THE ITALIAN RENAISSANCE GARDEN From the Conventions of Planting, Design, and Ornament ‘0 the Grand Gardens of Sisteenth-Century Central Italy 4 CLAUDIA LAZZARO with photographs by Ralph Lieberman YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW ann AND LONDON 1990 og ‘67 UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, Las GAS UpRaRY © iedCHAPTER 4 Nature Ordered: The Design of Renaissance Gardens In the Italian Renaissance garden, nature and order, planting and design, cannot bbe separated. They are interlocked in the compartments or squares that form the basic units, in trees planted in cows, in straight paths that cross aright angles and in hedges that delimit all parts and axes. ‘The designs in compartments thee are known from the sixteenth century were composed for the most patt of geo. metric figures, those in labyrinths were based on circles and squates, and spiral paths surmounted tree houses and mounts, A Renaissance garden could be characterized above all as a geometeic garden. However, since nature, Was understood in more than one way, diferent kinds of estates corresponded With the two principal views of nature. tts inherent order was represented inthe ‘geometric garden; wild and untamed nature in the park. These two extremes were not mutually exclusive: one could contain the other or the whole heve aspects of each. But a8 distinct entities they embody dificrent attitudes toward nature, design, and anti ‘There is not sufficient evidence to characterize the design of fiffeenth-century gardens and a development over the course of the sixteenth century can only be hinted at, but che common features that persisted throughout much of the peciod in both modest and grand gardens can be outlined. ‘The most fundamental ig cloments of both early and late gardens were the compartment, a8 the and geometric figuces. To these were added in the sixteenth century forms specifically given authority by antiquity, such as the hippodrome and theater. All hese elements subdivided the whole into units or separate parts which were defined by hedges and pergolis, The subdivision of the whole into regular vunits remained an essential design principle of gatdens until the late sivtcch century, but how the units were organized and linked changed during that seneury. Another defining aspect of Renaissance gardens feom early to lee ie + reference to antiquity in many different ways, among them interest in the natural World, topiary, tree houses, labyrinths, grottoes, and automata, also sculpture modeled on Roman types or ancient sculprue itself, and classical archiveceursl forms, These-interests climaxed in the grand gardens of the sixteenth century in entra Italy with the emulation of the terraced architectural complexes of the ancients, The monumental architeccure and sculpture, massive alteration of the land, and abundant supply of fresh water that characterize these gardens have few Parallels in more humble ones, but other ephemeral features — compartments Outlined by hedges, trees in rows, pergolas and topiary — were common to both Accounts of Renaissance gardens generally consider the most famous exams ples particularly the surviving architectural gardens, in a chronelogiesl sequence, but these are such a small aunaber and so exceptional that they have obscared other developments, To recover some of the other significant aspects a different aPhroach is necessary: an analysis of individual elements, organieing principles, unifying devices, and different garden types without attempting to concain then: all tm a single chronologieal scheme. The evidence does not permit at: equal~ [NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS, treatment ofall topics, and again later examples must be used to illustrate earlier developments. With an overview of garden elements and design principles, terraced architectural gardens can then be examined as a truly distinct tradition, ‘which shares with other gardens many of the same conventions of planting and design, but also develops them in a different ditection influenced by contempor: ary architectural concerns. Some of these grand gardens are discussed at the ‘conclusion of this chapter and others are given afaller treatment in later chapters In gardens from the fifteenth through the sixteenth century two primary sets ‘of concerns can be distinguished: units, compartments, separate patts that can be named, measured, and counted, enclosed and hidden spaces, and sequential experiences on the one hand; and on the other the linking of parts, axial ‘organization, directional impulses, vistas, and unity. Until quite late in the sixteenth century these two sets of design principles remained, with neither one dominating the other. To the degece that a development in design can be traced, the evidence suggests that che evolution was not simply toward a more axial ‘onganization and unity, but eather an increasingly sophisticated relationship between the whole and the individual elements that cetained a certsin autonomy, Although the designs of the terraced architectural gardens tended much more toward unity by the end of the sixteenth century, the parts were never subsumed ‘under the whole as in seventeenth-century gardens. Tn order to see how these concerns functioned in the overall design, we must first reconstruct the original planting (as suggested in Chapter 2), in general terms as well as in the surviving gardens. [ts loss, together with that of constructions of ephemeral materials, necessarily affects our underscanding of Renaissance gar- dens. Although the extant gardens depend on an architectural framework, the losses and alterations have nevertheless changed our experience of the space and perception of the design. Vegetation established a central focal point, framed a major fountain, or conversely concealed one. Even subtle manipulation of the planting, such asthe height of hedges, affects what we do and do nor see. In some of the surviving gardens higher hedges have reduced visibility and emphasized a dominant axis more than was originally intended; in others losses of vegetation have opened up what were formerly enclosed spaces. To reconstruct the planting and its role in organizing the garden, we must examine critically two differene but ‘complementary systems of representation, visual depictions and verbal descrip- tions, since they select and emphasize