DOI Heft:
Nr. 2-4
DOI Artikel:Fabiański, Marcin: Ideal Musea in Filarete's Tratatto
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48711#0247
MARCIN FABIAŃSKI
IDEAŁ MU SE A IN FILARETE'S TRATATTO*
In Book XVIII of his Trattato d’archittettura, written in
Milan between 1461 and 1464, Filaretę described two fanciful
fabrics: that of a musaeum in a Pałace of Yirtue and that
of a Tempie of Virtue (Arete, Yirtus)1.
The fragment with the Pałace intorested scholara because
thore bas boen described only one generał Yirtue instead of
a number of differont personifications occurring in medieval
literaturę. Panofsky traced this motif back to Xenophont,
whereas Mommsen noticod it in modern literaturo as early
as 1314 and later in Petrarch2. Carla Lord endeavoured to
connoct Filarote’s Yirtue with the sun and light3. Bauer and
Grassi strossed the allegorical character of Filarete’s design4.
It was only Elisabeth Schróter, however, who examined
the iconography of the design and stated that the struc-
turo belonged to the type of Parnassus as a meeting-pla-
ce of outstanding people, who excel in the arts5. Zagermann
omphasized the role played by the arts, Cardinal and theolo-
gical virtues on a human soul’s way to the generał virtue in
Filaroto’s book6. Recently F. Rufini tried to reconstruct the
architecture of the Pałace and connected it with the Colosseum
and the Septizodium, which was belicved to have been
a tempie of the Sun and that of the seven liberał arts6a.
Neither of the aforementioned authors heeded the image of a
domed shrine of the Muses on the top of the Pałace of Yirtue.
Recently W. Prinz pointed out that this idea foreshadowed
the architectural theme of domed sanctuaries of Yirtue and the
Muses, to become popular in the 16th century7. The Tempie of
Yirtue bas not interested art historians; only J. R. Spencer
madę an attempt to reconstruct its form8.
*
* *
Filarete’s descriptions are neither straightforward, nor
elear; the author adopts vague and equivocal expressions,
often repeats himself and in subseąuent versions of his des-
criptions changes details. What is even worse, a copyist
has omitted some significant minutiae, or added some new
* The present paper is a chapter taken from my dissertation Ideał
Musea in Italy at the Time of the Renaissance and Mannerism, written
under the supervision ofProf. Adam Małkiewicz, Uniwersytet Jagielloński,
Cracow. The paper was read at a sitting of the Komisja Teorii i Historii
Sztuki Oddziału Krakowskiego PAN (Commission for Art Theory and
History of the Cracow Branch of the Polish Academy of Sciences) on
March 13th, 1986. I am indebted to Prof. Carla Lanckorońska for having
enabled me to complete this study in Romę.
1 See J. SCHLOSSER MAGNINO, La letteratura artittica. Manuale
delle fonti della storia deWarte moderna, ed. 0. KURZ, Wien—Firenze
1979, pp. 129—133, 136 and 713; — P. TIGLER, Die Architekturtheorie
des Filaretę (= Neue munchner Beitrfige zur Kunstgeschichte, Bd. 5), Berlin
1963; — A. FILARETĘ, Treatise on Architecture, ed. and translated by
J. R. SPENCER, New Haven—London 1965, vol. 1, p. 245 ff;—A. AVER-
LINO detto IL FILARETĘ, Trattato di Architettura, ed. A. M. FINOLI
e L. GRASSI ( = Trattati di architettura, vol. 7), Milano 1972, vol. 1—2.
2 zob. E. PANOFSKY, Herkules am Scheidewege und andere antike
Bildstoffe in der neueren Kunst ( = Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, Bd. 18),
Leipzig—Berlin 1930, p. 195; — T. E. MOMMSEN, Petrarch and the Story
of the Choice of Hercules, „Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institu-
tes” XVI, 1953, pp. 179—180.
