MAGNIFICENTIA IN CORTESI'S DE CARDINALATU LIBRI TRES (1510)

Paolo Cortesi wrote his treatise on the cardinal in the last years of the fifteenth and the first years of the sixteenth century.Footnote ³ At that time, he had completed a long career in the Roman Curia.Footnote ⁴ For years he had circulated within Rome's elite and frequented numerous cardinal courts. In 1503, for reasons that remain unclear, he retreated to his native region, around San Gimignano. There, he finished his treatise on the cardinal. Interestingly, in the introductory letter to the treatise, the monk Severo Piacentino disclosed that Cortesi had not originally intended to write on the cardinal; rather, he had conceived a work “de instituendo Principe” (“on the education of the prince”).Footnote ⁵ After a conversation with Cardinal Ascanio Sforza (1455–1505), Cortesi changed his focus, deciding to write on the ecclesiastical, rather than the secular, prince.

The genesis of De Cardinalatu Libri Tres sheds light on the structure of the treatise, as well as the discussion of magnificentia it contains. The treatise is composed of three books: Liber Ethicus et Contemplativus, Liber Oeconomicus, and Liber Politicus (Book on ethics and contemplation; Book on household management; Book on politics) (see appendix). It thus follows the threefold structure that had become common for a De Regimine Principum (On the governance of princes) since the eponymous work of Giles of Rome (ca. 1243–1316).Footnote ⁶ In three separate books, Cortesi's treatise describes how the cardinal should act as an individual, as the head of a household, and as a public figure. The subject of magnificentia appears twice: once in the first book, on the individual, and once in the second book, on the household.

The concept of magnificentia, the virtue of making appropriate expenditures on a large scale for the creation of great works, appears for the first time in chapter 1 of the first book, in which Cortesi discusses the virtues that a cardinal must fulfill.Footnote ⁷ In addition to magnificentia, the virtues discussed include prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, liberality, magnanimity, mildness, and affability.Footnote ⁸ While Cortesi devotes one or more pages to each of these virtues, he only briefly touches on magnificentia, but signals that he will return to the virtue in “a most proper place for discussion.”Footnote ⁹ This place appears in the last chapter of the second book.Footnote ¹⁰ In the second book, Liber Oeconomicus, Cortesi discusses every aspect of household management: the cardinal's income, the urban residence, his family, friends, daily meals, health care, control of the passions, giving audiences, speech, the metaphors to use in speech, and, finally, how to spend the money that remains after all the previous household tasks have been accomplished. It is under this last chapter that magnificentia as a social virtue is discussed.

It should be noted that Cortesi discusses magnificentia only after a full chapter has already been devoted to the cardinal's residence. The actual construction of the residence is considered a separate task. Only after the residence has been completed (and the other household tasks have been accomplished), can money be spent to fulfill the social virtue of magnificence. What this social virtue entails is discussed in that final chapter. Magnificence is discussed there alongside two other virtues related to the appropriate spending of money: “liberality” (“liberalitas”) and “giving alms” (“donatio” or “elemosyna”).Footnote ¹¹ Yet, while liberality and giving alms both relate to the giving of money, magnificence refers to spending money on architectural commissions. The liberal cardinal gives money to relatives, theologians, philosophers, those professing the liberal arts, orators, poets, and virtuous and learned friends.Footnote ¹² Almsgiving, on the other hand, is done out of “pity” (“misericordia”).Footnote ¹³ Cortesi advises the cardinal to give money to the old, the learned, those with old fathers or poor sons, and those having met with calamity, among others.Footnote ¹⁴ In regard to magnificent spending on architectural commissions, Cortesi is very specific about what kinds of buildings the cardinal should fund. He mentions churches and sanctuaries (mainly titular churches); hospitals for travelers, lepers, children, and the sick; convents for mendicant brothers; and, more generally, buildings that serve the public good, such as libraries, public auditoriums, and houses for the learned.

