminal im- 1566 edition and of some exemplars of the later portance of the work, Serlio’s intent to convey editions, is indicated: “with new addition of mea- the science of architecture to a broad audience. sures...” (ill. 3). This applies to the book on an- Therefore Serlio has written the text in a simp- tiquities in which Serlio indicates the dimensions le and easily understandable manner and chosen

49 I xLvi D E LE ANTIQ.VITA Vrflo thatro fecc fere Augufio fotto il nome di Mcrcdlo fuo nefotc, e fer'o fe gp iice il tbeatro dt McrccHo a'ein Romeidcl fuale fi vcde Mcbtro vna yarte m fuJe ,aoe dc laparte dclforttco difucri, fy c joLmintcdi due ordini ,cioe Donco lomco , opert vermente molto lodato ,bcmbe lc lolomc Dorube nen htmo le jue baft', ne encbo U fuo J jfjo. pL. fiijoa* Ai ii*jL** ^ fj/rt4ift fctto,m» fofcmo fopra tl ftano delportuocofi fcmfhccmenteferqacofa dcumjotto, De U funta di faefio tbeatro non fe ne bauca tropfo notitu, mamme moitctcmpo cbeiMapmt patrity Romani uclendo febicarevna cafatil fito deU juale umuaad cfftrc fopravrui parU dt fuejio tbcatro , & ejjendola dtttn cafa ordinata da BaldcJJorrc Sencfe raro Arcbitrets , e facendo couare i fondamenti,ft I 4< (« (•*• •«~*u •/< ' trouarono meltf rcltjuie di ccrnicumcna diucrfi di juafio tbcatro : e fi fcoptrft bucno tndicto dcUpw.a, t Baldejfarre pir jucVaparu fcoptrta tomprefe tlam,ecoft ccn buona dugnt-a lo mjutb,e lopejem 1* C-*l-4 /,/>- jucfia forma,cbeneU cartnfeguentc fi dimcfiraifjio,cbe ncl tcmpo mcdejmo mi trouaia Rcma,uidi granpartt dijuei ccrmiamenU ,(y bebbi commodttd di mifurarpfi ,cuiremtnte iodtrouai coft bchefon me ; juanto io ucdeip maine le rurne ar.ticke ,e maifimamente ne l cafitiDi Dcrut, e ne Cimpcfie dt gli archi ,lcjuah m pare cbe moito fi ccnfcrmino con ifcrtttt di Vttruuio,e ctfiatuboil ffeffo,i trigfipbl, e le mepott corriftondeuano ajjai bene. Mt U cormce Donca,juantunM« •« —■/<< - t ben Luorata inondmeno io la trouai molto lentana da U dettrna diVttruuio, & afiaiiictnticfadlmem Qttffo e ba. metA del Titde Anttce Ronaiui,cel quale e mifurtfo qtiefa J'ijuUu■ bri,t Ji tanta alt(\\a cbt a la propcriione de I’arcbitraue , e del freffo, i dut ta\t dt taleaUc\\a faf rtano a bafian^a, Nf mi parc pcrdo, cbe ecn U liccntn de I'eJJempt» di juifta , o di altre tofe attbi dueffa (6e*t"/i „u~

Ter7a yartc d' un Bracdo Comune'- h—*- - ■ ■ ■ i ' ■ ■ ■ i

5. Sebastiano Serlio’s Collected edition the form of a picture book. In academic circles zo boasts the scene in the index as “the greatest of the first five books, Venice 1551, exemplar Serlio’s approach was at once subjected to criti- that was ever made until then ”. viith the glosses by Vincenzo Scamozzi, Third Book, theatre ofMarcellus, ground cism7 , but it was certainly sympathetic to a crafts- Vincenzo has never brought himself to value plan. man, as was Gian Domenico. In the “Discourse”, Serlio’s merit. If his glosses are always taken lit- he demands along the lines of Vitruvius a broad erally, he would have had little respect for Serlio’s theoretical education of the architect, but ac- intellectual capacity. In his copy of Serlio’s trea- cording to his social status he treats the practi- tise for example, he comments the description of cal tasks of architects and especially of building the orders of the : “Serlio speaks here tradesmen in detail. beside the point, he mixes the general things Moreover, Gian Domenico seemingly had a with the details, as he always does ” (p. 68)'\ certain personal attachment to Serlio. Vincenzo But Scamozzi’s comments should be seen in a notes to Serlio’s remark that he had the mea- broader context. In many of his postils he gives sures of the theatre of Pola by a foreign designer, negative opinions on Renaissance architects. “from which is clearly recognized that Serlio has Even for his idol Palladio he could not bring measured neither these nor other buildings, but himself to pronounce much praise. Scamozzi’s had his drawings from special people, as assured blanket condemnation of Serlio’s logic can be to me the memory of my father, who knew him compared with glosses by other authors and con- in his youth” (p. 52)8. temporary commentaries on Vitruvius. It was at The occasion on which Gian Domenico met that time quite widespread, to speak badly about Serlio came certainly, when Serlio in 1539 vis- Vitruvius, although there was hardly anyone who ited to set up a wooden theatre in the denied seriously his fundamental iinportance for courtyard of the Palazzo Porto. Gian Domeni- architectural theory. Scamozzi disparages in his co probably helped as an apprentice there. Al- glosses Vitruvius as lump-sum as Serlio. Inigo though he was then only 13 years old, the theatre Jones dismisses in his glossesto Palladio ’s Quattro might have particularly impressed him. Vincen- Libri Scamozzi similarly powerful: he cited there

