Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T19:46:40.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Palladio’s Theory of the Classical Orders in the First Book of I Quattro Libri Dell’ Architettura1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 April 2016

Branko Mitrović
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Me ne porge una gran luce Vitruvio, ma non tanto che basti.

Raphael

The chapters about the classical orders in Book One of Palladio’s I quattro libri dell’archittetura are among the most influential architectural texts ever written. Together with Vignola’s Regola delli cinque ordini they represent the best-organized and most thorough formulation of the canon of the classical orders inherited from the Renaissance. This paper analyzes the genesis of Palladio’s theory of orders by comparing the proportions of the elements of the classical orders stipulated in his treatise with those advocated by Vitruvius and other Renaissance authors who had previously written about the orders.

Type
Research Article
Information
Architectural History , Volume 42 , 1999 , pp. 110 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The writing of this paper has gone through many phases and many of my professors, friends and colleagues have contributed to its present form. I should particularly like to express my gratitude to Professors Joseph Rykwert, Lothar Haselberger and Marco Frascari from the University of Pennsylvania; Professors Thomas Gordon Smith, Samir Younés, John Stamper and Duncan Stroik from the University of Notre Dame, Mr Mark Wilson Jones from Rome and the two anonymous reviewers of Architectural History. I owe special gratitude to Ms Ivana Djordjević from McGill University and Ms Carin Wise from Auckland Institute of Technology whose help with the written English of the article was decisive for its final form. Different segments of the paper were presented at the conferences of the Sixteenth Century Society (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, October 1997), International Society for the Classical Tradition (Tübingen, Germany, July 1998) and the Society of Architectural Historians of Australia and New Zealand (Melbourne, October 1998). Specific theoretical aspects of this paper are further developed in my paper ‘Paduan Aristotelianism and Daniele Barbaro’s Commentary of Vitruvius’ De architectura’, The Sixteenth Century Journal, 29 (1998), pp. 667–88.

References

Notes

2 Palladio, Andrea, I quattro libri dell’architettura (Venice, 1570)Google Scholar. Pagination stated according to the Pordenone 1992 edition, editor Mario Biraghi. See also the recent English translation by Tavernor, Robert and Schofield, Richard: Palladio, Andrea, The Four Books on Architecture (Cambridge, Mass., 1997)Google Scholar.

3 da Vignola, Iacomo Barozzio, Regola delli cinque ordini (Rome, 1563)Google Scholar according to the Polifilo edition: Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola, Regola delii cinque ordini, in AA.VV.Trattati, ed. Bassi, Elena (Milan, 1985)Google Scholar. I have also used the Rome 1572 edition, according to the copy in the Roman Alessindrina (EQ21). See the recent reprint of this edition with my English translation and a commentary in: da Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi, Canon of the Five Orders of Architecture (New York, 1999)Google Scholar.

4 Tafuri, Manfredo, ‘La norma e il programma: il “Vitruvio” di Daniele Barbaro’, in Vitruvio: I dieci libri tradotti e commentati da Daniele Barbaro (Milan, 1987), p. XIV Google Scholar.

5 Laven, P. J., Daniele Barbaro, Patriarch Elect of Aquileia, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of London 1957, p. 22 Google Scholar.

6 Forssman, Erik, ‘Palladio e Daniele Barbaro’, Bollettino di Centro Intemazionale di Storia dell’Architettura (1966), pp. 68–81 Google Scholar. See AA.VV. Five early Guides to Rome and Florence, ed. Murray, Peter (Farnborough, 1972)Google Scholar and Palladio, Andrea, The Churches of Rome, trans. Howe, E. D. (Binghamton, 1991)Google Scholar.

7 Puppi, Lionello, Andrea Palladio (Boston, 1973)Google Scholar. Quoted according to the German edition, Andrea Palladio (Munich, 1984), pp. 341-47.

8 Barbaro, Daniele, La pratica della perspettiva di Monsignor Daniele Barbaro eletto patriarca d’Aquileia, opera molto prodittevole a pittori, scvltori, et architetti (Venice, 1569)Google Scholar, facsimile Sala Bolognese 1980, ed. Forni, A.. Latin manuscript version Scenographia pictoribus et sculptoribus, Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Codici Latini: VIII, 41, 3069Google Scholar.

