the rhetorical hands of filarete

13
The rhetorical hands of Filarete: a Vitruvian interpretation of 15 th century disegno During site preparations in the building of the port city Plousiapolis, as recounted in Filarete’s Trattato di Architettura, the characters of the Sforza court pause to read the descriptions of the beautiful buildings contained within the recently excavated Golden Book. Surprisingly, the court discovers that among drawings and narratives of wondrous buildings, the Golden Book explains in some detail what an architect should know and how an architect should practice. The court interpreter recounts the Greek text to his audience: ...It is necessary that he be ingegnoso and that [he is able to] imagine doing various things and demonstrate them with his hand[s]. When he has these two things, that is, he should know how to make with his hand[s] and that he is ingegnoso; in addition he should then know how to draw (disegnare), because he might be ingegnoso and know how to make with his hand[s], [but] if he does not have drawing (il disegno), he will not be able to do correct or worthy things... 1 In an analysis of the theory and practice of the early Renaissance architect, this short passage is remarkable, particularly for its account of the relatively problematic 15 th century Italian concept of disegno. By means of a carefully constructed allegory of the making of an imagined city, Filarete recounts an equally complex rapport between ingengo and mano through the act of disegnare. The relationship of these three terms establishes the basis for a colorful and consistent theory rooted in the connection between the material imagination, drawing, and a reflective practice as expressed through the hand. Disegno, as promoted by Filarete and other artists and architects of the 15 th century, thus becomes the primary vehicle of thought employed by architects caught between the roles of the medieval capomaestro and the so- called progressive architects concerned with a scienza of architecture. How an architect such as Filarete reflected upon his relative position in this schema reveals itself through a careful study of his disegno. In his Trattato Filarete speaks not like L.B. Alberti, as a man of lettere using cultivated Latin or accepted scholastic rhetorical devices, but rather as one who writes as he speaks (in the volgare) and has, in fact, drawn and made many things himself. 2 Filarete’s disegno demonstrates an effort to unite the scienzie of an architecture all’antica with his own history as a sculptor endowed with vast practical experience. As such, the new persuasive or rhetorical role of an architect now removed from the building site is expressed through the handed language of the traditional bottega. A kind of architectonic embodiment, disegno is the medium by which architects transmit an idea to both patrons and builders alike, prying open the interpretive space of the architect’s imagination. In this way Filarete’s disegno The Golden Book as discovered in Plousiapolis: Filarete, Trattato, fol. 108v 1 Antonio Averlino detto il Filarete, Trattato di Architettura, testo a cura di Anna Maria Finoli e Liliana Grassi, Milano, year... pg.428: 20-29. “Bisogna che sia ingegnoso e che immagini di fare varie cose e di sua mano dimostri. Quando ha queste due cose, cioè che sappi fare di sua mano e che sia ingenoso, ancora bisogna che sappia poi disegnare, perchè potrebbe essere ingegnoso e saper fare di sua mano, se non ha il disegno, non potrà fare cosa con forma, né cosa degna...” English translations are by the author unless noted otherwise. cf. John Spenser’s English translation of Filarete’s treatise (Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture, Yale University Press, 1965). 2 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 11. “...perché in questi esercizii mi sono dilettato ed esercitato, come in disegno e in isculpire ed edificare....

Upload: jonathan-foote

Post on 18-Apr-2015

143 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

The rhetorical hands of Filarete:

a Vitruvian interpretation of 15th century disegno

During site preparations in the building of the port city Plousiapolis, as recounted in Filarete’s Trattato di Architettura, the characters of the Sforza court pause to read the descriptions of the beautiful buildings contained within the recently excavated Golden Book. Surprisingly, the court discovers that among drawings and narratives of wondrous buildings, the Golden Book explains in some detail what an architect should know and how an architect should practice. The court interpreter recounts the Greek text to his audience:

...It is necessary that he be ingegnoso and that [he is able to] imagine doing various things and demonstrate them with his hand[s]. When he has these two things, that is, he should know how to make with his hand[s] and that he is ingegnoso; in addition he should then know how to draw (disegnare), because he might be ingegnoso and know how to make with his hand[s], [but] if he does not have drawing (il disegno), he will not be able to do correct or worthy things...1

In an analysis of the theory and practice of the early Renaissance architect, this short passage is remarkable, particularly for its account of the relatively problematic 15th century Italian concept of disegno. By means of a carefully constructed allegory of the making of an imagined city, Filarete recounts an equally complex rapport between ingengo and mano through the act of disegnare. The relationship of these three terms establishes the basis for a colorful and consistent theory rooted in the connection between the material imagination, drawing, and a reflective practice as expressed through the hand. Disegno, as promoted by Filarete and other artists and architects of the 15th century, thus becomes the primary vehicle of thought employed by architects caught between the roles of the medieval capomaestro and the so-called progressive architects concerned with a scienza of architecture. How an architect such as Filarete reflected upon his relative position in this schema reveals itself through a careful study of his disegno. In his Trattato Filarete speaks not like L.B. Alberti, as a man of lettere using cultivated Latin or accepted scholastic rhetorical devices, but rather as one who writes as he speaks (in the volgare) and has, in fact, drawn and made many things himself.2 Filarete’s disegno demonstrates an effort to unite the scienzie of an architecture all’antica with his own history as a sculptor endowed with vast practical experience. As such, the new persuasive or rhetorical role of an architect now removed from the building site is expressed

through the handed language of the traditional bottega. A kind of architectonic embodiment, disegno is the medium by which architects transmit an idea to both patrons and builders alike, prying open the interpretive space of the architect’s imagination. In this way Filarete’s disegno

The Golden Book as discovered in Plousiapolis: Filarete, Trattato, fol. 108v

1 Antonio Averlino detto il Filarete, Trattato di Architettura, testo a cura di Anna Maria Finoli e Liliana Grassi, Milano, year... pg.428: 20-29. “Bisogna che sia ingegnoso e che immagini di fare varie cose e di sua mano dimostri. Quando ha queste due cose, cioè che sappi fare di sua mano e che sia ingenoso, ancora bisogna che sappia poi disegnare, perchè potrebbe essere ingegnoso e saper fare di sua mano, se non ha il disegno, non potrà fare cosa con forma, né cosa degna...” English translations are by the author unless noted otherwise. cf. John Spenser’s English translation of Filarete’s treatise (Filarete’s Treatise on Architecture, Yale University Press, 1965). 2 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 11. “...perché in questi esercizii mi sono dilettato ed esercitato, come in disegno e in isculpire ed edificare....”