50 6. Rome, Theatre of Marcellus, have noticed how complex it was to survey the Doric arcade. buildings. Although he has underlined time and again how thoroughly he had studied antiquity himself, he had apparently only a few buildings measured by himself. His notes to Serlio show, that he had not even measured the Arco dei Gavi in Verona, although it was important for the theorists, because it had often been attributed to Vitruvius. Also Palladio has used for his book on ancient temples foreign architectural surveys. On the other hand, the critics of Serlio mean- while went overboard with excessive polemic. It spread to assert that Serlio had plagiarized his entire treatise from Peruzzi. This is demonstra- bly false. By contrast, Scamozzi’s note, “that Ser- lio had large parts of the antiquities from others” is nothing else than objectively true. Vmcenzo had probably learned from his father also to appreciate Serlio’s intention to spread the architectural knowledge for a wide audience. He emphasizes beyond measure how comprehensive his formation was and how nec- essary was the formation of a good architect, but he also calls for practical experience. He seems to have temporarily worked in his youth with his Serlio’s wise statement on the “extravagance ”, as father as a craftsman and evaluator. In 1575 he is Scamozzi says in a commentary to it, that the listed in a building document together with his upper entablature of the Colosseum has the con- father and they are both referred to as carpenta- soles for once set into the frieze instead of the rii. In the index he opposes the architects who cornice, and comments: “this secret Scamozio were not trained in building practise: “according being purblind understoode nott ”10. to Scamozzi, all the works of architects who have In the index Scamozzi specifies his note that long been a painter before, without studying the Serlio had not measured himself the buildings materials, are always weak, dry and often dis- presented in his book on antiquities to the ef- proportionate and difficult to execute, because fect “that Serlio had large parts of the antiquities they project a lot of unnecessary things without from others”; in the editions of 1600 and 1619, taking into account the importance of tectonics, he adds: “they say that he had also the works of and invent dreams and chimeras, because they Baldassare Peruzzi, see Vasari in the Life of Bal- have no practical experience with the quality of dassare ”11, and in his copy of Vasari’s Lives, he the materials”14. This polemic concerns the “pil- comments on the statement: “he began a book lars devised by Bramante under the dome of St. on the antiquities of Rome and to comment Vit- Peter, damaged and cracked in several places”. ruvius ”: “this book is perhaps the one that now Likewise, one might relate it to the collapse of appears under the name of Serlio”12. Scamozzi’s the of the Libreria Marciana built by Jaco- references may be put in the context of the criti- po Sansovino, the state builder of the Republic cism, which immediately rose to Serlio’s treatise. of Venice, who was trained as a sculptor. The Torello Sarayna warned on the title page of his reproval applies to most of the prominent archi- book on the antiquities ofVerona (1540) of Ser- tects of Italy, because they were usually trained lio’s Third Book, which had just appeared, as there as visual artists. would be much in words and pictures misrepre- Anyway, as is well known Vincenzo was strong- sented because Serlio had not seen the buildings ly influenced by Serlio. His architectural treatise in Verona and copied them unmindful from for- testified this, and he has attentively noted in the eign models. Guillaume Philandrier complained glosses to Pietro Cataneo ’s architectural treatise in his commentary on Vitruvius of 1544 about (1567) and to Barbaro’s commentary ofVitruvius, the Third Book: “would he have merely written what they had adopted ffom Serlio’s books15. what he has seen himself, rather than to accept Vincenzo focused on commenting the two what others have measured” 13. seminal books of Serlio, the Fourth Book on the However, as Scamozzi drew up his note, the orders of columns and particularly the Third Book situation had changed: on the one hand, it is like- about ancient buildings. The Third Book con- ly to have gradually transpired, that such a com- cerns the formal appearance of buildings. Serlio prehensive book on antiquities as that of Serlio states explicidy that the history and function of could hardly be made otherwise than by using the antiquities are unimportant for it16 . Scamozzi foreign architectural surveys. Scamozzi should accounts for this in his glosses. He keeps his

51 I.1 u n o Q. V A R T O XX

7. Vitruvius, I Dieci Libri knowledge of history here largely back, although ders of columns. They were the essential part dell ’Architettura di M. Vitruvio, he knew at least the Roman guidebooks of Mar- that the Renaissance took over from antiquity. Tradotti et commentati da Mons. Daniel Barbaro, Venice 1S6 7, Doric entablature. liano and Fauno, even though he demonstrates They constitute not only the theme of the Fourth in the Discorsi sopra VAntichita di Roma (1582) his Book, but are also the focus of Serlio’s comments 8. Sebastiano Serlio’s Collected edition knowledge of Roman history and in his architec- in the Third Book. Scamozzi adopts in his archi- of thefirst five books, Venice 1551, Fourth Book, Doric entablature of the theatre tural treatise digresses with exuberant erudition tectural treadse the intent to teach how to dis- of Marcellus. to point out far-fetched historical circumstances tinguish hetween good and bad elements 18. In his and although Serlio, in the light of the knowl- comments to the Third Book he focuses on the edge of this time, already provided ample cause orders of columns. His notes are evidence of the for corrections or complements in this field. prohlem, on what grounds the distinction should In the index Scamozzi corrects two out-dated be established. We shall now give some exam- informations of Serlio on the identity of build- ples. The point is to show how wide intellectual ings (temple of the Forum of , temple backgrounds resonate in the glosses, even if they on the northern slope of the Quirinal). In his sound superficially harmless. annotations he adds two ancient sources. His We begin with Scamozzi’s comments on Ser- special interest in ancient theatres and arenas has lio’s treatment of the elevation of the Theatre of also been reflected in the glosses. He tries to cal- Marcellus (p. 46)(ills. 5-6). During the Renais- culate how many spectators found space there, sance the theatre attracted special interest, not or to reconstruct, how the seats of the spectators only because it confirms that a Roman theatre were originally disposed. This argument shall looks really similar to the description of Vitruvi- not be discussed here further. us, but also because its architectural members are Serlio intends with the Third Book not only particularly well shaped, and as it forms the best to represent the ancient buildings, but will teach example for the otherwise rarely preserved Doric mainly to distinguish between what is good at and Ionic order in Roman architecmre. There- them and worthy of imitation, and what is bad fore Serlio treats here the orders of columns in and should be avoided 17 . This applies to the or- detail and gives a dedicated statement of his doc-