9 Daniele Barbaro’s commentaries on Vitruvius are quoted as follows:

‘Barbaro, I dieci’ stands for: Barbaro, Daniele, I dieci libri dell’architettura tradotti et commentati (Venice, 1567)Google Scholar, according to the facsimile (Milan, 1987), ed. Manfredo Tafuri;

‘Barbaro, l dieci (1556)’ stands for: Barbaro, Daniele, I dieci libri dell’architettura tradotti et commentati (Venice, 1556)Google Scholar;

‘Barbaro, M. Vitruvii Polionis’ stands for the Latin version of the commentary from 1567: M. Vitruvii Polionis de Architectura libri decem cum commentariis Danielis Barbari (Venice, 1567).

Most of the quotations are taken from the Italian 1567 edition. Where the quoted passages are different in the mentioned editions, it has been indicated. For a general survey of the differences between the editions, see Manuela Morresi, ‘Le due edizioni dei commentari di Daniele Barbaro 1556-1567’. (This is the introductory article to the Milan 1987 edition quoted above.)

10 Venice, Biblioteca Marciana, Codici Latini: VIII, 41, 3069 (the Latin version of the treatise on perspective: Scenographia pictoribus et sculptoribus); Codici Italiani: IV, 39, 5446 and IV, 40, 5447 (the Italian version of the treatise on perspective: Trattato della prospettiva); IV, 37, 5133 and IV, 152, 5106 (the commentary on Vitruvius).

11 See for instance Thoenes, Christof and Günter, Hubertus, ‘Gli ordini architettonici: rinascita o invenzione’, in Roma e l’antico nella arte e nella cultura di Cinquecento, vol. 2 (Rome, 1985), pp. 272–310 Google Scholar.

12 Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, De architectura, e.g.: ‘dorico genere’ IV.3.1., ‘dorico more’ IV.3.3. Quoted according to Vitruvius: On architecture (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1983), English translation by Frank Granger with parallel original Latin version.

13 Cesariano, Cesare, Di Lucio Pollione Vitruvio de architectura libri decem (Como, 1521, reprint Milan, 1981), p. 60 Google Scholar.

14 Barbaro, I dieci, p. 163.

15 Ibid., p. 170.

16 Ibid., p. 171.

17 Serlio, Sebastiano, Tutte l’opere d’architettura et prospettiva (Venice, 1619)Google Scholar, 4.126, 4.127, 4.139, 4.158, 4.170, 4.183. (In the quotations from this work the first number indicates the book, the second the page.) See also the recent English translation, Serlio, Sebasiano, On Architecture, trans. Hart, Vaughan and Hicks, Peter (New Haven and London, 1996)Google Scholar.

18 Pauwels, Yves, ‘Les origines de l’ordre composite’, Annali d’architettura, 1 (1989), pp. 29–46 Google Scholar.

19 Palladio, l quattro libri, p. 29.

20 Ibid., p. 37.

21 Ibid., p. 44.

22 Ibid., p. 54.

23 Ibid., p. 61.

24 ‘dispensation of cose pari & dispari, eguali & diseguali’, Barbaro, I dieci, p. 28.

25 Vitruvius, De arch., III.3.10.

26 Alberti’s ratios were included in the tables when there was no doubt that the combination of elements he described corresponded morphologically to statements of other authors. He did not discuss the Tuscan order and his descriptions of the Ionic base, Doric entablature and Ionic capital differ morphologically from the rest of the tradition.

27 Barbaro, I dieci, p. 145.

28 Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 38.

29 Barbaro, I dieci, p. 144.

30 Vitruvius, Dearch., 3.5.2., Barbaro, I dieci, p. 155.

31 Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 48.

32 Barbaro, , I dieci (1556), p. 99 Google Scholar; M. Vitruvii Pollionis, p. 113.

33 Vignola’s ratios differ significantly. Alberti and Serlio, on the other hand, divide the trochilus-with-fillets segment into seven parts, assigning one part to each fillet, and five to the trochilus. Vignola, Regola, plate 31, Serlio, Tutte l’opere…, 4.139., Alberti, Leon Battista, On the art of building transl. Rykwert, Joseph, Leach, Neil and Tavernor, Robert (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), pp. 202 Google Scholar, 203.

34 Barbaro, I dieci, p. 142.

35 ‘torum insuper cum apophysi crassum quantum plinthus’, Vitruvius, De arch., IV.7.3.

36 Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 33.