Page 2: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

constructs a didactic bridge able to cross between ingengo and mano; becoming the chief component in the making of ‘correct and worthy things’ (‘cosa con forma...[e] degna’).

No doubt the relationship of the architect to disegno, as expressed by Filarete and many of his contemporaries, was undergoing rapid and profound changes during the quattrocento, particularly in southern Europe. The lingering remnants of a glorious and monumental past were now waking from hibernation. Along with it we find an entire gamut of differing interpretations filtered through late medieval scholasticism and the prevailing material culture as represented by the various trade guilds. The rising status of the visual arts within certain intellectual circles, as exemplified in Alberti up through Vasari and Zuccaro, demonstrate the continued philosophical influence of scholastic thought in this reconciliation of the sensible and intelletto.3 As well, although showing signs of duress, the masons’ guilds exerted strong influences on building practice, providing a potent filter for the new architects concerned with scienzie.4 Ancient texts, previously tucked away in monastic libraries, were being translated and propagated, bringing together a visual culture, eager to find new authority in antiquity, and a relatively conservative climate still churning in scholastic-aristotelianism. One such text was that of Vitruvius himself, which has passed scantily through the middle ages by way of isolated libraries and in the writings of early humanists such as Petrarch and Boccaccio. At the turn of the 14th century, the discipline of architecture was largely split between the clerical work of Latin scholars such as Hugh of St. Victor and its rudimentary application as practiced by the oral traditions of the medieval craftsman.5 De Architectura was just beginning to enter wider interpretation among the progressive architects and patrons of the 15th century.6 In 1415 a remarkably excellent manuscript of Vitruvius was discovered by the humanist Poggio Bracciolini in the library of the monastery of St. Gall, signaling the beginning of a new life for the ancient text.7 Eagerly working to re-capture the lost knowledge of the ancients, the notion of a disegno conceived within architecture (as opposed to painting or sculpture) was born primarily from a reinterpretation of Vitruvius on the grounds of the progressive, yet still inherently medieval, early Renaissance architect: progressive, one might say, in advocating for an architecture which originates in intelletto, and is thus fit for inclusion in the liberal arts, free from the practical world of direct application; medieval, however, in that the culture of the capomaestro was still predominant, one

3 The general acceptance of the visual intelligence within the established canon of liberal thought was not without skeptics, especially on the grounds of poetry’s claim to the highest form of inventione as embodied by Dante. Professional humanists such as Leonello d’Este and Leonardo Bruni stand as notable partisans against the manus of painters and sculptors as having access to the divine imagination. See Martin Kemp, “From Mimesis to Fantasia: The Quattrocento Vocabulary of Creation, Inspiration and Genius in the Visual Arts,” Viator VIII, UCLA Press, 1977, pg. 358 and 386-7. 4 In Florence, perhaps the most progressive of cities in terms of its graduation from the old guild system, tensions between the traditional capomaestro and the modern architect are exemplified as early as 1434 when the stone mason’s guild in charge of the construction of the Duomo (arte dei maestri di pietre) had Brunelleschi imprisoned for not paying his guild dues. See Leopold Ettlinger. “The Emergence of the Italian Architect during the Fifteenth Century,” The Architect, Spiro Kostof, ed., 1977. This is additionally corroborated by the fierce conflicts between the mason’s guild of the Milan Cathedral and certain Northern architects invited to assess profound structural (i.e. theoretical, concerned with geometry) difficulties in the raising of the main piers. See James Ackerman, “Ars Sine Scientia Nihil Est: Gothic Theory of Architecture at the Cathedral of Milan”, Art Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1949. 5 Homann, Fredrick A., trans. Practica Geometriae, attributed to Hugh of St. Victor, 1991, pg. 12-13. See also, Joseph Rykwert, “On the Oral Transmission of Architectural Theory,” AA Files 6, May 1984, pg. 25-27. 6 See Filarete, Trattato, pg. 9, note 1. Grassi argues that there is no evidence of De Architectura in circulation in northern Italy between the second half of the 12th century and the first half of the 14th century. This quickly changed, however, with a sudden promulgation of the text at the time of Filarete. Rykwert points out that the number manuscripts of Vitruvius doubled in the first half of the quattrocento (“Oral Transmission”, pg. 16). See also, N. Pevsner, “The Term ‘Architect’ in the Middle Ages, Speculum, vol. 17(no. 4), 1942, pgs. 558-559. Pevnser contends that in Italy, as descendents of Vitruvius, the craftsman enjoyed a higher status than in the North, and perhaps the dual virtues of Vitruvius’ fabrica et ratiocinatione were never completely forgotten. 7 Ettlinger, pg. 98-99

2

Page 3: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

where the architect’s primary role was to lead teams of handed executants through the employment of the artes mechanicae.

Personification of the builder and the architect, Andrea Pisano: relief sculpture on the Campanile del Duomo, Florence, 14th century

L’arte di costruire L’Architettura

The rediscovered text of Vitruvius thus becomes a central source for Filarete and, by extension, is a key component in his theory of disegno. Like other fifteenth century architects, with the notable exception of Alberti, Filarete bases his educational programme almost exclusively on the text of Vitruvius.8 In will be recalled that the scientia of architecture for Vitruvius depends on the familiarity of the architect with several disciplines: writing [litteras], drawing [graphida], geometry, history, philosophy, medicine, music, jurisconsults, optics, astronomy.9 Having inherited a formulaic structure of erudition from scholastic-aristotelianism, this espousing of a generalist education must have appeared remarkable for a 15th century architect.10 When Andrea Pisano chiseled the breadth of universal knowledge into the base of the Campanile del Duomo in Florence in the late fourteenth century, for example, the scholastic culture of classification still reigned among the arts and sciences. Similarly for the late 14th century master builders at the Cathedral in Milan, “...science is one thing and art another.”11 It is within this context that architects such as Filarete approached the text of Vitruvius, who suddenly advocated for a unity among the various disciplines: “For a general education [encyclios disciplina] is put together like one body from its members”.12 In the case of Filarete, this encounter with Vitruvius becomes one of the central themes of the Golden Book, both as a symbol of authoritative knowledge as well as a charge to the new architect concerned with scienzie. Picking up again from the Golden Book, the court translator continues:

“...the architect ought to participate in many sciences. It also says it is necessary to know letters (lettere), because without lettere he cannot be a perfect craftsman (artefice); and in addition to this it is necessary that he knows the art (arte) of disegno. He needs to

8 Alberti rejects the range of disciplines advocated by Vitruvius, preferring that the architect ought only to know painting and mathematics. See L.B. Alberti, The Art of Building in Ten Books, translated by Rykwert, Leach, Tavernor, MIT Press, 1988, pg. 317. Ghiberti and Francesco di Giorgio closely model Vitruvius. 9 Vitruvius, De Architectura, translated by Frank Granger, Loeb Classical Library, 1931, I.i.4. 10 Hugh of St. Victor defines the seven liberal arts and various mechanical arts in his 12th century Didascalicon, becoming a cornerstone of medieval scholastic thought. (or he re-defines them: Aristotle distinguishes between practical and speculative sciences [theoretikai] in Metaphysics, VI.) Hugh’s writings would greatly influence later clerics concerned with the relationship of theology to natural philosophy, such as St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who wrote extensively on the reconciliation of Christian thought with the works of Aristotle, at that time becoming increasingly available in Latin translations. 11 Ackerman, pg. 101. 12 Vitruvius, pg. 17.

3

Page 4: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

know geometry, astrology, arithmetic, philosophy, music, rhetoric, and medicine. Also it is necessary to understand civil law; also to be a historian.”13

Furthermore, the Golden Book tells us, Vitruvius himself advocated for knowledge of the same scienzie. The translator then embarks on an extended narrative as to the reasons why the architect should know each science, mirroring quite closely the text, logical structure, and order of appearance of Vitruvius. We learn from both Vitruvius and Filarete, for example, that an architect ought to know arithmetic in order to keep numbers, music in order to harmonize the parts of the building, and medicine in order to judge a healthy site for building.14 Whereas Vitruvius’ borrowed Greek passes nearly unfiltered into Filarete’s account of architects’ traits (e.g. astrologia, filosophia, geumetria), Vitruvius’ Greek neologism for drawing, graphida, is noticeabldropped from the list. In its place Filarete places the Latinate disegno, taking on both an elevated position and a more nuanced meaning.

y

n in

hiberti.

ints on

s

ls,

ctical

15 Disegno, then, begins to assumes a central positiothe cosmology of Filarete’s architect as interpreted through Vitruvius. At this point it helps to present a brief account of the two main precedents for workshop disegno, as inherited by the Filarete in the middle 15th century: the painter Cennino Cennini and the sculptor Lorenzo

16G

Cennini’s Il Libro dell’Arte stands as one of our earliest records of the currency of disegno. Similarities between the handbook of Cennini and some of Filarete’s technical podisegno suggest that, even if Filarete was not familiar with Cennini, there seemed a fairly consistent general attitude toward disegno circulating among the Italian botteghe in the early years of the Renaissance. Essentially a practical guide to the painter and his workshop, il Libro dell’Arte set an important benchmark from which to judge the evolution of Italian disegno from ittechnical origins in the workshop to its status as a mode of pure thought in Federico Zuccaro’s early 17th century writings.17 Written in he late 14th century, Cennini’s handbook circulated widely among painters’ workshops, containing detailed information on a variety of techniques, materiaand tools used for drawing and painting. In espousing a theory of workshop practice, Cennini writes, “The principle and foundation of the arts of these works of the hand [di mano] is disegno and colorire.”18 Clearly we are not dealing with 16th century disegno, since this is the last pseudo-theoretical statement we encounter in his entire section on drawing. The only possible exception occurs during a passing reference to “disegno entro la testa tua”, which is the praresult of repeated drawing with the hand. Instead, Cennini delves into the practical techniques

13 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 428. “Di quante scienzie debba l’architetto participare. Dice ancora gli bisogna sapere lettere, perchè sanza lettere non può essere perfetto artefice; e oltre a questo bisogna che sappia l’arte del disegno, bisognagli sapere Geumetria, Astrologia, Arismetrica, Filosofia, Musica, Rettorica, Medicina. Ancora gli bisogna ch’egli ‘ntenda di ragione civile, bisogna ancora sia storiografo...” Interestingly, rhetoric is the only discipline named by Filarete that has no direct source within Vitruvius’ original nine disciplines. 14 Compare Filarete, Trattato, pg. 427-431 with Vitruvius, book I, chapter I (pg. 9-23). 15 See Liisa Kanerva, Between Science and Drawings: Renaissance Architects on Vitruvius’s Educational Ideas, 2006, pg. 156-157. In her analysis the implication is that both Vitruvius’s graphida and Alberti’s lineamenta are nearly equivalent to disegno. See also pg. 161 where Kanerva appears to use Vitruvius’s graphida interchangeably with disegno. 16 Both of Alberti’s works on painting, Della Pittura and Elementi di Pittura were clearly sources for Filarete, especially in his chapter on drawing (Trattato, c.XXII); and disegno and disegnare were an integral part of Alberti’s working vocabulary in his theory of painting. However, in tracing Filarete’s disegno as an architectural conception, we must look primarily toward the bottega as the basis for much of his theory. Furthermore, it seems evident that, for Alberti, disegno would be inappropriate for an architect, as he developed a entire architectural theory of visual representation distinctly separate from that of the painter. See Rykwert, Ten Books, pg. 34; see Sergio Rossi, Dalle Botteghe alle Accademie, Milano, 1980, pg. 58-60, and Branko Mitrovic, Serene Greed of the Eye, 2005, chapter 2. 17 On Zuccaro see D. Herkamp, Scritti d’arte di Federico Zuccaro, 1961, and David Summers, The Judgment of Sense, Cambridge University Press, 1987, chapter 13. 18 Cennini, Cennino. Il Libro dell’Arte della Pittura: Il manoscritto della Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenza, con integrazioni dal Codice Riccardiano, a cura di Antonio P. Torresi, pg. 65. “Il fondamento dell’arte di tutti questi lavorii di mano, il principio è il disegno e il colorire.” English translation by author.