52 l)- Giovanni Antonio Rusconi, Della trine. Scamozzi reacts with many glosses to that. the ancient monuments, to forrn the orders of Architettura [...] secondo i precetti Scamozzi notes on the Doric entablature: columns in an appropriate way. di Vitruvio, Venice 1590, derivation ofthe Doric entahlature frorn wooden construction. “Vitruvius makes the cornice very weak and poor Scamozzi follows the principle that the ap- of members; for that he is praised by Serlio, who peal to authorities does not create any meaning- 10. Sehastiano Serlio’s Collccted edition °f the first five books, Venice 1551, Third likes this manner ”19. That sounds superficially as ful justification for an issue. This attitude was an Rook, Arch ofTitus, entahlature with if only a small difference in taste were mentioned. essential driving force for the spiritual revolution dentil heneath consoles. The cornice, which results from Vitruvius ’ de- of the Renaissance against the Middle Ages as a scription of the Doric entablature, seems really a whole. The ratio was expected to constitute the bit meagre (ill. 7). This is mainly because Vitru- decisive criterion for the right choice. Therefore vius excludes to insert dentil in the cornice of the he responds to Serlio’s assurance, that Vitruvi- Doric entablature. The Theatre of Marcellus is us constitutes the highest authority, as categor- not adhering to this rule (ill. 8). Although Serlio ically: “the ratio must prevail over all ancient highly comntends its elements, he evaluates the authorities and examples”20. In the index he op- deviation from Vitruvius as a mistake that, as he poses to the “opinion of Serlio that one should strongly warns, should not be imitated under any give full faith on the observations of Bramante ”: circumstances. “to Scamozzi it seems that one should observe Serlio judges here so categorically because he all things that are done with reason, and not the abides in principle by Vitruvius “as a leader and authority of anyone ”21. infallible rule” and as nobody else had written There was a consensus omnium throughout the better about architecture. “Even if an ancient ar- Renaissance, that the ratio of architecture and all chitect has been licentious, then we may by no art is ever determined by nature. Vitruvius de- means be like that”. Vignola takes in his book duces the orders of column from wooden con- on columns the opposite position: he declares structions, and that was the theoretical basis for the ancient buildings rather decisively. Scamozzi architecture in the eyes of the Renaissance. The represents a mediating position similar to Pal- entablamre of stone reflects the elements previ- ladio. He thinks both are needed, Vitruvius and ously made of wood 22: the architrave emerged

53 As Scamozzi regards the derivation from tim- ber as the ultima ratio of architecture, he also takes it more important than ancient buildings and rejects dentil beneath consoles as Serlio does (ill. 12). He criticizes the opulence of the entablatures by Vgnola and Sansovino, he even wanted to alter the Ionic entablature of the first floor of the Libreria Marciana according to his own principles 24. But from Vtruvius ’ deduction of architecture from wooden construction does not follow conclusively why the dentil should not to be attached in the Doric entablature. On the contrary, by this same reasoning it has a good sense there. Apparently therefore Scamozzi as Vgnola does not follow Vitruvius at this point, but adheres to the Theatre of Marcellus and adapts the dentil in the Doric cornice (ill. 13). He refers to that by the note: “Vtruvius makes the cornice very weak and poor of members”. Scamozzi has much to complain about the rules of Vitruvius for entablatures, therefore he says sweepingly to the following directive of Serlio, that one must generally abide by the proportions that Vitruvius specifies for the en- tablature: “Vitruvius has described no forms of cornices and the other (parts of) entablatures, which might be called good style; but he always speaks about the things in this way”25. In the ldea della Architettura Universale Scamozzi reveals in detail what he considers inappropriate in Vtru- vius ’ description of entablatures. In Scamozzi’s eyes the text of Vtruvius is flawed not only because it does not consistently adhere to the ratio, but also because it is incom- plete. This touches Serlio’s indication that the capitals and imposts on the ground floor of the Theatre of Marcellus would conform to Vitruvi- us. Here Serlio speaks beside the point. The cap- itals are different from Vtruvius; Serlio himself does not like how Vitruvius describes the Doric capitals - therefore he believes that the ancient 11. Venice, Libreria Maniana. from the transom above the columns, the tri- text was corrupted over time. By means of that glyphs from the beams of the ceiling above, reasoning, he advises in the Fourth Book to give consoles in the cornice from the roof beams, the the Doric capitals a more ample projection than dentil from the slats above. So the dentil by its Vitruvius indicates, thus to form them more like very nature must not be attached beneath con- those of the Theatre of Marcellus26. Scamozzi soles, as Serlio repeatedly emphasizes in the passes over this inconsistency, but he corrects: Thinl Book. Giovanni Antonio Rusconi has rep- “Vtruvius wrote neither on imposts nor on oth- resented this relationship in his architectural er elements of arcades ” 27 . That’s right, Vitruvi- treatise (1590) (ill. 9). Nevertheless dentil under us really does not write anything about it, and consoles is a very common motif in ancient en- this deficiency was severe for the Renaissance, tablatures (ill. 10), and thatwas often imitated in because arcades were then an essential element the Renaissance; a prominent example in Venice of architecture, much more important than the forms Sansovino ’s Libreria Marciana, which is porticos with freestanding columns that Vitruvi- clearly influenced by the Theatre of Marcellus us deals with in detail. Since Vignola the gap in (ill. 11). Unimpressed by this, Serlio reaffirms, the doctrine of columns was usually filled, also many would cry out against the attitude of Vit- by Scamozzi. ruvius because so many architects after Vitruvius Similarly, other parts had been added which have arranged the dentil beneath consoles that are absent in Vitruvius, but now were essential, one may assume in this case what occurs in an- as particularly the pedestals. Scamozzi comments tiquity; but there precludes that all is turned up- on them in a gloss to the Fourth Book (fol. 6r). side down when the principles are negated 23. Serlio admits there that Vtruvius does not treat

54 12. Vmcenzo Scamozzi, L’ldea della Architettura Universale, Venice 1615, Part Two, Sixth Book, Corinthian entahlature.