Virtuous architectural commissioning thus focuses on buildings that honor God and serve others. By identifying such buildings as appropriate objects of architectural patronage, Cortesi emphasizes the cardinal's ecclesiastical role—the cardinal praises God and provides what is necessary for the subjects entrusted to his care. Cortesi probably drew inspiration from the Florentine archbishop Antoninus (1389–1459), who wrote about magnificence in his Summa Theologica.Footnote ¹⁵ In this work, Antoninus emphasizes the caring responsibility of the rich and powerful, “to whom, says Ambrose, superabundance has been given by God, so that they acquire the merit of good stewardship.”Footnote ¹⁶ Since God gave the rich and powerful responsibility over the poor, it was obvious to Antoninus that they would invest their wealth in buildings that would benefit these individuals: hospitals, chapels, and public churches. This advice “applies most to leading citizens (principes) and prelates, who especially ought to aim at great things above all for the honour of God and the benefit of others who are assigned to their care.”Footnote ¹⁷ Cortesi appears to have followed Antoninus's advice in defining magnificence as a virtue that specifically aimed to make buildings honoring God and benefitting the Christian community. Magnificence as a social virtue is thus formulated quite specifically in the De Cardinalatu. It is about financing buildings, and about honoring God and being of service.

The specificity of Cortesi's formulations becomes even more apparent when comparison is made with Giovanni Pontano's treatise De Magnificentia (On magnificence), written in the late fifteenth century for the Neapolitan elite.Footnote ¹⁸ Here, Pontano (1429–1503) gives a freer interpretation of what could be considered magnificent patronage.Footnote ¹⁹ To begin, he does not limit the objects on which the magnificent man spends money to buildings. Although buildings are a substantial part of his discussion, Pontano also cites public games, weddings, and the reception of guests as appropriate objects of expenditure.Footnote ²⁰ Moreover, unlike the liberal man, who spends “with a view to utility” (“propter solam utilitatem”), the magnificent man also spends “with a view to pleasure” (“propter uoluptatem”).Footnote ²¹ Both aspects are irreconcilable with Cortesi's definition of magnificence as a social virtue for the cardinal. In performing the virtue of magnificence, the ecclesiastical prince honors God and provides what is necessary for the subjects assigned to his care—specifically, in financing the construction of buildings.

DIGNITAS AND WEALTH

The construction of an urban residence does not fit into Cortesi's ethical dimension of magnificence. In De Cardinalatu, constructing a residence is separate from magnificentia as a social virtue. The residence rather aims to contribute to the cardinal's dignitas. According to Cortesi, this dignity depended primarily on the display of wealth. In the early modern period, the cardinal's dignitas played a crucial role in determining his elevated position in the Church's hierarchy, which was based on his nomination as cardinal by the pope.Footnote ²² It was the dignity of the cardinal's office, related to juridical power (potestas jurisdictionis), and not clerical order (potestas ordinis), that placed him at the very top of the ecclesiastical ladder, just beneath the pope. Although this dignity necessarily came with the appointment to the office, Cortesi suggests that its recognition within the sociopolitical reality of Rome was not a foregone conclusion. The cardinal needed to display wealth in order for his dignity to be recognized. For “without the power of wealth, dignity stands naked.”Footnote ²³ Wealth can contribute to the recognition of the cardinal's dignity because of the admiration it evokes. This admiration prevents the cardinal from being met with offense and contempt.Footnote ²⁴

Cortesi's position is important because it relates to the political-aesthetic dimension of magnificentia. From the thirteenth century onward, a textual tradition emerged that linked magnificence to authority.Footnote ²⁵ This tradition, based on translations and commentaries of Aristotle's Politics, postulated that magnificent objects evoke admiration in the beholder and compel him toward submission and respect. The tradition gave rise to an entire body of work addressing the political benefits of magnificent patronage, in which the ethical and political-aesthetic dimensions of magnificence were often taken together.Footnote ²⁶ A famous example is Giannozzo Manetti's biography of Pope Nicholas V (1397–1455), written around 1455, which presents the pope's architectural patronage as a sign of his virtue, but also as a means to strengthen the authority of the church. Cortesi, however, completely separates the two. He treats magnificentia as a social virtue as something separate and suggests utilizing the sociopolitical advantage of magnificent objects (and, thus, of sumptuous display) to shape the cardinal's dignity.

The importance Cortesi places on wealth, which, through sumptuous display, should be used to acquire dignity, is strongly expressed in the first chapter of Liber Oeconomicus. This is devoted entirely to the discussion of cardinals’ income, which must not only be equal for all but, above all, sufficiently high.Footnote ²⁷ This wealth must be used toward sumptuous display in numerous areas. Each of these aspects is addressed in the second book, which concerns the construction of an urban residence, the maintenance of friendships, appropriate dress, and, in general, the adoption of a sumptuous lifestyle. This lifestyle fits the elevated position of the cardinal within society and aims to arouse admiration and respect among the people of Rome. In doing so, it helps to secure the cardinal's position in the sociopolitical realm.

