Inscribing the Architect

372 Pages·2008·5 MB·English

by  Robert Jones

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 architecture 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: 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, his, Il Terzo libro nel qual si figurano, e
descrivono le antichita di Roma, 1540, Cosimo Bartoli’s translation of Alberti’s De re
aedificatoria titled L’architettura di Leonbattista Alberti, tradotta in lingua fiorentina da
Cossimo 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; and Andrea Palladio’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(cid:2), 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 aediculewith pilastered columns and pediment 83
2.2.2 The Herms and Mascaron 89
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 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, Giorgio Vasari and the Medici court of Florence: 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’architetturadi 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 Italian
Renaissance. 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, De architectura 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 Leon Battista Alberti 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
Venice.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 Sulpicioda
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
Sulpicioda Veroli’s edition of Vitruvius followedmanuscript copies of the family of the
Harleianus 2767 (H)a ninth century manuscript now inthe 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
perfection 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