15. Vincenzo Scamozzi, L’ldea della Architettura Universale, Venice 1615, Part Two, Sixth Book, Doric entablature.

pedestals and therefore he had supplemented attention only to a minimal discrepancy. Here be- them on his own. In ancient buildings pedestals comes evident that the rules of Vitruvius generally are rare, but the Renaissance, because of its strict do not form secure maxims, not even for Serlio, sense of order, needed them to mediate between and that it is necessary therefore to consider the columns and wall. Serlio designs the pedestals good ancient buildings as well. according to the triumphal arches as the most In his treatment of the theatre of Marcellus prominent of the few ancient examples of the el- Serlio observes that the Romans had learned the ement. There he finds, however, only a model art of architecture from the Greeks, but later had for the Corinthia and Composita. He invents the become licentious, and rhapsodises: “Who could other pedestals according to the principle that see the wonderful works of the Greeks, who are all orders generally must have the same types of nearly all wiped out and destroyed by time and elements and are increasing in richness and ele- wars, would surely judge that the Greek things gance in the sequence of Tuscan, Dorica, Ionica, rise far above the Rornan ”. Scamozzi comments Corinthia, Composita. As usual in the Renais- dryly: “As the works of the Greeks do no lon- sance, Scamozzi adheres to this classification. In ger exist, you can not compare them with those his gloss, he compiles passages of Vitruvius and of the Romans or appreciate them higher than other ancient authors with the aim to justify the those”31. That’s logic. Despite the fact that the supplement of pedestals. Parthenon at the time stood upright still com- Notwithstanding its apodictic reference to pletely preserved, there was virtually nothing of Vitruvius, Serlio breaks several times the rules. the Greek architecture firsthand known in the In the Fourth Book he prescribes to form the Co- West. Only, in view of the impressive ancient re- rinthian capital as Vitruvius indicates 28, but in the ports on Greek buildings one can easily cornpre- Third Book, he prefers, as it had long been com- hend Serlio’s expectation. But Scamozzi does not mon in this case, to give the Corinthian capital operate here pure casuistry. Actually, his funda- a more elegant appearance, that is to enlarge its mental problem is again the question of to justi- height along the lines of many esteemed ancient fy either the priority of Vitruvius before ancient monuments like the Pantheon or the Arch of Tra- buildings or the priority of ancient buildings be- jan in Ancona 29. The contradiction with Vitruvius fore Vitruvius. is again justified by the assumption that the text is Serlio takes the view at his time widely held, corrupt. Scamozzi has a gloss on this text suggest- that good architecture arose among the Greeks, ing that Serlio contradicts himself hereJ0. This is from whom the Romans inherited it since Au- more than a detail, even though the note draws gustus, but over the empire it lost in quality as

55 14. Vitruvius, I Dieci Libri evident than with Vitruvius, as the most promi- i,' ,(i-J ‘•K-Pji dell ’Architettura di M. Vitruvio, Tradotti ebeeghbtttmphhro ,d>e & bmd}*b*fc , nent of them emerged after Vitruvius. This ver- et commentati da Mons. Daniel Barbaro, tr larght Acttfc diquijh trauuM dtctto ejfertxfxrtttxnijjiot aior,iaatmij&$ , cU Vitr. chunu, antcpagmitui : cpurecglttntcndcgliadonumcmi dcgli fhntifj>ut dc t Tcmpy: &y.',c Venice 1561, temple of the Etmscavs. ilocmigliorctntendimcnto:&pcrudicc . fct ncllcfrontidi qucTcmpij dinan/i luooal- sion of development counters Scamozzi in his fifsi gli antcpagmenti , & fopra quclli il Timpano tlcl Frontifpicio , chc iia di ilruttiwft, o di icgno, cioc o di muro, o di lcgnamc, & lopra quclio frontifpicio , il colmo, o-c<>I- index against Serlio: “According to Scamozzi, mcllo,icanticri , & i tcmpiali in modo chc’l grondalc rifponda alla tcrzcra dd copcr- to iinito . the good architecture was in the last days of the Tcr tcr?cr.i, cbe tcrtian.im i dctta , intcndc Vitr.tutta t/uelU lcgatirra , o incatenfOfj , tbcpartendofi dal colmoji allarga informa triangolare , & econtcnuta dalls chiaui , & trajtu - Republic and in the time of the good emperors, fi,&rcndclafornap$mfiia,&inticra dclcopcrto . Ecqtufma i‘J$.ncctafi^ura . &atfhc J'ono moltc mcbiauaiunfdi traui . &poi la pianta ,&lom pildctla manicra Tojcana . previously there was not that knowledge and af- terwards grew the bad habit so, that it blocked the path to reason [...]”33. Moreover Scamozzi addresses for once the is- sue, how much Vitruvius could have seen of Ro- man architecture. He contradicts several times Pietro Cataneo by arguing that Vitruvius had not experienced the best Roman architecture, as it were represented at first by the Pantheon and other buildings 34. In his glosses to Barbaro’s edi- tion of Vitruvius and Bertani ’s treatise on L’opera lonica di Vitruvio (1558), he points out that Vitru- vius had apparently not even seen the construc- tion of the Pantheon 35. Thus he explains why Egli iifa anchedc iTcmpij ritondi , dc iquali altri fono d ’lina ala fola fcn/a Cclla ,co Vitruvius did take no building in the kind of the lonnati.altrifonodcttiperiptcri. Quclli, chc fi fanno fcnzaCclla,hannoil Tribuna* lc,& I'afccfa pcrh tcr/apartc dcl fuodiamctro . fopra ipicdiflaliuannole colonnc tan M> altc , qnaiup ciJdiamc^ro da gli dtramf p«r«i dci picddlah , IW» liano groflc la dc Pantheon into account, although it ranked as the eima partcdcli'altr/M loro cnni (apjtclli, & Jc fpire. lo architrgucalto pcrlamcudd lagtoflezMdclJa colonna. il fragio 1'gjtrc p»rti > fh$uj uaoupfoprg, Jwuocomclu- culmination of Roman architecture in the eyes of uemo ncLtcrzoiibro dcllc mifurc, & compattimcnii . WonJ the Renaissance. At that time the present build- ing was presumed to be identical to that Agrip- pa had built in honour of Augustus. The further advancement of architecture in the period after well as the visual arts. The design of the Baths Vitruvius made Scamozzi understand why the ar- of Diocletian is no longer appropriate for him. chitectural elements of buildings as magnificent He points out similar serious malformations as the Pantheon differ front Vitruvius. even at the supposed Temple of Peace erected But even these magnificent buildings did not by Vespasian (currently considered the Basilica meet constantly the ideals of the Renaissance. of Constantine), although Pliny boasts it as one In the case of the Pantheon for example, there of the most beautiful buildings, which have ever bothered the arcade over the main niche, be- existed. Vitruvius wrote his architectural treatise cause it cuts abruptly in the pilasters of the tam- in the golden era of Augustus. He dedicated it to bour. This was explained by the fact reported in the Emperor as a sort of guideline for the renew- ancient writings that the Pantheon was altered al of Rome acclaimed by Suetonius of a primitive later on 36 . In the index, Scamozzi discusses with city of brick to a gleaming metropolis of marble. Serlio the question of what has been changed, He oriented himself clearly at the ornate archi- the Arcade or the pilasters. Even if the Dor- tecture that the Greeks had developed. That is ic entahlature was accepted as well formed, the what Serlio addresses in his explanations to the Theatre of Marcellus in the eyes of the Renais- Theatre ofMarcellus, and what Scamozzi refuses sance, Scamozzi included, despite all the admi- in his gloss. ration had an error: the Doric columns missing Scamozzi assumes a development of architec- bases. According to the principle of a uniforin ture that follows a universal historical law. In the set of elements, all columns needed bases in the Idea, he invents the metaphor of natural growth Renaissance. For their absence at the Dorica of for it: as was generally supposed, the architec- the Theatre of Marcellus Scamozzi found the ex- ture was born in the Middle East, in Egypt and planation: “The reason why some things of the Babylon, and grew up then juvenile in Greece, buildings are altered is, because they are com- but only among the Romans, in the late period posed of the spoils of other buildings ”37 . of the Republic and under the “good emper- In the Idea Scamozzi also deals with the einer- ors”, as he says, it gradually attained maturity32. gence of architecture before its youthful blooin From that follows: with the Greeks it had not among the Greeks. Serlio’s Third Book once gives yet reached the quality level of Vitruvius, and it him opportunity to comment this topic. Serlio came to its full artistic maturity only after Vitru- deviates there from his unhistorical attitude and vius. The Roman buildings from the time of the quotes in extenso the then famous report of Di- “good emperors” surpassed therefore those of odorus Siculus about ancient Egypt as a basis the Greeks, as Scamozzi expressly states - even for the presentation of the Pyramid of Gheops though he lcnew those of the Greeks as little as and the Sphinx according to the report of Marco Serlio did. In his opinion the ratio is in the Ro- Grimani who had visited and surveyed them. At man buildings of the early imperial period more this point Scamozzi demonstrates his immense