In drawing a clear distinction between the ethical and political-aesthetic dimensions of magnificence—treating the latter as an independent element and separated from the term magnificentia—Cortesi indicates that sumptuous display has essentially a sociopolitical function. The cardinal must uphold a sumptuous lifestyle if he is to ensure his own position and safety. In addition, Cortesi shows his understanding that the dignity following from this sumptuous display depends on the visual. The mechanisms by which display leads to respect and submission are entirely dependent on how admiration is generated in the visual encounter with the sumptuous. It is what is seen that evokes admiration and initiates a particular behavior. In what follows, Cortesi's discussion of the exterior ornament for the cardinal's residence is taken up to illustrate this awareness. At the same time, this topic allows for a discussion of the broader implications of Cortesi's distinction between magnificence's ethical and political-aesthetic dimensions for contemporary architectural design theory.

SUMPTUOUSNESS AND DIGNITY IN CORTESI'S ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN THEORY

Cortesi advises on the exterior ornament of the cardinal's residence at the end of the chapter entitled “De Domo” (On the house).Footnote ²⁸ This passage is very rich in content and references, and therefore worth quoting in its entirety. Cortesi writes:

Cortesi thus advises the cardinal to provide exterior ornament for the urban residence that is not only attractively designed but also sumptuously executed. It is the mightiness of the building and the admiration generated by its opulence that will deter the ignorant crowd. Because the unlearned man is usually guided by the judgment of the senses and not by rational reflection, he will—upon seeing the exterior ornament—be deterred from violence. In ornamenting the cardinal's residence, therefore, it is better to opt for a mode of ornament that will awe the people in its dignified splendor, rather than one that will evoke contempt by its modest appearance.

One of Cortesi's principal sources for this passage seems to have been Giles of Rome's De regimine principum (ca. 1280). As previously mentioned, Cortesi had originally intended to write on the governance of the prince, and at the time, Giles of Rome's De regimine principum was the leading example of this genre. Giles of Rome established the genre's threefold structure and introduced a more educational tone. More than 350 manuscript copies exist today, and already in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the text was extensively translated, with editions in Italian, Castilian, Catalan, English, Flemish, French, and Hebrew, among other languages.Footnote ³⁰ The work was among the first books to be printed in Italy, with a Roman edition in 1482, followed by Venetian editions in 1498 and 1502.Footnote ³¹ Cortesi most probably had access to it on a daily basis while he was living in Rome. The 1447 inventory of the Vatican library lists the presence of at least two manuscripts in the collection.Footnote ³² Today the Vatican library also has printed editions in Latin from 1473, 1482, and 1498.Footnote ³³

In his De regimine principum, Giles of Rome discusses the social virtue of magnificence in the first book on the prince as an individual.Footnote ³⁴ Magnificence is again addressed in the second book, in the context of the prince's residence.Footnote ³⁵ This residence, the author writes, should be a “wondrous house, built with subtle craftsmanship” (“mirabiles & subtili industria constructas”).Footnote ³⁶ The word “industria” (“industry” or “craftsmanship”) comes from Palladius's De re rustica (On agriculture), in which it is used to refer to the only nonnatural element of agriculture. Industria depends on human “possibility and will” (“facultas et voluntas”), and thus refers to human activity and craft.Footnote ³⁷ In the Old English translation of De regimine principum, by John Trevisa (ca. 1342–1402), “mirabiles & subtili industria constructas” is translated as “wonder house and craftiliche imaad.”Footnote ³⁸ In a thirteenth-century French translation, this phrase is rendered as “granz et biaux soutivement fez.”Footnote ³⁹

Giles of Rome advances three reasons why a prince should build a wondrous, subtly crafted residence: to exercise the virtue of magnificentia, to protect the prince from attack, and to house his administration and family.Footnote ⁴⁰ The specific words he uses in regard to the second function read as follows:

In Giles of Rome's De regimine principum, the ethical and political-aesthetic dimensions of magnificence appear side by side, and taken together they legitimate why a prince should build a wondrous residence constructed with subtle craftsmanship. Cortesi adopts the second element of magnificence in his discussion of the residence's exterior ornament, but disconnects it from the actual term. Cortesi follows closely on the vocabulary employed by Giles of Rome. Based on this comparison—as well as on the structure of the treatises, the treatment of the residence therein, and the availability of the text to Cortesi—De regimine principum can be put forward as the main source for Cortesi's formulations on the deterrent effect of architectural ornament, as well as for his conscious decision to omit the word magnificence.