4

Page 5: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

and operational knowledge needed to work within a successful bottega. Thus in the late 14th century painter’s workshop, disegno is fundamentally born from practice, the knowledge of whresides firmly in the one acting.

ich It exists only on a theoretical level insofar as it is an aid to a

erto, pratico e capace” practice.19

op

op

ry

r

a

and

ne

nts, speculative thinking can be put to use by “chi vuole mettere in practica alchuna cosa”.24

hida into

“sp

Active around half-century later, another Florentine, Lorenzo Ghiberti, brought workshdisegno into the rapidly changing quattrocento. His practice as a bronze sculptor illuminated Florence during the years of Cosimo ‘il Vecchio’, helping to promote Florence as the center of the artistic rinascita through his work and writings. Ghiberti’s involvement with the various projects of the Opera del Duomo eventually led him, along with Brunelleschi, to act as capomaestri duringthe construction of the famous dome, a good example of the relatively transparent cross-over between workshop culture and the discipline of architecture.20 Writing toward the end of his life,Ghiberti’s Commentarii provide an important theoretical bridge between the medieval workshand the professionalization of the early Renaissance architects. The leader of an esteemed bottega and an elder sculptor himself, Ghiberti nonetheless promoted a learned rather than pragmatic tone in his treatise, seeking an elevated character which would lend the necessaauthority to satisfy both its didactic and autobiographical missions. Such authority would naturally come from the adoption of ancient authors as sources of ideas and structure. FoGhiberti the primary source is, once again, Vitruvius, from whom he quotes extensively. Interestingly, in his Commentarii Ghiberti must look to the surviving writings of an architect in order to articulate a theory of sculpture based firmly in the sciences. And in espousing a list of the ‘arti liberali’ necessary for painting and sculpture, graphida is once again dropped amidsthost of other Greek terms adopted from Vitruvius.21 In its place Ghiberti forwards a ‘teorica disegno’, explaining that “...el disegno è il fondamento e teorica di queste due arti [of painting sculpture]”’; and that the sculptor must be a “perfectissimo disegnatore”.22 Disegno, throughGhiberti, is elevated into a theory and origin for art as an intellectual pursuit, moving clearly beyond the operational workshop disegno of Cennini. By adopting Vitruvius as both a structural and intellectual authority, Ghiberti propels sculpture from its fundamentally handed roots into owhere the sculptor himself was responsible for an understanding of the principles of his art.23 However, even though there is a defogging of the line between disegno and the higher faculties of invenzione, disegno remains firmly rooted in the workshop. Ghiberti instructs young studentsthat an education in the fundamental principles of sculpture is not without practical application,and, like the ancie

Filarete, who certainly knew Ghiberti and potentially spent time in his workshop, picked

up Ghiberti’s disegno and brought it firmly into architecture, promoting the Vitruvian grapa complex instrument of architectonic thought. As such, it was now capable of not only

19 Cennini, pg. 68. “Sai che t’avverrà praticando il disegnare di penna? Che ti farai sperto, pratico e capace di molto disegno entro la testa tua.” See also Kanerva, pg. 157-158 for an analysis of Cennini’s disegno. 20 Saalman, Howard. “L’Architettura e Ghiberti” from Lorenzo Ghiberti Nel Suo Tempo: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, 1980, pg. 428-440. Saalman presents a concise overview of Ghiberti’s limited architectural activity. The late medieval/early Renaissance precedent of visual artists presiding over the building trades was exemplified in the building of the Florentine Duomo. Ghiberti was part of a long line of painters and sculptors chosen to lead the Duomo’s masons, among them the painter Giotto (1334) and sculptors Andrea Pisano (1340) and Franceso Talenti (1351). Brunelleschi himself was trained as a goldsmith and sculptor. 21 Ghiberti’s ten liberal arts are: Grammatica, Geometria, Phylosophia, Medicina, Astrologia, Prospectiva, Istorico, Notamia, Teorica disegno, Aristmetrica. From Lorenzo Ghiberti, I commentarii, introduzione e cura di Lorenzo Bartoli, Firenza, 1998, pg. 46 (II.1). 22 Ghiberti, pg. 47 (II.4) 23 See Kemp, Mimesis, pg. 58. Kemp argues that the responsibility of invenzione in the visual arts remained generally within the mind of the patron, and the idea of the painter or sculptor retaining this privilege is a 16th century phenomenon, after Leonardo. Architects, however, enjoyed this prerogative much earlier, probably beginning with Brunelleschi. 24 Ghiberti, pg. 45 (I.1)

5

Page 6: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

communicating measures and proportions, but also as a crucial component of the factive intellect. In a sus

(disegnato), and likewise it is difficult to understand it in a drawing (disegno). And one

w re

nd

ary

e

ritrician, inducing others to act on behalf f the in-conception through a kind of architectural oratory. For Filarete and countless others

after him

in the

h

case for the architect’s ethos based not on knowledge of lettere, as in Alberti, but rather on a

tained digression on the relation of disegno to the built work, Filarete writes:

“It is impossible to understand the parts of a building if one cannot see it drawn

cannot understand [a building] well who doesn’t understand the drawing (disegno)...” 25 Such understanding is not acquired, “sanza grande ingegno d’intelletto”, and for this reason alone should not be taken lightly.26 Filarete merges the disegno of the bottega with the disciplines advocated by Vitruvius, bringing together his handed roots, his fervor for antiquity, and a netype of architect concerned with scienzie. In this way disegno can exist solely in the mind (“...favarii disegni nella sua mente...”), can be turned over and considered, and then given birth(partorir) by the mother architect.27 Depending on how it is qualified, Filarete uses disegno to signify several types of drawings, and is even used repeatedly throughout the Trattato in reference to a three-dimensional model. In phrases like ‘disegno digrosso’, ‘poco disegno’, a‘disegno lineato’, drawing becomes the principal visual means in the transmission of intellectualintent, signifying the architectonic sketch, or the handed translation of ingegno into the visual realm. In employing terms such as, ‘disegno proporzionato’ and ‘disegno misurato’, Filarete is speaking of a drawing in scale, to be used as an aid in construction or the practical imagination.28

Consistent among all of these terms, however, is their relationship to the architect as the primagent in the translation of an architectural invention into a visual language able to be interpreted by masons, carpenters, and patrons alike. Indeed, for Filarete, even though the birth of the architectural idea is the result of both the mother architect and the patron, it is explicitly left to tharchitect to take on the role of the balia, or nurse, in the nurturing of the ‘ingeneramento’ into a mature building. No longer able to nurture the building through the direct hands of the on-site capomaestro, the architect must assume the role of rhetoo

, this power of persuasion hinges on disegno.