56 D E L’OH-NAMENTO RV^TICQ LlBRO QVARTO VI 0»i<« !« rttaP* «■ U> fc>/< V ’l i tV‘ << r«pn.Hs,t/« fijb fsic 4 c------r|ji /«rJ !«/'«;««• !l /'« l‘"“ ‘ t'm,tm‘m i* '/** ««*»• fif t* colom* Tbofcaru ,jU4Mo at tfjte * r(J« f.«ilr»f«r° lu‘ V«w«!» r *r frr l« r.rcn. , r <« f.rir tejlo Jt Vttrwio dce ejfcrc di ftite uI ___ u__ _ Tcftattt t’ ir« « !« M‘i«/«<<» ']!«•'! //«'< “ ‘i'1 <“<<» /<« *!' ,i<™ 4“*"*® f‘l’cXX‘l’“‘ pr» «« U fut bafe ,e'lcapite 0od4 , r -l. Jr !« rlr.M rrfcor"® */*" «!'<«» '«««<'«""»<"<''<' <”«iS<"< /''“<'<’!' * ‘“n *< fc jualpreportime,cforma t caiamcnte f ^ M« f" '//•' 5“ /!* 'P'" ”«!<« /<*!*»'/'* ’?!<•' Amemhi, fotr* i-r” «< f*r*ron» ”«« '« <*! //'<«■ =' 1"f-° J’“ f“* co'.ome furono fatteii fe parti , piglunJ0 jucjia mt cbitctlo f' , -««®/«Jrnfr« cbe ancbora le colonnt Doricbe faramodi fetteparti, fl.,.™,,».<<>^^^ biuenh gli antijut a jaeBe^ pcrdarlepiu afcenfo,agt | v , ^ t, dctue. vrefhra dccoropercbe ela fua dcbtia dijientie t opcrt ft mojircra ftu grande , e Jcue giunti vna porte iam: par cbe pcr tali eutortta,c per r i ejfer jiefta coloma dt piurobufta mantcra,cbeelU fi ^betUpur* ferltfu* debbia far Jl pu bafe^am fe ebeU Dorica, dpert cbe per mi» aaifo fi fara Ji fei pirli eon U fua bafe t*l capitdh:etu'.to fta per regoU t>cnerdLe,oJeruanh il rimincntc dclcmfure, cbe babbtamo detto nc lapafi fala coloiuia, e ne i juot ornamenti.fi percbenc Vttruuio * ne al.ro Arcbiletto , per jumto bo uelcto , non ba mii Jato eicuna rc£»U i< i ft.'U'jati , dedt pieJejlah : percbc ne ranttjuita , per jiaito ft uede , ftefte tai eofe fu'oiofaue Jjglt ArcbtteJt fecondo gli loro act cidcna t bifogii, o pe* ejfaltation de le colome,opcr afctnfm a i portici eon i graii , 0 per altri loro act compi$nun:nU ; ^iaJicara ; mentre cbe non fumo ajlreJt da necesjtta , fi deffe 4 dafcbedana mam.ra dt coiome tl fuo accon noiato pteJejhdo , con alcunc ragtoni probabili. Minifejla cofa e cbe ‘l pieJeftalo uuol effer almen juaJrato ,tntendo Jcl nc3t,fen^a U Cvmstio,drMo ««oiw!o bafe ,c U cimt, tiJenJo adanjue la colonna Tboi fcanala ptu foda Ji cute 1‘altre fara il f*o piedeftao dt jujJrato perfetto, la fronte deljualc dce tfjtrjtan* icMrjoaUotm, to tlxpcco dc U btfe de U colo ma ,e t:\texjp Itotju Lc diatfa tn {itltro parti-, & ru parte ft aggungterb per il ^occo J