But there is more. Cortesi not only adopts Giles's advice but also describes in more specific terms the reflective mechanisms that underlie the deterrent effect of the ornament. According to Cortesi, the deterrent effect is based on the visual perception of the ornament, and the fact that the uneducated mass is moved more by sensory perception than by rational reflection. Apart from the emotional impact of admiration itself, the ornament deters by the associations it evokes through its form and richness. The ignorant people “see” (“spectando”) the ornament, and with the estimative faculty of the mind, they “judge” (“aestimet”) that the cardinal's power must be too large for him to be overthrown.Footnote ⁴² Cortesi's vocabulary here mirrors that used in contemporary theories of sense perception and human behavior.Footnote ⁴³ He is aware that the terrifying effect of the residence depends specifically on its visual qualities.

The prominence given to the aesthetic dimension in Cortesi's theory is also reflected in a second adaptation he makes to the prescription of Giles of Rome. Giles of Rome interprets the term magnificence not only in terms of wealth and craftsmanship but also in terms of size. The “size” (“magnitudo”) of the buildings, he instructs the reader, is not aimed at ostentation or vainglory; it should ensure that the people do not hold the prince in contempt.Footnote ⁴⁴ Cortesi, however, speaks not of size but of ornament—specifically, the ornament applied to the exterior of the building. Cortesi thus advises the cardinal to rely on the deterrent effect of architectural design where it is really needed: on the building's outer surface, which is most visible to the crowd from the street. His theory of architectural ornament, therefore, is one of surface treatment that, through its visual properties, is capable of influencing the behavior of the viewer. Because this ornament is attractively designed and sumptuously executed, it will move the beholder toward submission and respect.

What Cortesi means by an “attractively designed” (“descriptioni lepos”) and “sumptuously executed” (“sumptus in aedificando”) ornament becomes clear from the contemporary residences he cites. Through these examples, as will be discussed shortly, Cortesi proposes a formal architectural language, based on exempla from classical antiquity, as a design system.Footnote ⁴⁵ Speaking on potential construction materials, he lists travertine, a combination of brick and travertine, as well as incised stucco. Cortesi does not seem to have a specific preference for one material over others.Footnote ⁴⁶ Yet, whatever material the cardinal chooses, he emphasizes, the execution must be sumptuous.

THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF ORNAMENT VERSUS THE CALMING EFFECT OF BEAUTY

Cortesi was not the only author to write on the potential deterrent or protective effect of architectural design. His design prescriptions for the exterior ornament of the cardinal's residence can be related to Leon Battista Alberti (1404–. In his architectural treatise De Re Aedificatoria (On the art of building) (written 1455–72, published 1486), Alberti writes that beauty can calm an enemy's anger and protect a building from human violence. Still, Alberti and Cortesi differ greatly in their positions on the visual appearance of architecture and the emotional and behavioral response it evokes. As argued here, Alberti's theory was more of an exception in the tradition that considers the effect of a building's visual appearance on the beholder. His position seems to fit within the specific context of his architectural treatise, which seeks to capture the essence of beauty and ornament and to translate it into design rules for architecture. Cortesi's position, in contrast, relates more to a parallel tradition that developed within the literary genre of the mirrors of princes.

In the sixth book of his architectural treatise, Alberti writes that

According to Alberti, beauty can thus soothe the anger of an enemy, thereby ensuring that a building will not be attacked. He defines this “beauty” (“pulchritudo”) as an inherent quality of the object, based on its form.Footnote ⁴⁸ Alberti's beauty is a reasoned harmony of all the parts within a body, so that nothing may be added, taken away, or altered, but for the worse. Together with “ornament” (“ornamentum”), which Alberti defines as something added, “a form of auxiliary light and complement to beauty,” it lends dignity and grace to a building.Footnote ⁴⁹ It is in the visual perception of this “dignity and grace of form” (“formae dignitate ac venustate”), and through the presence of beauty in it, that an enemy's fury is soothed.