Filarete’s particular flavor of oratory lies not only in knowledge of disegno but alsoability to make things with his hands. From the Golden Book we learn that, “...if [the architect] does not know how to make with his hand[s], he will never know how to show or explain something so that it is successful.”29 Thus a handed background is both the foundation for the architect’s practical education as well as the primary source for an architect’s rhetorical authority. Furthermore, it not only lies in the experience in having made things in the past but also in the ability to make and demonstrate future objects of desire with the hands.30 Disegno, about whiceverything made by the hands consists, is thus the primary medium of persuasion in Filarete’s persona.31 Yet among the list of attributes borrowed from Vitruvius, Filarete lists an additional quality: the ability to exhibit things through the work of the hands. In invoking Aristotle’s three proofs in rhetorical argument, ethos, pathos, and logos, one might say that Filarete is building a

25 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 157. “E’ impossibile a dare a intendere queste cose dello edificare, se non si vede

le a ‘ntendere.”

is union is a baby building: a wooden disegno of

Grassi’s introduction to Filarate, Trattato, pg. LXI-LXII for a good summary of Filarete’s use of

io ti dico che se non sa fare di sua mano, non saprà mai mostrare, nè dare a

si è fare varie cose....e anche coll’opera della

irect connection between things made example, pg. 10, 158, 182, 639

disegnato, e nel disegno ancora è diffici26 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 157. 27 See Filarete, Trattato, pg. 40, for an account of Filarete’s birthing analogy. The patron, or father, conceives (ingenerare) of the building, after which the mother architect thinks and imagines (fantasticare epensare) the in-conception for 9 months. The result of ththe future edifice (disegno piccolo rilevato di legname). 28 See the disgeno. 29 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 428. “E ‘ntendere cosa che stia bene.” 30 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 427-428. “El sapere dello architettomano dimostrarle...secondo quella cosa che far volesse.” 31 There is much textual evidence in Filarete’s Trattato to support a dby the hand and disegno. See, for

6

Page 7: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

Personification of Virtù: industrious bees at the foun

mark by Filarete seemn poco a disegnare’, Filarete e

he foun

mark by Filarete seemn poco a disegnare’, Filarete e

dation of the character of an architect,

is ability to make things and investigate new ideas, a primary

t], t

,

inter is also nderstood. And one understands these things by the sight of

e’s n is

,

re s curious. g ‘u xp

dation of the character of an architect,

is ability to make things and investigate new ideas, a primary

t], t

,

inter is also nderstood. And one understands these things by the sight of

e’s n is

,

re s curious. g ‘u xp

knowledge and direct experience of handed activity.32 Hence,when the Golden Book lists the criteria for an architect’s praise and honor, we learn that he is well treated on the grounds of

knowledge and direct experience of handed activity.

hh

32 Hence,when the Golden Book lists the criteria for an architect’s praise and honor, we learn that he is well treated on the grounds of

component of his virtù: “Therefore, because we understood the virtù of this [architecwithin whom contained many things, he was well treated: firshe knew how to work with his hands in silver, bronze, goldcopper, marble, clay, wood, and all of those things mediated through disegno; to color according to the pa

component of his virtù: “Therefore, because we understood the virtù of this [architecwithin whom contained many things, he was well treated: firshe knew how to work with his hands in silver, bronze, goldcopper, marble, clay, wood, and all of those things mediated through disegno; to color according to the pa

Filarete, Trattato, fol. 143r

that which is made by him [the architect].” uu

33 Now we see that the hands are not only the source of the practical knowledge; it is also the fact that the architect has drawn and made many things himself which lends properauthority to his inventions. As his portrait of Virtù indicates, such work of the hands is embodied in the symbol of the industrious bee, which becomes an important icon in Filaretpractice of self-reflection. As such the handed connectioappears to go even deeper: Filarete’s theory of disegnoalso founded in the hands. When, for example, Filareteinvokes Alberti on the first folio of his Trattato, Alberti is described as being most learned and expert and many disciplines. He then adds that Alberti is especially skilled in disegno, “which is the foundation and way of every art made by the hands.”34 Given the learned nature of Alberti’s treatiseas well as the fact that it explicitly contains no drawings, this

35 Similarly, when his lord expresses some interest in learninlains that indeed his majesty would learn it well, since it is already known that “everything that is made by the hand consists in disegno, which is not shameful, since, as I’ve saidbefore, it is an unknown and underappreciated scienza, unlike antiquity, when the greatest lords wanted to know this scienza”.36 This passage is equally curious, since disegno,

even as a scienza, still consists in the work of the hands. Thus, through its practice by the mostnoble princes and the invocation of the learned Alberti, disegno is pushed beyond the traditional sphere of ars-techne and into a realm where disegno is an instrument of abstract thought.

Filarete, Trattato, fol. 143r

that which is made by him [the architect].” 33 Now we see that the hands are not only the source of the practical knowledge; it is also the fact that the architect has drawn and made many things himself which lends properauthority to his inventions. As his portrait of Virtù indicates, such work of the hands is embodied in the symbol of the industrious bee, which becomes an important icon in Filaretpractice of self-reflection. As such the handed connectioappears to go even deeper: Filarete’s theory of disegnoalso founded in the hands. When, for example, Filareteinvokes Alberti on the first folio of his Trattato, Alberti is described as being most learned and expert and many disciplines. He then adds that Alberti is especially skilled in disegno, “which is the foundation and way of every art made by the hands.”34 Given the learned nature of Alberti’s treatiseas well as the fact that it explicitly contains no drawings, this