TfnM./fgr/rJtrj.o!;/?«,

Cffyix.icn mkunut,

*5- Sebastiano Serlio's Collected edition education as it were, in competition with Serlio as a free simplified version of the °t the first five books, Venice 1551, exemplar (p. 94). He complements Serlio’s sources on an- Dorica (ill. 15). This idea came up before him in with the glosses by Vincenzo Scamozzi, Vonnh Book, Tnscan order of columns. cient Egyptian monuments and quotes a report Rome, then went down into a number of com- of 1516 about it that Serlio has escaped. ments or illustrations to Vitruvius and has deter- Scamozzi states in the Idea, that Italy was mined the idea of the Tuscan order up to the ear- dominated by the Etruscans from the Deluge ly 20th century 40. Nevertheless, Palladio deviates until the Roman era38. They had built there in his architectural treatise from the usual simple only with the Tuscan order of columns or with form41. Instead, he forms the Tuscan order with the Rustica as the Egyptians. Afterwards the multiplex profiles taking them over, as he explic- Greeks had invented the classical orders Doric, itly confirms, from the Arenas of Verona and Ionic and Corinthian. The similarities between Pola, which are very similar to each other in the Tuscan and Doric order derive therefore most style of their decor (ill. 16). Scamozzi approxi- likely from the fact that the Greeks imitated the mates in the Idea the Tuscan order even further Etruscans. The Greeks are also said to have tak- to the Dorica by inserting metopes and triglyphs en over the disposition of their temples from the as derivatives from the primitive wood construc- Etruscans. Here evidently Italian patriotism de- tion (ill. 17) 42. But he remains as Palladio in rich termined the line of reasoning. Similarly, French profiling the elements following the example humanists including Jean Lemaire de Belge had of the Arenas of Verona and Pola. He does not even previously turned the historical conditions justify his attitude at all. He contends that there upside down for the glory of their nation 39. were still many remains of Etruscan buildings. No example of the order of columns of the But what he enumerates then, is a conglomer- Etruscans had heen preserved in the Renais- ation of literary reports, rusticated buildings of sance. There was Vitruvius ’s description of a typ- all kinds, Tuscan buildings from later periods or ical Etruscan temple, but this was only a wood- rudiments that were irrelevant for the orders of en construction (ill. 14). Serlio has designed the columns.

57 16. Andrea Palladio, I Quattro Libri dell ’Architettura, Venice 1570, First Book, 68 Dcll-Archltctt.dl Vlnc.Scamozzi, Tuscan order of columns.

17. Vincenzo Scamozzi, L’ldea della Architettura Universale, Venice 1615, Part Ttvo, Sixth Book, Tuscan order of cohimns.

An apostil of Scamozzi makes evident, why fication. In the 18th century it had already been he and Palladio took the Arenas of Verona and revealed that the inscription is a forgery. The Pola as model for the design of the Tuscan order. construction of history according to one ’s own In Serlio’s presentation of the Arena of Verona ideological guidelines by means of a forgery had (p. 72) Scamozzi copies an inscription indicating tradition in the . The dat- that the huilding had been built 503 years after ing of San Giacomo di Rialto into antiquity as the founding of Rome, that is, as was then cal- the foundation monument of Venice was based culated, 250 B.C. (ill. 18). The inscription was on a forged document, too44. - as far as I know - for the first time published Besides Ratio, patriotism is an essential ba- in 155043. Previously, the arena was usually dated sis of Scamozzi’s thoughts on architecture. In his to the golden era of Augustus and even often at- glosses to Vasari’s Lives, time and again he oppos- tributed to Vitruvius, because he was assumed to es it against the patriotism of Vasari: he rejects be from Verona. the bad assessment of his compatriot Fra Gio- Scamozzi adds just how long, according to the condo, he finds nothing good in Alberti’s facade inscription, after the creation of the world and of Santa Maria Novella, in Vasari’s Uffizi and in after the conquest of Troy the arena had been Michelangelo’s entire buildings 45. Vasari’s proud built. But it is already obvious what follows from claim that the dome of Florence Cathedral was the date: Serlio criticizes the Arenas of Verona made better than all the domes of ancient con- and Pola as excessively coarse (ill. 19). Obvious- structions, including even the Pantheon, he calls ly, the enormously old age explained now in the “the nonsense that the Florentine show-offs like eyes of Palladio and Scamozzi the primitiveness. tosay...”46 . And when Vasari boasts, that antiques The early or the Etruscans mastered the buildings had never reached such a height as the art of architecture naturally not yet as good as dome of Florence Cathedral, he counter-holds, the Romans did later. For Palladio resulted ap- “we see only a small part of their buildings ”47 . parently that in the there were the only We have already seen this kind of arguing, but buildings, which are characterized by the orig- here it is used purely casuistic. inal Italian style, while other regions had only Scamozzi’s glosses may sometimes seem buildings whose style follows the foreign import quite minimalistic, but they are typical of the ffom Greece. This meant a definite appreciation architectural theory of the Renaissance and of the Venetian antiquities. The new version of even of the way of thinking in the Renaissance the Tuscan style, advantageous as it was from as a whole. Just remember how great human- the patriotic perspective, had little significance ists feuded hotly on behalve of the spelling of for the building practice. There Palladio and some individual letters etc. Specific issues were Scamozzi preferred Serlio’s principle of simpli- then often taken more iinportant than strained philosophical superstructures. Scamozzi con- 58 02 U ANTicj.VlTA

5 .y

w

1 JUUNntt.au. ium - y YtK\M M» 1 * MITMUHCxrxv T'Mi'NH JVM • ■s *%A FJHDHxtrtril TnUw*iU .e t4< mt'.i* A hpmk Vrrty ri jT, Anw$. m*»i i n"A*fH >e u & cp ’i n &u ieti VAh%i id r » . j fir mimtt tdjkit, 57l § ’’ ti'i Dlll ,/ A .V j : t ftm: tmUmk it (U f*U if1 (!Vt VtHMtffS' 1 -3W; Ir W-.—i it i plsb/'f fke fi. petr tj turt. tr fz* tps Ifsil rm r it&T?.b/*ui,Zj**>ff* hrtlf, (t< h V V/V if I T>lrJrttr*ii«ie r' v f™AT JuKjMBrtr/’ JH.» u I/n/rtftf. u ffttkfuULl'. wtfrti? *M»i tOw, r {rf pVJlPrA f, (T » m rr/w ULJejm •* Irn+H itf, / /* fr* W- r' N.- .. ___ 1______trr * I UmH fat, er ufa > htit tr.rUmi, (lf ti /»>*, "mnrfriLnlrmp/, «r«fc* ptr tnrtuM ftfthjtgi, nmm d 4f» #,cr "»» «'fu tj ;ratr*i, yyi i tu i nAS rttnww » t*f*r.atltfirt 1iVrt