Alberti gives his readers few indications for understanding how and why beauty has this effect, and scholars have presented various explanations—variably based on (a combination of) Aristotelian and Platonic elements—to make sense of Alberti's belief in the effect of beauty.Footnote ⁵⁰ A key seems to lie with the concept of concinnitas, the laws that underlie nature's creations and lend them their beauty. Either way, Alberti declares that the mind's recognition of beauty—and its calming effect on anger—is universal and immediate.

From this brief review, it is possible to delineate a number of important differences between Alberti's and Cortesi's theories on the effect a building's visual appearance has on its beholder. First, it is notable that Alberti writes about the calming effect of beauty, while Cortesi focuses on the deterrent. Although the final result is essentially the same for both authors (the building is protected from attack), the attitude toward what the building does and the emotions the beholder undergoes is very different. Second, for Alberti, the calming effect of beauty is universal and instantaneous: it applies to everyone, and it goes to work immediately on the beholder's mind. For Cortesi, the deterrent effect is audience dependent (it applies to the “ignorant masses,” who are guided more by the “judgment of the senses than by reasoned reflection”) and indirect (a building's ornament deters through the admiration it evokes and the associations that the viewer makes between visual opulence and power). Finally, for Alberti, the calming effect is based on a property inherent in the architectural object as a whole. Beauty, in Alberti's treatise, relates to the design of the building as a body. For Cortesi, the building's deterrent effect lies in the exterior ornament, which he considers a surface treatment, specifically applied to the building's outer shell.

These differences are essential to understanding the specificity of Alberti's discussion of the protective power of beauty. Alberti's reflections fit within the specific context of his architectural treatise, in which he attempts to define beauty and ornament, as well as their interrelationship, and to prescribe how they are obtained in building.Footnote ⁵¹ Cortesi's design rules for the exterior ornament of the cardinal's residence are of a more practical nature, in that they are formulated with a specific purpose in mind: to ensure the stability of the cardinal's sociopolitical position in Rome. Alberti's discussion of the calming effect of beauty as an important source for Cortesi's design prescriptions for ornament must, therefore, be nuanced. This becomes even clearer when Cortesi's treatise is placed in relation to the mirrors of princes genre.

DE CARDINALATU LIBRI TRES, MIRRORS OF PRINCES, AND A THEORY OF ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENT

Over the course of the fifteenth century, multiple De Regimine Principum were written for Italian princes.Footnote ⁵² The genre became especially popular in the second half of the fifteenth century, when more and more signori came to power in diverse city-states and employed humanists in their courts. The advice books written by these humanists took various forms, from short letters to elaborate treatises. Bartolomeo Sacchi's De Regimine Principum (1471) is an interesting example to compare with Cortesi's De Cardinalatu. In this work too, the author puts forth a theory of architectural ornament that places its utility in strengthening the sociopolitical position of the prince; and whose power is directly dependent upon the associative nature of architectural ornament.

Bartolomeo Sacchi “Platina” (1421–81) dedicated his De Regimine Principum in 1471 to Federico Gonzaga.Footnote ⁵³ In this work, Platina too includes a short chapter on the prince's residence and specifically discusses what kind of ornament was best provided. In formulating his advice, Platina refers to Homer. “According to Homer,” the author writes, “the prince's residence should not be adorned with gold, ivory, or silver, but with spolia of his enemies.” The former are full of “the delights and lasciviousness of women,” which the prince should avoid at all times.Footnote ⁵⁴ Homer used the description of houses to impart the personality of his characters. Therefore, the prince's residence should be “so magnificent and splendid, so that it contains nothing effeminate or feminine.”Footnote ⁵⁵

Platina's discussion of architectural ornament is based on the idea that ornament connotes strong visual and social associations. He argues that the associations evoked by gold, ivory, and silver weaken, rather than strengthen, the position of the prince. If the prince wants to strengthen his sociopolitical position, it is better to provide ornament that suggests skill in warfare. Spolia of enemies seem especially appropriate. Although Platina does not make explicit the protective effect of architectural ornament (as did Cortesi), it is clear that he has a similar purpose in mind. Architectural ornament should reinforce the prince's sociopolitical position within society through the associations it evokes.