35 Similarly, when his lord expresses some interest in learninlains that indeed his majesty would learn it well, since it is already known that “everything that is made by the hand consists in disegno, which is not shameful, since, as I’ve saidbefore, it is an unknown and underappreciated scienza, unlike antiquity, when the greatest lords wanted to know this scienza”.36 This passage is equally curious, since disegno,

even as a scienza, still consists in the work of the hands. Thus, through its practice by the mostnoble princes and the invocation of the learned Alberti, disegno is pushed beyond the traditional sphere of ars-techne and into a realm where disegno is an instrument of abstract thought. 32 Aristotle, Art of Rhetoric, I.ii.4-7. 33 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 431. “Sì che, perchè da noi fu inteso le virtù di questo, fu bene trattato, il quale in lui conteneva tutte queste cose: lui in prima di sua mano sapeva lavorare d’argento, di bronzo, d’oro, di rame, di marmo, di terra, di legno, di tutte queste cose mediante el disegno; di colorire secondo dipintore ancora s’intendevaò e queste cose s’intende per le cose che si veggono fatte da lui.” 34 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 9-10. “...disegno, il quale è fondamento e via d’ogni arte che di mano si faccia.” The resemblance of this phrase to Ghiberti (II.4) and Cennini (pg. 65) is striking. Grassi argues that this connection shows that Filarete was probably familiar with i commentarii, (introduction, pg. 9-11 n1). 35 See Mario Carpo, Metodo ed Ordini nella Teoria Architettonica dei Primi Moderni: Alberti, Raffaello, Serilio, e Camillo, Geneva, 1993, pg. 8-14. Carpo contends that, as a product of Scholastic thought, Alberti’s treatise had no need for images since its rhetorical structural depends on verbal devices such as syllogism and deductive discourse. As such, disegno, as relating to the visual, sensible part of the soul, would have no access to Aristotelian episteme, since the sensible faculties lie outside of universal reasoning (logos). cf. De anima III.iv and Nicomachean Ethics VI, iii-vi. 36 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 182-183. “Signore, farte molto bene, avisandovi che ogni cosa che si fa di mano consiste nel disegno e non è vergogna, perché, come ho detto innanzi, ell’è una scienza non conosciuta e poco aprezzata, ma non era già anticamente...” Alberti recounts a similar fact in Della Pittura, II.27: the most distinguished nobles and philosophers would paint with their own hands.

7

Page 8: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

Filarete inherits the Ghibertian desire for a theory of disegno, but unlike Ghiberti, he places the rigin of both the theory and the practice of disegno firmly in the work of the hands.

ion in

ce of

f the

ns.39

erienced sculptor upon his material. In this single drawing we see the full breadth of

disegno, in its power to reveal through both the speculative and practical imagination.

o

This makes evident the profound faith that Filarete puts into a life of handed educat

the practice of architecture. For an architect no longer having a direct hand in construction, this extension of the hands into the rhetorical, theoretical world means that the products of the architect are now expressed in disegno, and not the building itself. Disegnare takes the plaedificare, yet the instrumentality of the hand remains.37 In this way the hand simultaneously mediates between the practical and rhetorical mind of the architect through the medium of disegno, anticipating the very opposition that would propel Vasari’s renowned theory almost onehundred years later.38 Thus when Filarete chooses a site for the new city of Sforzinda, he first makes a disegno of the ‘forma’, showing geometrical relations and proper proportions. Then, inseeking approval from his lord, Filarete overlays the city ‘forma’ on top of a figural drawing ochosen site, suddenly assigning scale and illustrating its relations to existing site conditioThis oscillation between the practical mind and the formal imagination is a characteristic of Filarete’s handed cosmology, paralleling quite closely the direct hand of a reflective and

40exp

e rience

alone, especially painters, who often have no higher understanding of the scientific principles of

Not surprisingly, such a straddling of the in-between of theory and practice would lead to

criticism of those working at the extremes. Although special attention is given by Filarete to the knowledge of lettere, we learn that they are only an accessory in the production of architecture,as long as one has disegno: “...by means of art and ingegno, [worthy things] are demonstrated [in] drawing (el disegno), although reading helps some.”41 Furthermore, as Filarete points out, those who have need for an erudite treatise on architecture should read Alberti anyway.42 On thother hand, Filarete shows little patience for those who have gained disegno through expe

Averliano: Filarete overlays the ‘forma’ of Sforzinda on top of the site, Filarete, Trattato, fol. 11v.

37 cf. Aristotle, De anima III, “The soul, then, acts like a hand; for the hand is an instrument which employs instruments...”, Loeb classical library edition, trans. W.S. Hett, 1936. 38 Vasari, Introduction to the second edition of the Vite (1568): “...che si forma nella mente quella tal cosa che poi espressa con le mani si chiama disegno.” 39 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 53. Filarete highlights the importance of this drawing by naming it “Averliano”. 40 The mind/imagination pairing (pensare/fantasticare) is first developed in the aforementioned birthing analogy, when the mother architect must “fantasticare e pensare e rivoltarselo per la memoria” Filarete makes clear that Averliano is a further product of such a birth (pg. 53). See also Kemp, pg. 370-371. 41 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 429: 5-7. “benchè mediante l’arte e lo ‘ngegno, el disgeno si dimonstrano, ma il leggere assai auita.” I believe the text in Finoli and Grassi mistakingly transcribes “l’arte e lo ‘ngegno, el disegno” as “l’arte e lo ‘ngegno e ‘l disegno”. The implication in the latter is that art and ingegno and drawing are three disciplines which are able to be demonstrated without leggere. A more correct transcription renders disegno as the product of demonstration by means of both art and ingengo. 42 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 5.