37 ‘Apofige, o cimbia che si dica’, ‘cimbia detta apofige’ (Barbaro, I dieci, p. 142). In the same page ‘apofige’ is distinguished from the hollow curve of the column: ‘bastone, con quella parte, che si chiama apofige, & apothesi; che sono certe piegature dalle teste de i fusti delle colonne, che danno gratia mirabile, quando sono ben fatte.’ Apofige here refers to the fillet, apothesi to the curve above (Barbaro, I dieci, p. 142). In other writings Barbaro also identified the apophysis with the fillet on the top of the torus. The drawing of the Tuscan base in Part Four of Barbara’s treatise on perspective indicates the fillet on the top of the base as ‘cimbia, called apophygis, or listello’ (Barbaro, Pratica, p. 131). Barbaro calls this fillet apophysis also in the corresponding drawings of the Attic and Ionic bases in the same treatise (ibid., pp. 133 and 136.) Finally, in the Scaenographia pictoribus (the Latin manuscript version of the treatise on perspective) there are drawings of the Tuscan, Attic and Ionic bases in which the fillet above the torus is marked as ‘apophigis’ (Marciana, Lat. VIII, 41, 3069.53L, 54L and 55L). The fillet under the astragal of the Tuscan capital is also marked as ‘apophigis’, and Barbaro explains in the text that ‘apophygis’ comes immediately under the astragal (‘collarinum … sub quo est apophigis uel Apophisis.’, ibid., 57R).

38 M. Vitruvii Pollionis…, p. 113.

39 Vitruvius, De arch., IV.7.3.

40 Ibid., IV.3.4.

41 ‘qui peut prendre soit la forme d’une gorge plus ou moins profonde, soit d’un cylindre à peu près vertical…’, Vitruvius: De l’architecture, ed. Gros, Pierre (Paris, 1992) vol. 4, p. 188 Google Scholar.

42 ‘collier supérieur de la colonne qui appartient structurellment et techniquement … au chapiteau luimême’, ibid., p. 130.

43 ‘…listello, che ua sotto l’ouolo (che è alto la sesta parte di quella che ua all’hipotrachelio) … lo Hipotrachelio, o sottogola, si fa al modo che si fa l’Apofige: & è alto il doppio listello sotto l’ouolo’, Barbaro, I dieci, p. 144. The hypotrachelium of the Tuscan capital here refers at the same time to the bottom astragal and the entire lower third of the capital. The illustration Barbaro supplies in the commentary has the letters H (the area below the subechinal fillet), I (the astragal), K (the fillet below the astragal), and L (the hollow curve below the fillet) explained together as ‘Hypotrachelium con Apofigi. cioè parte contratta alla sottogola, con la cimbia’, Barbaro, I dieci, p. 144. In the text he named the lowest third hipotrachelio & apofigi (ibid., p. 142), adding that the lowest part consists of hypotrachelio, o collarino, & apophyge and that the fillet under the echinus is one third of the thickness of the hypotrachelium (ibid., p. 142). In his treatise about perspective and its Latin version, the manuscript Scaenographia pictoribus, Barbaro supplies a drawing of the Tuscan capital where hypotrachelium is the part between the annulet and the astragal — i.e. the entire lower third of the capital (Barbaro, Pratica…, p. 139.; Scaenographia pictoribus, Marciana, Lat. VIII, 41, 3069, 57R) In the Pratica Barbaro marks the area between the annulet and the astragal as ‘collarino detto hypotrachelium’ (p. 139).

44 ‘in extremis angulis semimetopia sint inpressa dimidia moduli latitudine’ (Vitruvius, De arch, IV.3.5). Vitruvius’ Doric module is half of the lower column diameter; the triglyph width in this case is 1 module, the height 3/2 modules, which is also the width of the metopes (Vitruvius, De arch., IV.3.3-IV.3.6). Half of the module thus makes ⅓ of the metope width.

Vitruvius says that the front of a diastyle tetrastylos should have 27 modules at the bottom level (Vitruvius, De arch., IV.3.3). The central intercolumniation should have three and the side intercolumniations two triglyphs. The total number of triglyphs thus comes to 11; between them there are 10 metopes. Altogether this makes 26 modules. The total width of a diastyle tetrastylos was defined as 27, and if the temple at the bottom were as wide as the frieze is long, then the side metopes would have to be halfa module each — i.e. one-third of the normal metope size. (It seems plausible that the frieze cannot be longer than the temple is wide at the bottom level.) A similar calculation can be made for diastyle hexastylos, systyle tetrastylos and hexastylos, the result being always ⅓ metope at the corners.