3 C. LORD, Solar Imagery in Filaretę’s Doors to St. Peter’s, „Gazette
des Beaux Arts” LXXXVII, 1976, p. 146.
4 H. BAUER, Kunst und Utopie. Studien iiber das Kunst- und Staats-
denken in der Renaissance, Berlin 1965, pp. 79—81; — L. GRASSI, Intro-
duzione [in:] Filaretę, Trattato..., vol. 1, pp. XVIII—XIX.
5 E. SCHRÓTER, Die Ikonographie des Themas Parnass vor Raphael.
Die Schrift- und Bildtraditionen von der Sptitantike bis zum 15. Jahrhundert
(= Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, Bd. 6), Hildesheim—New York 1977,
pp. 157-163: Antonio Auerlino Filaretes Beschreibung des Hauses der Tugend
und des Lasters in der Idealstadt Sforzinda.
6 H. ZAGERMANN, Studien zur Ikonologie des barocken Treppen-
hauses in Deutschland und Osterreich, Ttibingen 1978, pp. 239—245.
6a F. RUFFINI, Teatri prima del teatro. Fisioni dell’edificio e della
scena tra Umanesimo e Rinascimento ( = Centro Studi „Europa delle Corti”.
Biblioteca del Cinąuecento, vol. 20), Roma 1983, chapter I: L’invenzione
del teatro La „Casa del uizie, della virtu del Filaretę, pp. 23—60.
7 W. PRINZ, Schloss Chambord und die Filia Rotonda in Ficenza.
Studien zur Ikonologie ( = Frankfurter Forschungen zur Kunst, Bd. 7),
Berlin 1980, p. 63 ff; — W. PRINZ und R. G. KECKS, Das franzbsische
Schloss der Renaissance. Form und Bedeutung der Architektur, ihre geschicht-
lichen und gesellschaftLchen. Grundlagen ( = Frankfurter Forschungen
zur Kunst, Bd. 12), Berlin 1985, p. 399.
8 J. R. SPENCER, Filaretę and Central-Plan Architecture, „Journal
of the Society of Architectural Historians” XVIII 1958, pp. 16—18.
193
IDEAŁ MU SE A IN FILARETE'S TRATATTO*
In Book XVIII of his Trattato d’archittettura, written in
Milan between 1461 and 1464, Filaretę described two fanciful
fabrics: that of a musaeum in a Pałace of Yirtue and that
of a Tempie of Virtue (Arete, Yirtus)1.
The fragment with the Pałace intorested scholara because
thore bas boen described only one generał Yirtue instead of
a number of differont personifications occurring in medieval
literaturę. Panofsky traced this motif back to Xenophont,
whereas Mommsen noticod it in modern literaturo as early
as 1314 and later in Petrarch2. Carla Lord endeavoured to
connoct Filarote’s Yirtue with the sun and light3. Bauer and
Grassi strossed the allegorical character of Filarete’s design4.
It was only Elisabeth Schróter, however, who examined
the iconography of the design and stated that the struc-
turo belonged to the type of Parnassus as a meeting-pla-
ce of outstanding people, who excel in the arts5. Zagermann
omphasized the role played by the arts, Cardinal and theolo-
gical virtues on a human soul’s way to the generał virtue in
Filaroto’s book6. Recently F. Rufini tried to reconstruct the
architecture of the Pałace and connected it with the Colosseum
and the Septizodium, which was belicved to have been
a tempie of the Sun and that of the seven liberał arts6a.
Neither of the aforementioned authors heeded the image of a
domed shrine of the Muses on the top of the Pałace of Yirtue.
Recently W. Prinz pointed out that this idea foreshadowed
the architectural theme of domed sanctuaries of Yirtue and the
Muses, to become popular in the 16th century7. The Tempie of
Yirtue bas not interested art historians; only J. R. Spencer
madę an attempt to reconstruct its form8.