Cortesi's design requirements for the exterior ornament of the cardinal's residence clearly relate to this tradition. It is within the mirrors of princes genre that a theory of architectural ornament seems to develop over the course of the second half of the fifteenth century, one that relies on ornament's associative nature, and specifically places its utility within a sociopolitical context of power and authority acquisition. That this tradition developed specifically within the mirror of princes genre—and specifically in relation to the princely residence—should not be surprising. How to acquire power and authority, and what contribution outward appearance could make to that end, was an important issue for secular and ecclesiastical princes in Renaissance Italy.Footnote ⁵⁶ Furthermore, the question of how to protect oneself from physical violence was very real. There are countless examples of political intrigues and conspiracies at the time. Cortesi made clear—through the examples he cites—what kind of violence he specifically feared for the cardinal: that resulting from political sedition and rebellion (as befell Pope Eugenius IV in the mid-fifteenth century) and that taking place during the vacant see (when Rome temporarily became the scene for numerous acts of violence, with the residence of the cardinal-elected pope also sacked as part of ritual actions).Footnote ⁵⁷ In his chapter on the cardinal's palace, Cortesi thus developed an architectural design theory on ornament that could contribute to protect the cardinal from this kind of harm. In addition to the exterior ornament, he included more physical means of protection. For example, he recommended that the cardinal provide an armory at the entrance so that weapons would be ready at any time.Footnote ⁵⁸ He also advocated for a continuous walkway on the upper floor of the residence, from which the building could be defended.Footnote ⁵⁹

THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE INTERPRETATION OF ORNAMENTAL FORMS

The prescriptions of architectural ornament for the princely residence, as written down by Platina and Cortesi, illustrate both authors’ belief in the emotional and behavioral effect of a building's visual appearance on the beholder. Both Platina and Cortesi made explicit that certain architectural ornaments, through the associations they evoke, can contribute to the prince's sociopolitical position. Cortesi went even further by stating that this ornament can even protect the building from attack. Both authors also gave very specific examples of what kind of ornament can have such an effect. For Platina it is an ornament consisting of spolia of enemies. For Cortesi it is an architectural ornament, based on the formal language of classical antiquity and executed in travertine, a combination of brick and travertine, or incised stucco. That Cortesi specifically had this kind of ornament in mind can be deduced from the design prescriptions he includes and the contemporary examples of buildings he quotes. In the following, these examples are studied in detail, in order to individuate even more specifically which ornamental forms, as well as which materials, Cortesi found especially appropriate for the process of power acquisition through architectural design. After all, as the ever-growing body of studies on all'antica architecture of the Italian Renaissance has shown (and continues to show), this was a style that could take up many forms. The examples cited in the treatise, however, show that Cortesi had specific ornamental features in mind. He specifically considered a rusticated facade or a facade covered with pilasters, capitals, and friezes, framing smoothly squared blocks (executed in travertine, travertine in combination with brick, or incised stucco), as the most appropriate to protect oneself from harm.

Cortesi builds his argument for the exterior ornament of the cardinal's residence by addressing two aspects of it: its design and its materiality.Footnote ⁶⁰ For each of these two aspects, he provides contemporary examples of buildings. The discussion of the ornament's design, furthermore, takes the form of an architectural evolution, which reconstructs the emergence of a contemporary all'antica language, whose origins Cortesi situates in Florence. Thus, Cortesi writes how Cosimo de’ Medici (1389–1464) was the first to revive the “design system of classical antiquity” (“symmetria priscorum”), when he provided Palazzo Medici with a rusticated facade.Footnote ⁶¹ Federico da Montefeltro (1422–82) built upon these first attempts when “financing his buildings [in Urbino] with the revenues of wars.”Footnote ⁶² Pope Sixtus IV (r. 1471–84), in turn, made his own contribution to the evolution of a contemporary all'antica language when he commissioned a new building for the Curia in the Vatican. Roberto Sanseverino (1485–1508) followed with his urban residence in Naples. The apotheosis of this evolutionary story is placed in Rome. Reflecting on the design of ornament within the Vatican—most probably referring to Bramante's Cortile del Belvedere, which was then under construction—Cortesi praises the singularly “refined manner” (“artifitiosius”) of architecture commissioned by Pope Julius II (r. 1503–13). Once this evolutionary story of a contemporary all'antica language is made, Cortesi shifts to a discussion of the ornament's materiality. Here, he cites three possible materials to use: brick, a combination of brick and travertine, and incised stucco. As contemporary examples he cites three cardinals' residences in Rome. He celebrates the Palazzo della Cancelleria (figs. 1 and 2) and the Palazzo Giraud-Torlonia (fig. 3) for their use of travertine (and brick) and the Palazzo dei Penitenzieri (fig. 4) for its application of incised stucco.