However, these calculations imply that the frieze length is equal to the temple width at the column base level. If the frieze is somewhat shorter, this would affect the size of corner semi-metopes. Thus the corner metope can be ⅓ of the normal metope size, or less. Knell states ⅙ of the lower column diameter, or of the metope width as the solution, and Gros remarks that this is also the most common understanding of the majority of exegetes ( Knell, Heiner, Vitruvs Architekturtheorie (Darmstadt, 1985), pp. 90–91 Google Scholar, Gros, , Vitruve, IV, p. 134)Google Scholar.

45 Marciana, It. IV, 152, 5106. 133R for the tetrastyle and 133L for the hexastyle calculations. For the hexastyle, the calculation written in Barbaro’s hand looks like this:

The ½ in the last two lines was then erased, but it is still visible. Obviously, Barbaro’s calculation follows the one explained in the previous footnote. He found that the sum of the parts of the frieze was wider than the width of the temple at the bottom level (42), and reduced the metope size to ½ module — i.e. he concluded that ⅓ metopes should be placed in the corners. The calculation of the tetrastylos frieze length yielded the same result: the two corner metopes were assumed to make together 1½, which gave the total width of 27½ modules (Marciana, It. IV, 152, 5106. 133R). Once again we can see in the manuscript that the halves were erased, leaving ⅓ metopes in the corners and making the frieze length identical to that of the temple at its bottom.

46 Barbaro, I dieci, p. 173.

47 Barbaro, I dieci, p. 198; Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 43.

48 Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 43.

49 Vignola, Regola, tav. 13, 14.

50 Vitruvius, De arch., IV.2.5.

51 Ibid., IV.2.5.

52 ‘… che noi non deuemo far cosa, che non habbia del uerisimile, ne’rappresentare imagine alcuna, che non habbia principio dal uero’, Barbaro, I dieci, p. 171.

53 ‘Ma la usanza ha uinto la ragione fin al tempo di Vitr. perche nelle opere antiche tutto’l giorno si uedono, & dentelli, & modioni nelle teste de i Frontispicij, & pare, che tale ornamento stia bene, tutto che non ci sia ragione.’ Ibid., p. 171.

54 Ibid., p. 154.

55 Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 69.

56 Vitruvius, De arch., IV.2.5.

57 I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer of the article for drawing my attention to this problem.

58 Martini, Francesco di Giorgio, Trattati di architettura, ingeneria e arte militare, ed. Maltese, Corrado, Livia Maltese De Grassi (Milano, 1967), vol. 2, fol. 36V, tav. 226Google Scholar.

59 Serlio, 3.54, 3.99, 3.112, 4.170. I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer of Architectural History for drawing my attention to these passages. Serlio used the term ‘mensole’ and from illustrations it is clear that he meant ‘modillions’, as Hart and Hicks render it in their translation.

60 ‘… i mutuli, o modioni … rapresentano gli sporti de i canterij sotto le cornici…’, Barbaro, Idieci, p. 169. Barbaro actually supplied a drawing representing the Doric entablature, where mutules are referred to as ‘modioni’ (ibid., 170).

61 Vignola, Regola, plate 14, caption. This caption does not appear in the version of the 1563 edition of the Regola which was reprinted in the Polifilo, but it is to be found in the more widely-spread version, equivalent to the one in the Vatican, Cicogn.VIII 416. It also appears in the second edition of the Regola (Rome, 1572).

62 The wings were completed only in 1590. It is uncertain whether dentils have been placed following Palladio’s plans, but in any case the central block of this villa is an example of Palladio’s hesitation to use the Corinthian entablature in the pediment. Cf. Boucher, Bruce, Andrea Palladio, the Architect and His Time (New York, 1994), p. 136 Google Scholar.

63 Barbaro, I dieci…, p. 155.

64 Serlio, Tutte l’opere, 4.170.

65 Palladio, I quattro libri…, p. 59.

66 I am indebted to the anonymous reviewer of Architectural History for this observation.

67 Rupprecht, Bernhard, ‘Prinzipien der Architektur-Darstellung in Palladlos I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura’, in AA.W. Vierhundertjahre Andrea Palladio, ed. Gruenter, Reiner (Heidelberg, 1982), pp. 11–43 Google Scholar; Mitrović, Branko, ‘Objectively Speaking’ Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 52 (1993), pp. 59–67 Google Scholar.

68 ‘… qui è necessaria la intelligenza, & pratica della prospettiua, perche tutte quelle cose ricercano il punto della uista nostra…’ Barbaro, I dieci, p. 256.