*
* *
Filarete’s descriptions are neither straightforward, nor
elear; the author adopts vague and equivocal expressions,
often repeats himself and in subseąuent versions of his des-
criptions changes details. What is even worse, a copyist
has omitted some significant minutiae, or added some new
* The present paper is a chapter taken from my dissertation Ideał
Musea in Italy at the Time of the Renaissance and Mannerism, written
under the supervision ofProf. Adam Małkiewicz, Uniwersytet Jagielloński,
Cracow. The paper was read at a sitting of the Komisja Teorii i Historii
Sztuki Oddziału Krakowskiego PAN (Commission for Art Theory and
History of the Cracow Branch of the Polish Academy of Sciences) on
March 13th, 1986. I am indebted to Prof. Carla Lanckorońska for having
enabled me to complete this study in Romę.
1 See J. SCHLOSSER MAGNINO, La letteratura artittica. Manuale
delle fonti della storia deWarte moderna, ed. 0. KURZ, Wien—Firenze
1979, pp. 129—133, 136 and 713; — P. TIGLER, Die Architekturtheorie
des Filaretę (= Neue munchner Beitrfige zur Kunstgeschichte, Bd. 5), Berlin
1963; — A. FILARETĘ, Treatise on Architecture, ed. and translated by
J. R. SPENCER, New Haven—London 1965, vol. 1, p. 245 ff;—A. AVER-
LINO detto IL FILARETĘ, Trattato di Architettura, ed. A. M. FINOLI
e L. GRASSI ( = Trattati di architettura, vol. 7), Milano 1972, vol. 1—2.
2 zob. E. PANOFSKY, Herkules am Scheidewege und andere antike
Bildstoffe in der neueren Kunst ( = Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, Bd. 18),
Leipzig—Berlin 1930, p. 195; — T. E. MOMMSEN, Petrarch and the Story
of the Choice of Hercules, „Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institu-
tes” XVI, 1953, pp. 179—180.
3 C. LORD, Solar Imagery in Filaretę’s Doors to St. Peter’s, „Gazette
des Beaux Arts” LXXXVII, 1976, p. 146.
4 H. BAUER, Kunst und Utopie. Studien iiber das Kunst- und Staats-
denken in der Renaissance, Berlin 1965, pp. 79—81; — L. GRASSI, Intro-
duzione [in:] Filaretę, Trattato..., vol. 1, pp. XVIII—XIX.
5 E. SCHRÓTER, Die Ikonographie des Themas Parnass vor Raphael.
Die Schrift- und Bildtraditionen von der Sptitantike bis zum 15. Jahrhundert
(= Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, Bd. 6), Hildesheim—New York 1977,
pp. 157-163: Antonio Auerlino Filaretes Beschreibung des Hauses der Tugend
und des Lasters in der Idealstadt Sforzinda.
6 H. ZAGERMANN, Studien zur Ikonologie des barocken Treppen-
hauses in Deutschland und Osterreich, Ttibingen 1978, pp. 239—245.
6a F. RUFFINI, Teatri prima del teatro. Fisioni dell’edificio e della
scena tra Umanesimo e Rinascimento ( = Centro Studi „Europa delle Corti”.
Biblioteca del Cinąuecento, vol. 20), Roma 1983, chapter I: L’invenzione
del teatro La „Casa del uizie, della virtu del Filaretę, pp. 23—60.
7 W. PRINZ, Schloss Chambord und die Filia Rotonda in Ficenza.
Studien zur Ikonologie ( = Frankfurter Forschungen zur Kunst, Bd. 7),
Berlin 1980, p. 63 ff; — W. PRINZ und R. G. KECKS, Das franzbsische
Schloss der Renaissance. Form und Bedeutung der Architektur, ihre geschicht-
lichen und gesellschaftLchen. Grundlagen ( = Frankfurter Forschungen
zur Kunst, Bd. 12), Berlin 1985, p. 399.
8 J. R. SPENCER, Filaretę and Central-Plan Architecture, „Journal
of the Society of Architectural Historians” XVIII 1958, pp. 16—18.
193