Figure 1. Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome. Ornamental detail in travertine. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 2. Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome. Ornamental detail in travertine and brick. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 3. Palazzo Giraud-Torlonia, Rome. Facade in travertine. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 4. Palazzo dei Penitenzieri, Rome. Detail of facade, showing fragment of original incised stucco. © Flavia Rossi.

It may first be noted that Cortesi's exemplary patrons are all princes (secular or ecclesiastical)—with the notable exception of Cosimo de’ Medici. This selection emphasizes the link between his theory of ornament for the cardinal's residence and the mirrors of princes genre. Furthermore, that Cortesi includes Cosimo in this list of princely patrons, especially in a section that introduces the potential of architectural ornament to bestow power and authority, deserves closer scrutiny. It is well known that Cosimo's architectural patronage in Florence, and particularly that of his urban residence, came under fire from contemporaries.Footnote ⁶³ A frequent comment voiced in relation to Palazzo Medici was that it was a residence “fit for a prince” (or even a king).Footnote ⁶⁴ It is often difficult to determine whether this remark was intended as praise or as veiled criticism. After all, Cosimo, despite his wealth and prestige, was a private citizen, not a prince. By building a residence “fit for a prince,” he was contributing to the splendor and beauty of Florence, to be sure. But he was also breaking the social rules of decorum and might have been hoping—as contemporaries might have inferred from knowing the politico-aesthetic tradition of magnificence—to take advantage of the power and authority this magnificence might provide him. Timothei Maffei's letter of 1454, in which the friar defended Cosimo's patronage based on a discussion of magnificentia, might, I suggest, be read in this context: as an attempt to detach Cosimo's patronage from the politico-aesthetic dimension of magnificence and to firmly root it within the tradition that deals with its ethical dimension. One of the purposes of the text might have been to show that Cosimo acted as a virtuous citizen, not as a princely ruler, seeking authority and prestige. By including Cosimo in his list of princely patrons, Cortesi confirms that contemporaries continued to look upon Cosimo's patronage in terms of power and authority acquisition. His patronage—specifically, the application of certain ornamental forms—remained connected to that of princely rulers.

The Palazzo Medici and the princely residence of Roberto Sanseverino are the two examples that put rustication to the fore as an ideal ornamental feature to evoke power and authority (figs. 5 and 6).Footnote ⁶⁵ According to Cortesi, Cosimo applied a rustication to the Palazzo Medici based on a module of Trajan's Forum (although scholars have suggested that he probably meant the Forum of Augustus).Footnote ⁶⁶ In the Italian Renaissance, the Forum of Augustus contained the remains of what was considered by contemporaries to be an imperial palace.Footnote ⁶⁷ Thus, an ornamentation consisting of a roughly rusticated facade had associations not only with antiquity but also with imperial power and prestige. The urban residence of Roberto Sanseverino applied a more purified geometrical form of such rustication.Footnote ⁶⁸ The entire facade—now included in the Chiesa di Gesù Nuovo—is covered with an ornament consisting of so-called punta di diamante, square stones whose outer surfaces are sculpted into sharp, protruding geometric points.Footnote ⁶⁹ That two examples of rustication are cited in a discussion that highlights the potentially deterring effect of architectural ornament demonstrates (and confirms) the connotations attached to this ornamental form in the early sixteenth century. As is well known, these connotations are taken up and further developed in Sebastiano Serlio's treatise, where the Tuscan order is put forward as the most appropriate for fortifications and other defense structures. In his discussion of the Tuscan order, Serlio (1475–1554) included a page showing different forms of rusticated walls, consisting of rough as well as more geometrically shaped blocks (fig. 7).Footnote ⁷⁰

Figure 5. Palazzo Medici, Florence. Detail of facade, showing rough rustication of the ground floor. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 6. Chiesa di Gesù Nuovo. © su concessione del Ministero della Cultura, Soprintendenza archeologia, belle arti e paesaggio per il comune di Napoli.

Figure 7. Page from Sebastiano Serlio's Regole generali di architettura sopra le cinque maniere de gliedifici: Cioe, thoscano, dorico, ionico, corinthio, et composito, con gliessempi dell'antiquita, che per la magior parte concordano con la dottrina di Vitruuio (Venice: Per Francesco Marcolini da Forli, 1537) showing different forms of rustication to be applied on walls designed following the Tuscan order. © Avery Classics, Avery Architectural & Fine Arts Library, Columbia University.