<%■ Sebastiano Serlio’s Collected edition firms this expressly for himself in the Idea. This °J the first five books, Venice 1551, exemplar attitude of mind distinguishes the Renaissance tvith the glosses by Vincenzo Scamozzi, Third Book, Arena of Verona, ground plan. from the Middle Ages. It marks the beginning of modern times and modern sciences. Scamozzi’s 19. Sebastiano Serlio’s Collected edition judgments about tiny details express finally ba- °f tbe firstfive books, Venice 1551, Third Sook, Arena ofVerona, elevation. sics of architectural theory, albeit sometimes only indirectly. Consequent rationalism was considered of top priority, although some of the standards at which the Ratio was oriented, from the temporal distance seem less natural as was believed at that time. Mainly the systematolo- gy of the doctrine of columns was imposed on antiquity, contrary to reality. It resulted from rigorous order thinking that was rather inherit- ed from the Middle Ages. The line of argument did not as consistently follow abstract logic, as it claimed for itself, but was also animated by human feelings, as often from the devotion to one ’s own country. The claims or requests that arose there from were reshaped for the con- struction of historic circumstances. This applies not only for Scamozzi but for the Renaissance overall. Thus the giosses may provide a little in- sight into the history of modern science.

59 1. “RIHA Journal ”, Special Is- di proposito; confondendo le cose generah 19. “Vitruvio fa la comice assai debole, 35. Mitrovic, Senes, Vincenzo Scamozzi’s sue “Vincenzo Scamozzi: Lektiiren con le particolari, come fa sempre”. e secca di membra, e percio e lodato dal Annotations... ct. [cf. note 15]; Vitruvius, eines gelehrten Architekten ”, Nov. Serlio, il quale ferme quella maniera ”. / Dieci Libri..., cit. [cf. note 15], p. 124; 2012. http://www.riha-joumal.org/ 10. I. Jones, on Palladio being T. Temanza, copy of Scamozzi’s glosses, articles/2012/2012-oct-dec/special-is- the notes by lnigo Jones in the copy of “/ 20. “[la rjagione debbe prevalere a tutte Venice, Biblioteca del Seminario, Ms. sue-scamozzi. quattro libri dell ’architettura ” di Andrea le (aut)orita et esempij antiche ”. 388, int. 29; Vincenzo Scamozzi 1548- Palladio 1601, in the Library of Worcester 1616, cit. [cf. note 3], p. 504, note 14. 2. S. Deswarte-Rosa (ed.), Sebastiano Ser- College, Oxford, ed. B. Allsopp, New Cas- 21. “Opinione del Serlio, che si debba lio a Lyon. Architecture et Imprimerie, I—II, tle upon Tyne 1970, at Palladio, I, p. 50. prestar piena fede all’osservationi di Bra- 36. T. Buddensieg, Criticism and praise of Lyon 2004. M. Vene, Bibliographia serlia- mante: allo Scamozzi pare, che si debba the Pantheon in the Middle Ages and the Re- na, Paris 2007. 11. “che il Serlio hebbe d ’altrui gran par- osservare tutte le cose, che sono fatte con naissance, in Classical Influences on Europen te dell ’antichita, come si dice che hebbe ragione & non all’autorita d ’alcuno ”. Culture, A.D. 500-1500, proceedings of 3. Vincenzo Scamozzi 1548-1616, exhi- anco le fattiche di Baldassare da Siena, an international conference (Cambridge, bition catalogue (Vicenza, Palazzo Bar- vedi Vasari nella vita di Baldassare ”. 22. Vitruvius, IV.2. King’s College, April 1969), ed. R.R. Bol- barano, 7 2003-11 January gar, Cambridge 1971, pp. 259-267. 2004), eds. F. Barbieri and G. Beltramini, 12. “questo hbro e fbrsi quello, che hora va 23. Con forza speciale Serlio, II Terzo Li- Venezia 2003, pp. 245-249. fuori sotto nome del Serho Bolognese”. L. bro, cit. [cf. note 17], pp. CXVI (arco di 37. “la causa, che alcune cose de gli edi- Collavo, Desemplare dell ’edizione gjimtina de “Le Traiano, Benevento) and CXXXII (arco ficij siano alterate, e perche furono com- 4. F. Barbieri, Vincenzo Scamozzi, Vicen- Vite” di Gioigio Vasari letto e ammtato da Vm- dei Gavi, Verona). posti de spoglie d ’altri edificij ”. Apostille za 1952, pp. 41-45; G. Zorzi, Rivendica- cenzo Sammzzi, in “Saggi e Memorie di Storia at Serlio’s treatment of the theatre of zione di alami scritti giovanili di Vincenzo dell ’Arte”, 29,2005, pp. 1-213,no. 194. 24. Scamozzi, L’ldea..., cit. [cf. note 18], Marcellus. Scamozzi, in “Atti dell ’Istituto Veneto II, VI, XVIII, p. 70 (lib. 6.7). Vincenzo di Scienze, Lettere e Arti. Cl. Scienze 13. Guillaume Philandrier, ln Decem Libros Scamozzi 1548-1616, cit. [cf. note 3], p. 38. Scamozzi, L’ldea..., cit. [cf. note 18], Morali e Lettere”, 113, 1954-1955, pp. M. Vitruvii Pollionis Anno- 216, no. 12b. II, VI, V,p. 15. 