8

Page 9: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

their drawing: “...because many draw (disegneranno) from experience (practica) without understanding what the are doing.”43 This balancing of lettere with practica again recalls Vitruvius, who famously advocated for an architect to master both litterae and manus: 44 whimight seem impossible at first that one person could comprehend the full range of arts and sciences, “when it is perceived that all studies are rel

le it

ated to one another and have points of contact, they will easily believe it can happen.”45

point

p the

f

or

ppear

diligence; highlighting, along with the dancing

Filarete and his bot

Such a spirit of unity between the various disciplines shows up clearly in the various self-portraits cast in bronze by Filarete over the course of his life. In 1445 Filarete and his workshop completed a set of bronze doors to be hung on the front of St. Peters in Rome. Leading a line of his dancing workshop disciples, Filarete triumphantly points toward the sky with the tracedof a large compass. The choice of the upward pointing compass, echoing the traditional iconography of Theory, coupled with the rendering of the typically anonymous workshop

rincipled practice and the handed work ofvarious executants.

companions, solidifies a unity between rational, 46 The joining of the

workshop through both tools and hands, endingin the perfect, divine circle, shows the power oingegno in the empowerment of invenzioni.47 Such a consonance can only be strengthened by the superb method of its casting, something which appears again in a later self-portrait, cast in medal form near the end of his life, ca. 1464. The most prominent feature of this medal four discussion appears on the reverse, whereFilarete depicts himself in workshop clothing, seated at a tree and cutting it open to allow the bees’ honey to flow.48 Once again bees aas a symbol of intelligence, industry, and

tega: Bronze doors of St. Peters, Rome, 1445.

Filarete: self-portrait, bronze medal, obverse and reverse, Victoria and Alberti Museum

43 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 157. “...perché molti disegneranno per una practica, e non intenderanno quello che faranno.” The rebuff of painters perhaps results from the residue of Cennini’s painter, who is highly skilled in materials in methods but must rely on his patron for inventione. cf. Kemp, pg. 358. 44 Vitruvius, I.i.2. “...those who have mastered both [litteris and manus]...soon acquire influence and attain their purpose.” See Indra Kegis McEwen, Vitruvius: Writing the Body of Architecture, MIT Press, 2003, pg. 17-18. She argues that litteras holds a distinguished place in the writings of Vitruvius, named as the first of the nine disciplines required in the education of an architect, ahead of both drawing [graphidis scientiam] and mathematics [geometria]. 45 Vitruvius, I.i.11-12 46 On the power of the compass in the architectural imagination, see Marco Frascari, “The Compass and the Crafty Art of Architecture,” Modulus 22 (1995). 47 See Catherine King, “Filarete’s Portrait Signature on the Bronze Doors of St. Peter’s and the Dance of Bathykles and his Assistants,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. 53 (1990), pg. 296-299. 48 See John Spenser, “Filarete, the Medalist of the Roman Emperors,” The Art Bulletin, vol. 61 (1979), pg. 552-553; and Francis Ames-Lewis, The Intellectual Life of the Early Renaissance Artist, Yale University Press, 2000, pg. 234-235

9

Page 10: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

disciples, the importance of the workshop collective in the material culture of the bottega.49 These forays into self-reflection are a critical component of Filarete’s cosmology, indicating an architect who was keenly aware of his changing role.

In constructing his own image amidst rapidly changing practical and intellectual circumstances, he no doubt had in mind fellow Florentine Filippo Brunelleschi, whose quattrocento disegno sent ripples through the established workshop culture as captured by Cennini. While leaving no written works behind which might aid us, we nevertheless possess a host of secondary literary evidence, an array of remaining built works, and even a model reported to be made by the maestro himself. Brunelleschi, through his life and works, repeatedly demonstrates the changing role of the architect from site-grounded capomaestro to the architect ingegnoso, with increasing rhetorical responsibility over architectural production. Not only would the architect become the chief orator for the patron as generante, he would also become the primary interpretive agent between mind and hand during the execution of the building itself. Thus, after Brunelleschi disegno becomes the hinge by which architects leveraged their persuasive craft, both on the building site and in the halls of the palazzo. When Brunelleschi presents his model of San Lorenzo to Cosimo de’Medici, as painted by Vasari in 1565, he employs the full complement of disegni available to the architect. Set amidst the building site, Filippo forwards his idea to the skeptical hands of Cosimo using a wooden scale model and a half-rolled plan drawing. In a separate episode, Antonio Manetti, in his Vita di Brunelleschi, recounts the cleverness by which Filippo was able to convince the patrons of Santo Spirito of his design, even though they were not able or willing to pay for the undertaking of an actual model:

...Filippo made a disegno with only the foundations of the building and with this explained to them orally what the elevation would look like [riuscirebbe rilevato]50

Sforzinda: disegno lineato, Filarete, Trattato, fol. 13v

Brunelleschi presents his model to Cosimo de’ Medici: Vasari, 1565

Upon receiving this explanation, the church patrons were sufficiently persuaded to hire the architect, to pay him whatever he needs, and to produce a small wooden model to be used during 49 See Filarete, Trattato, pg 450, where the bee, “signifies intelligence”. 50 Manetti, Antonio, Vita di Filippo di Ser Brunelleschi, notes and trans. by Saalman and Enggass, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1970. pg. 122-124. A translation of rilevato as ‘elevation’ is somewhat misleading, as the 15th century concept of rilevato was not the modern concept of a frontal elevation view, measured and proportioned without the use of perspective or foreshortening. In general Filarete’s frontal drawings are a combination of frontal view and natural perspective (i.e. without scientific projection). See Grassi’s introduction to Filarete’s Trattato, LXIII.

10

Page 11: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

construction. Disegno, this time qualified with the participle rilevato, appears once again in its rhetorical role, echoing Filarete and demonstrating the capacity of disegno for revealing. It comes as no surprise that, in speaking of three-dimensional models, Filarete would forgo the more general term ‘modello’ and speak on several occasions of a patron-specific model as a ‘disegno piccolo rilevato di legname’ or simply, a ‘disegno rilevato’.51 When Filarete presents his plan for the city of Sforzinda, he first represents it in terms of a disegno lineato, emphasizing its adherence to sound principles of number and proportion. However, in order to better persuade his patron on the merits of his plan, Filarete must additionally employ a disegno rilevato, activating his patron’s imagination through the assignment of measure and scale. Like Brunelleschi, Filarete chooses to present his disegno rilevato verbally, as a type of architectural orator.52 In a literal ‘lifting up’ [levato] of the plan, the architect is able to transmit his invenzioni from the inner workings of his mind to the eye of the approving patron, even through words alone. The rhetorical medium, either verbally or visually, is still disegno.