The other examples cited by Cortesi, such as the Palazzo Ducale in Urbino (fig. 8) and Julius II's interventions in the Vatican (fig. 9), employ a form of ornamentation in which pilasters, friezes, and other classical elements frame smoothly squared travertine blocks or brickwork (also found in the Palazzo della Cancelleria and the Palazzo Giraud-Torlonia). In addition to strongly rusticated facades, Cortesi puts forward these features as especially capable of expressing wealth, power, and authority. In the case of the Palazzo Ducale, it can be noted that the bench incorporated into the facade facing the cathedral contains bas-reliefs that strongly correspond to the design advice that Bartolomeo Sacchi had formulated for the princely residence (figs. 10, 11, and 12).Footnote ⁷¹ There are no spolia of enemies, but there are representations of war devices sculpted into the bench. These devices certainly created associations with Federico da Montefeltro's military strength and valor. Cortesi mentions in his text that Federico's buildings were financed with the proceeds of wars (ex manubiis bellorum).Footnote ⁷² In this way, he, too, makes a subtle connection between Federico's architectural commissioning and his military strength.

Figure 8. Palazzo Ducale in Urbino. Detail of facade toward Piazza Duca Federico. Autorizzazione MiC, Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 9. Detail of Cortile del Belvedere by Donato Bramante. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 10. Panels of the Frieze of the Art of War, displayed inside the Palazzo Ducale. Autorizzazione MiC—Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 11. Detail of Frieze of the Art of War. Autorizzazione MiC—Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino. © Flavia Rossi.

Figure 12. Detail of Frieze of the Art of War. Autorizzazione MiC—Galleria Nazionale delle Marche, Urbino. © Flavia Rossi.

In addition to the aforementioned examples, Cortesi cited the wing built by Pope Sixtus IV for the Roman Curia in the Vatican. The wing was located where the northern arm of the quadriporticus of the original St. Peter's Basilica once stood. Unfortunately, little can be said about the exterior ornamentation applied to this building. Built toward the end of Sixtus IV's pontificate—construction began in 1483—and finished by Pope Innocent VIII (r. 1484–92), the building was subsequently lost during the expansion of the St. Peter's complex.Footnote ⁷³ The few images of the building that remain today provide little information about its external ornamentation. The most detailed image (a print based on a drawing by Antonio Dosio, ca. 1575) shows few ornamental details (fig. 13).Footnote ⁷⁴ From the fifteenth-century diarist Antonio de Vasco, it is known that travertine was transported from Piazza Giudea to the Vatican for the building's construction.Footnote ⁷⁵ This travertine might have been reworked to create a facade design whose form and execution were similar to other cited examples, such as the Palazzo Ducale, the Palazzo Giraud-Torlonia, the Palazzo della Cancelleria, and the Cortile del Belvedere.

Figure 13. Engraving showing the palace of Innocent VIII on the right. Giovanni Battista de' Cavalieri. The ceremony of the opening of the Porta Santa for the Jubilee of 1575, with crowds of pilgrims standing in the Piazza San Pietro with the new cathedral rising behind the old one, 1575. © Trustees of the British Museum.

From these examples we learn what type of ornament Cortesi found most appropriate for expressing power and authority, and for protecting the cardinal from physical violence: a facade covered with rustication or pilasters, friezes, and capitals, framing smoothly squared blocks, executed either in travertine (with or without brick) or in incised stucco. Bartolomeo Sacchi, it may be recalled, had another kind of ornament in mind. To him, an ornament consisting of spoils of enemies seemed best suited to evoke associations of power.

Should it therefore be concluded that patrons, applying these forms of architectural ornament in their urban residences, necessarily sought to acquire wealth and prestige, or hoped to deter ignorant mobs? Not necessarily. The motivation behind specific architectural choices is difficult to determine. Not only do numerous factors come together in the design process—the architect's expertise, the available materials, the techniques employed at the worksite, the available funds—but the question of what motivated someone more generally is highly problematic in historical research. It may, however, be inferred from the theories discussed in this article that the application of such ornaments could be interpreted by contemporaries as an attempt, or at least a hope, on the part of the patron to establish power and prestige. As the inclusion of the Palazzo Medici in Cortesi's list of examples illustrates, the connotations of certain ornaments were hard to cast off.