139-208; Id., La giovinezza di Vincenzo tationes, Romae 1544, fols. 137t'-l38r. Scamozzi secondo nuovi documenti 1-2, in 25. “Vitruvio non scrisse alcuna forma di 39. H. Giinther, Die Salomonische Sdu- “Arte Veneta ”, 10, 1956, pp. 119-132 and 14. “secondo lo Scamozzi, tutte I’opere cornice o altro ornamento, che si possi lenordnung. Eine unkonventionellc Er- 11, 1957, pp. 119-128; Id., La veritd su de gli architetti, che furono prima lungo dire di buona maniera; ma tratta cosi uni- findung und ihre historischen Umstande, Gio. Domenico Scamozzi, architetto valtelli- tempo pittori, senza studio delle materie, versalmente delle cose”. in “RIHA Journal ”, Jan-Mar 2011, nese del sec. XVI imitatore del Palladio, in sono sempre debili, secche & molte volte http://www.riha-journal.org/arti- “Arte Lombarda ” 6, 1961, pp. 20-40; spoprotionate & difficili da fare: come 26. Sebastiano Serlio, 11 Quarto Libro, cles/2011/2011-jan-mar/guenther-salo- A.M. Borys, Vincenzo Scamozzi and the quelli, che non considerano l’importanza Venezia 1551, fol. XVIIIr. monische-saeulenordnung . Choreography ofEarly Modem Architecture, de ’ pesi, disegnano molte cose soperflue Farnham 2014, pp. 4-8. & non havendo in pratica la qualita della 27. “Vitruvio non scrisse d ’imposte ne 40. H. Gtinther, Gli ordini architettonici: materia & le proportioni, fanno inven- d ’altra cosa per uso degl’Archi[tetti]”. rinascita o invenzione? II, in M. Fagio- 5. Francesco Sansovino, Venetia Cittd No- tioni quasi come sogni e chimere”. lo (ed.), Roma e I’Antico nell ’Arte e nella bilissima et Singolare..., Venezia 1604, fol. 28. Serlio, II Quarto Libro, cit. [cf. note Cultura del Cinquecento, Roina 1985, pp. 432u. 15. K. Isard, Architectural criticism in 26], 1551, fol. XLVIIIr. 272-310. late sixteenth-century Italy: Vincenzo 6. H. Giinther, Der Beruf des Architekten Scamozzi’s Annotations to Pietro Cataneo ’s 29. Serlio, II Terzo Libro, cit. [cf. note 17], 41. Andrea Palladio, I Quattro Libri zu Beginn derNeuzeit, in R. Johannes (ed.), L’Architettura (156 7), in “Annali di ar- 1551, p. CXXIIII. deWArchitettura, Venezia 1570, 1, pp. 16- Ennvetfen. Architektenausbildung in Europa chitettura”, 25, 2013, pp. 135-154, at 21. von Vitruv bis Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts. p. 111 line 32, p. 116, line 25, p. 118, 30. “questo capitello riesce bassi[ssim]o et Geschichte, Theorie, Praxis, Hamburg 2009, line 42, p. 128, line 3 and then often il Serlio fa contra a quello, che egli loda 42. Scamozzi, L’ldea..., cit. [cf. note 18], pp. 215-275; Id., Der Architekt in der Re- for geometrical matters. B. Mitrovic, nell ’Arco di traiano [di Ancona] fac. 124”. II, VI, XV-XVII, p. 53-67. naissance , in Der Architekt. Geschichte und V. Senes, Vincenzo Scamozzi’s Annota- Gegenwart eines Bemfsstandes, exhibition tions to Daniele Barbaro ’s Commentary on 31. “Non essendo in stato le opere de ’ 43. Leandro Alberti, Descrittione di tutta catalogue (Miinchen, Pinakothek der Vitruvius' De Architectura, in “Annali di Greci elle non si possono paragonare o ltalia, Bologna 1550, fol. 413r. Modeme, 27 September 2012-3 Febmary architettura”, 14, 2002, pp. 195-213, at far superiori a quelle de ’ Romani ”. 2013), ed. W. Nerdinger, Miinchen-Lon- Vitruvius, I Dieci Libri dell ’Architettura 44. H. Giinther, Geschichte einer Griin- don-New York 2012,1, pp. 59-80. di M. Vitruvio, Tradotti et commentati da 32. Scamozzi, L’ldea..., cit. [cf. note 18], dungsgeschichte. San Giacomo di Rialto, San Mons. Daniel Barbaro, Venice 1567, pp. I, I, II, p. 9, and I, I, XVII, pp. 55-57. Marco und die venezianische Renaissance, 7. H. Giinther, Das geistige Erbe Peruzzis 173, 184, 185. in Per assiduum studium scientiae adipisci im vierten und dritten Buch des Sebastia- 33. “Romani impararono da ’ Greci il margaritam. Festgabe fiir Ursula Nilgen, no Serlio, in Les Traites d ’Architecture de 16. H. Giinther, Sebastiano Serlios Lehr- vero edificare, ma alcuni di loro diven- ed. A. Amberger, St. Ottilien 1997, pp. la Renaissance, papers of the colloquium programm. Spuren von architektonischen nero licentiosi: secondo lo Sc. la buona 229-258. (Tours, lst-11 July 1981), ed. J. Guillau- Leitlinien im dritten und vierten Buch, in architettura fu nell ’ultimo della Republi- me, Paris 1988, pp. 227-245. Fund-Stiicke Spuren-Suche. Eestschrift fiir ca & nel tempo de i buoni impera. priina 45. Collavo, L’esemplare dell ’edizione giun- George Descoeudres, eds. A. Boschetti et non vi era il sapere & poi crebbe tanto tina..., cit. [cf. note 12], nos. 200, 184, 8. “dal che si comprende beniss.o che al., Berlin 201 l,pp. 495-518. il vitio, che otturo la strada alla ragione 53,60, il Serlio non misuro ne questo ne altri & oggidi per gli imperiti, pur hora levati edificij; ma hebbe i Disegni da persone 17. Sebastiano Serlio, 11 Terzo Libro, dalle arti manuali, si fanno le cose licenti- 46. “queste sono pazzie che sogliono particolari: come mi accerto la memo- Venezia 1551, pp. XLVI, CVI. ose molto piu delle antiche ”. dire i fiorentini milantatori ”. Ibid., no. ria di mio padre, il quale giovanetto lo 162. conobbe” . 18. Vincenzo Scamozzi, L’ldea della Ar- 34. Isard, Architectural criticism..., cit. chitettura Universale, Venezia 1615, I, I, [cf. note 15], glosses to p. 111 line 1, and 47. “non vediamo se non la minima parte 9. “II Serlio in questo luogo parla assai fuori XXII, pp. 66-67; II, Proemio. page 120, line 3. delle opere loro”. Ibid. , no. 174.

60