69 Barbaro, Pratica, p. 14.

70 Ibid., p. 59.

71 Ibid., p. 133.

72 ‘questo stia in discretione, & destrezza, piu presto, che in arte o regola’, ibid., p. 133.

73 Ibid., p. 133.

74 Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 252.

75 Palladio’s illustrations often correct Vitruvius’ and Barbaro’s ratios for minimal amounts. Vitruvius and Barbaro stated 0.0714D as the thickness of the taenia in the Doric entablature; Palladio corrected this to 0.075D. Guttae according to Barbaro are D/18 whereas Palladio makes them 11D/180 — i.e. he corrects Barbaro for D/180.

76 Bertotti-Scamozzi, Ottavio, Lefabriche e i disegni di Andrea Palladio (Vicenza, 1786, reprint New York, 1968), vol. 3, p. 31 Google Scholar.

77 According to Howard and Longair, Bertotti-Scamozzi was unaware that the foot size he was using (35.7 cm) was different from Palladio’s (34.7 cm), but once this is taken into account he is a reasonably reliable source. Cf. Howard, Deborah and Longair, Malcolm, ‘Harmonic Proportion and Palladio’s I quattro libri ’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 41 (1982), pp. 116-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 129.

78 The seminal account of the un-Palladian aspects of the villa in Maser is Huse, Norbert, ‘Palladio und Villa Barbaro in Maser. Bemerkungen zum Problem der Autorschaft’, Arte Veneta, 28 (1974), pp. 106-22Google Scholar. But one has to be careful with Huse’s arguments. For instance, he claims that fireplaces and doors in the villa in Maser are atypical for Palladio’s work without providing a survey of these elements on other Palladio’s ville which could substantiate the claim (pp. 109, 110). Huse also makes the mistake of identifying the broken entablature on the villa in Maser with frontespizi… spezzati which Palladio criticized in the chapter on abusi in Book One (p. 113). Palladio criticized the use of broken pediments but used broken entablature not only in Maser, but also on the Loggia del Capitaniato and Villa Malcontenta.

79 This particularly applies to the use of grotesques as subsidiary ornamentation in the rooms next to the Hall of Olympus.

80 We have seen that there are many reasons to believe that Palladio’s use of the elements of the orders was tectonically motivated. It was also shown that the combination of modulions and dentils, as it appears in the mentioned drawing, need not be contradictory in tectonic sense. Rejecting this latter interpretation would further strengthen doubts about the authenticity of the drawing, since in that case the drawing would represent a very isolated case of Palladio’s violation of tectonic principles.

81 I am indebted to Professor John Stamper, the Director of the Rome Studies Program of the University of Notre Dame, for this observation.

82 Jones, Mark Wilson, ‘Designing the Roman Corinthian Capital’, Papers of the British School in Rome, 59 (1991), pp. 89–150 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 For a comparative account of the history of the Corinthian abacus during the Renaissance, see Lemerle, Frédérique, ‘La théorie architecturale à la Renaissance: la tracé du tailloir corinthien’, Annali d’architettura, 6 (1994), pp. 64–71 Google Scholar.

84 The morphologies of the architraves of both temples correspond to Vignola’s version and differ from Palladio’s in having a cyma reversa between the upper and middle fascia. The bottom of the frieze of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus is curved, like Palladio’s.

Vignola’s and Palladio’s versions of the Corinthian cornice resemble that of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus rather than that of Castor and Pollux. Similarly to Vignola’s version, the top cyma recta of the Temple of Castor and Pollux has lion heads, but it has a very thick fascia and an ovolo with egg-and-darts between the top cyma recta and the fascia. The entablature of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus lacks the top cyma recta and has an ovolo instead of the cyma reversa below the dentils. Similarly to Palladio’s version, this temple has only a fillet between the dentils and the egg-and-dart ovolo; in Vignola there is an additional astragal. Palladio’s presentations of entablatures of Temples of Vespasian and Titus and Castor and Pollux in Book Four are morphologically accurate; Palladio only adds the top cyma recta at the top of the cornice of the Temple of Vespasian and Titus.

85 The morphology of the entablature of this temple is almost identical to Vignola’s correct Corinthian entablature, except that it has only a fillet rather than a fillet with an astragal below the egg-and-dart ovolo, and a cyma reversa above the frieze instead of an astragal with a fillet. Two other temples presented by Palladio in I quattro libri have entablatures equivalent to what was defined as the ‘standard’ entablature according to Palladio and Vignola. The entablature of the Temple of Castor and Pollux in Naples is almost identical to Palladio’s version of the Corinthian cornice in Book One, except that it has an astragal with a fillet (and not only a fillet) below the dentils; unlike Vignola’s Corinthian entablature, it does not have a fillet and astragal above the frieze, but has an astragal with a fillet (not a fillet only) above the dentils.