The patron, however, was not the only one benefiting from the architect’s disegno. The emerging professional separation between the architect and the builder called for the clear establishment of an interpretive medium between them. In the case of Brunelleschi’s Santo Spirito, the resulting model was adopted as the chief instrument of communication between the intent of the architect and the actions of the builders. In some cases the value of the model is directly related to its implementation in actual construction, as evidenced by the destruction of Arnolfo di Cambio’s original model of S.Maria del Fiore, apparently left to ruin once the cathedral design had changed beyond any resemblance to the model.53 Manetti reveals to us that Filippo was often disappointed by poor interpretations of the workman in the translation of his models into the actual building, therefore causing him to make models showing only principal elements without the ornaments [senza ornamenti]. And on certain projects, out of utmost frustration, Filippo would work with the masons and stone cutters only in drawings [co disegni solamente], filling in additional gaps of the hand with verbal instruction.54 For Filarete, the patron’s disegno rilevato also takes on a new life during construction, independent of its origin in as a conception between the patron and the architect [ingeneramento]. Upon acceptance by the patron [il padrone], the model is nursed to maturity by the architect; or in other words, the architect acts as the primary agent in the interpretation of the ingeneramento into ‘il suo edificio bello’.

This renewed role of disegno in the relationship between architects, builders, and patrons

owes much to Vitruvius, strengthening the idea the Filarete was cooking his own special disegno based partially on a re-empowerment of the Vitruvian science of graphidis. As an instrument of persuasion, the disegno of both Filarete and Brunelleschi seems well preserved from graphidis. We learn in Book I of De architectura that the architect ought to be a ”skilled draftsman [peritus graphidos]”, and that, “By his skill in draftsmanship [graphidis scientiam habere], he will find it easy by coloured drawings [exemplaribus pictis] to represent the effect desired.” The instrumental function of graphida is revealed through the use of speciem, solidifying the aspect of appearance (from specere: to look at): drawing is a skill [peritus] possessed by the one drawing [graphidos] in order to represent an effect for the purposes of showing [speciem].55 Furthermore, the shift to the drawing in its ‘coloured’ form, i.e. exemplaribus pictis, helps to strengthen the rhetorical intention of graphidis, indicating a kind of drawing which persuades through pictorial resemblance.56 And finally, not incidentally, the introduction of exemplaris, as a model or

51 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 40. See also pg. 53 “...farò il sopradetto modello o vuoi dire disegno rilevato.” 52 Filarete, Trattato, pg. 56. 53 This episode is recounted in Vasari’s Vita di Arnolfo di Lapo. 54 Manetti, Vita, “...ma facieua co disegni solamente e a boccha di mano in mano dicieua agli scarpellinj e maestrj de cazuola...” pg. 117 55 Vitrvius, I.I.4, “Deinde graphidis scientiam habere, quo facilius exemplaribus pictis quam velit operis speciem deformare valeat.” 56 Cesariano (1521) reinforces the idea of pictoral drawings (for showing) in his translation: “Dopoi havere la sciencia de la graphida acio: che piu facilmente el possa la specie de caduna cosa chel vogliacon li pincti exeplarii deformare.” (fol. IV.v) Also, in his commentary, “...la antigraphida scientia: id est la pictura”.

11

Page 12: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

precedent, was a common tool in the Roman art of rhetoric: Cicero mentions knowledge of “exemplorum copiam “as among the chief aids to the orator.57

Such an interpretation of Vitruvius brings us back full circle. As stated earlier, Filarete’s disegno is conceived as a reinterpretation of Vitruvius as filtered through his own experience as a sculptor within the prevailing culture of the medieval architect as capomaestro. The Averlinian architect, now concerned with the Vitruvian scientiae, is nonetheless still a product of the middle ages. Disegno is the pragmatic and speculative instrument by which this new architect practices, all of which originate in knowledge gained through the hands. Vitruvius might have agreed, since ratiocinatio is, above all, grounded in material: it consists in the explanation and demonstration [demonstratre atque explicare] of the principles of things which are cunningly wrought [res fabricatas sollertiae]. Concurrently, fabrica itself is kind of handed meditation [meditatio, quae manibus perficitur].58 Assuming Filarete could produce a careful reading of Vitruvius, it seems logical that he would place such an emphasis on handed knowledge, especially given his own background in the bottega.59 Thus, while Filarete acknowledges the visual contribution of disegno to the understanding of architecture, it is still intensely corporal, rooted in the idea that the practice of architecture requires that the person has drawn and made things himself. The rhetorical power of disegno, as a showing, not only lies in its purely visual resemblance to a verbal idea, it lies powerfully within the ethos of the architect as a maker, as one who knows and investigates through the use of his own hands. The handed making of ‘varie cose’, repeatedly invoked throughout Filarete’s narrative, becomes, along with knowledge of various scienzie, the foundation for knowledge of an architect’s disegno. Through this, Filarete demonstrates that knowledge obtained by the hand ought to be the source for an architect’s authority, imagination, and education. Drawing heavily on his own history as a sculptor, handed knowledge of materials and processes becomes the basis for a transition from the predominant craftsman-architect into a new ‘humanist’ architect concerned with the persuasive or rhetorical role of an architect now removed from direct construction. Disegni, then, are the manifest representations of this new responsibility; as an extension of the rhetorical hand of the sculptor-turned-architect. In this way they are conceived in the mind out of ingengo and born into the world di sua mano.

Frontispiece from the Latin translation, Filarete, Trattato, Antonio Bonfini, c.1480 Jonathan Foote | WAACsummer 2008 | dedicado a c*

Interestingly, Cesariano prefers Vitruvius’ graphida over previous translations of it as disegno in Ghiberti, Filarete, and Francesco di Giorgio. 57 Cicero, De Oratore, I.LX.256. 58 Vitruvius, I.i.i. Cesariano reinforces this nuance: “La fabrica si e una continuata & trita meditatione di consuetudine quale si fa conmane.” 59 Filarete’s self-declared lack of skill in lettere is apparently evidence against his skillful command of Latin (Trattato, pg. 11). However, I think we can assume he at least had a working knowledge of it, considering his extensive citations of Vitruvius and Pliny in the Trattato. Spenser in his citations (pg. 301, n.7) points out several finer points in the Trattato which evidently prove Filarete must have had a basic reading knowledge of Latin. Filarete makes certain references to Alberti’s De Pictura, for example, which could only be gleaned from the Latin text.

12

Page 13: The rhetorical hands of Filarete

13

FINIS