The part above the corona, however, differs from both Palladio’s and Vignola’s version. If we compare the differences between Palladio’s and Vignola’s Corinthian order listed above, we shall notice that the situation on the Temple of Venus Generatrix corresponds to Vignola’s Corinthian order in point 1, Palladio’s in point 3 and in point 2 differs from both Palladio and Vignola, having a small cyma inversa between the frieze and the big cyma reversa.

For an account of Renaissance surveys of the Temple of Venus Generatrix, see Dittscheid, Hans-Christoph, ‘Antikerekonstruktion als Medium der Architekturtheorie der Renaissance. Ein Neptun-Tempel auf dem römischen Caesar-Forum’, in Andreas, Christof (ed.), Festschrift für Hartmut Biermann (Weinheim, 1990), pp. 109-19Google Scholar.

86 Serlio, 3.88. See also Hart’s and Hicks’ English version of Serlio, p. 442, footnote 213, for the debate about this drawing in Serlio. See Genzert, Joachim, ‘Der Mars-Ultor-Tempel auf dem Augustusforum in Rom’, Antike Welt, 19/3 (1988), pp. 36–59 Google Scholar, for the situation today. In this case too, a group of three columns has been preserved, but only a piece of the architrave has remained from the entablature.

87 Barbaro, , I dieci (1556), pp. 178 Google Scholar, 306. Anton Francesco Doni also mentioned Palladio’s writings about architecture (Seconda Libraria (Venice, 1555), p. 155), but he was very vague regarding the content of Palladio’s book: ‘molte et bellissime cose pertinenti a tutte sorti di Edifitii, le quale è grandissimo peccato che non si stampino.’ Doni also proposed the tide for the book: ‘Norme di vera architettura’. The emphasis on truth in the title has obvious Platonist connotations and can be taken as indicative of the way Palladio’s ideas were received by his contemporaries.

88 Palladio, I quattro libri, p. 121.

89 Zorzi, Gian Giorgio, I disegni delle antichità di Andrea Palladio (Venice, 1959), p. 147–56Google Scholar.

90 Forssman, Erik, Palladlos Lehrgebäude (Stockholm, 1965), p. 147 Google Scholar.

91 In his text Palladio determined the thicknesses of dentils and the ovolo as equal and said that the modullions should be twice as thick; according to the illustration, the dentil is 0.0917D, ovolo 0.075D and modillion 0.125D.

92 Losito, Maria. ‘La ricostruzione della voluta ionica vitruviana nei trattati del rinascimento’ Mélanges de l’école française de Rome, 105 (1993), pp. 133-75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 One should not forget that Vignola may have been the strongest potential rival in the competition for Sansovino’s position. The fact that Palladio reproduced Vignola’s illustration with new ratios may be seen as an attempt to correct Vignola.

94 Palladio could have used the method of dividing the module into 60 minutes in the text, the way he did in the illustrations. Had he done so he could have easily stated textually all sizes as fractions of these minutes. This method is analogous to the way Vignola divided his module into 12 and 18 parts; the fact that Palladio did not follow this approach in the text may also indicate that the textual description of the orders predates Vignola’s Regola.

95 For the summary of this debate see Douglas Lewis, ‘Palladio’s Painted Architecture’ in AA.VV. Vierhundertjahre, pp. 59-93. See also Ackerman, James, The Architect and Society: Palladio (Harmondsworth, 1977), p. 43 Google Scholar; Wolters, Wolfgang, ‘Andrea Palladio e la decorazione dei suoi edifici’, in Bollettino del Centro internazionale di Storia dell’architettura, 10 (1968), pp. 255–67Google Scholar; Oberhuber, Konrad, ‘Gli affreschi di Paolo Veronese nella Villa Barbaro’, Bollettino del Centro internazionale di Storia dell’architettura, 10 (1968), pp. 188–202 Google Scholar. Puppi, Andrea Palladio, p. 316.

96 Lewis, ‘Palladio’s Painted Architecture’.

97 Thoenes, Christof and Günther, Hubertus, ‘Gli ordini architettonici’; rinascita o invenzione’, in Roma e l’antico nell’ arte e nella cultura di Cinquecento, vol. 2 (Rome, 1985), p. 272–310 Google Scholar.