what contemporaries considered most significant about their own gardens. ‘Texts from the fiftenth century and particularly in the sixteenth repeatedly stress that the order ina garden must be visible, primarily from a high spot, a8 the pattems in the garden of simples were best viewed from the palace windows. In the late fifteenth century, Francesco di Giorgio suggested placing a pavilion at the summit of s mount, "fom which one can see and judge the whole." But even from its highest point, the ordering of a garden through the repetition of compartments, geomettic figures, ovals, and hippedromes could not be wholly perceived from within, Psinted and engraved views of gardens, which date principally from the second half of the sixteenth century, such a5 Utena’ series of lunertes of 1599, present what is not visible from within — nature ordered through regular units. Jn the example of the Ambrogiana (fig. 63), begun after 1587, the order consists in four large squares with six unite of boschetti behind them. The whole is measurable and finite: the parts can be counted, and because (of the high point of view and tilted ground plane, the boundaries of the garden ate clear. This corresponds with the reality, since these gardens did not cover huge areas, unlike many in the seventeenth century.RDERED. TLE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS ” ISINISIOND RUDI The painted and crigraved views follow 4 sec of conventions of representation, not unique gardens, but abo a specitie cultural agenda, Just as exotic planting and expensive omamentation of ephemeral materials conveyed the magnificence of a garden's owner, 96 soo did the ordered squares and rows of trees, manitested above all in 4 view of that garden.” ‘The bird’s eye point of view, higher than any actual viewing spot, emphasized the regularity of the planting, the order mberene in mature revealed chromgh the hand of che owner. If, however, the order was not quite all that it should be, then the views presented am ideal rather than the reality The four large compartments of the Ambrogiana garden did exist, but perhaps hot as perfect squares. ‘ Elvewhere Utens regularized geometric figures and shifted axes to create the desired symmetry and axial arrangement, even if the terrain oF Preexisting structures did not permit it in fet ‘The views reveal the arder in a garden through rows and squares, and they also indicate the ordering, principles of design, Bilateral symmetry is most prominent among them, ay at the Ambrogiana, where all the garden elements are in pairs on either side of the central longitudinal avenue, ‘The view also emphasizes the Principle that garden and residence should be created af similar units: which harmonize with and retleet each other. This was already stated explicitly. by Alberti in the sidefitieenth century when he recommended that the same geometric figures be employed in the garden as in the design of buildings. Over a century later Soderini proposed a more specific relationship: when he remarked that the squares in the garden should be harmonious and related in size to the fagade of the house.* At che Ambrogiana the four large squares of the garden, tens, The Ambrogiana, 159, 00 dh Fieri comers.” [NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS ‘emphasized by the pergolas that surround them, echo the four prominent corner towers of the palace. A second transverse axis joins garden and building Symmetry, harmony between building and garden, and a biaxial composition of he lio ae basic conventions in Renaissance garden design, as the emphasis on ther in these views attests in addition to the order of the whole, representations of gardens also portray with considerable detal the various subdivisions and garden ornaments. At the “Ambrogiana, the four large squares are delimited by pergolas surrounding them, ‘within each are four smaller squares, and chese in turn are composed of individual beds (ig. 25). Separate bunches of flowering plants, Ferdinando's name inscribed jn greenery, and even water channels throughout the garden are precisely cseribed. “Trees are differentiated if not always identifiable, exeepe for the haracteristc eypresses of the basco, and in others of Utens”Iunetes topiary in {ferent shapes and materials i= depicted. These views provide a remarkable Smoune of information about vegetation as wel as architecture and sculpture; but through distorsions in scale, the details ae always subordinate to the whole. Verbal descriptions, which ae availabe for a much longer chronological span and a wider range of garden types, ecord instead the visitor’ experience within the garden. They generally discuss one part after another, with litle indication of| ‘sual and spatial relationships, and only rately do they provide any sense of the whole. Like the views, however, descriptions present extremely detailed in- ormation, and sixteenth-centary chroniclers are particularly preoceupied with numbers of items. For example, io Raffaello Borghins's account of Bernardo ‘Veechict’s Bosco, we ae informed of the numberof trees that occupy each row, the number of rows, and the total aumber of tees." Reports of gardens present the whole asthe Summ of many pacts, preferably measurable ones. One contem- porary described the Stairs of the Bubbling Fountains at Tivoli (fg. 76) as Composed of 56 steps with 22 bubbles of water on each side, which fll rom piers Shatin’ high, totaling 42 (sic) bubbles; and altogether there were 500 bubbles, Sparen and sourees of water, The net result of this was “infinite water,” from Gutlets that nevertheless could be — and were — counted,” ‘At the end of Vincenzo Guisiniani’s thoughtful account of the requirements for cresting and ornamenting gardens, writen about 1615~20, he explains the necessity of naming all the pats ofa large garden in order to be able to discuss it. Ie this passage he outlines the process of naming: Ifa garden is a very large one, or at least bigger than average, with a variety of avers, open pinzzas, and porticoes at the ends of the avenues, it will be necessary to give as specific 4 name a possible to everything, according, its ‘qualities, ornamentation, shape, position, or other token. This isso that, when filking about the garden, everyone understands perfectly which patt is meant, otherwise, there will always be confusion.* With verbal equivalent, one can it che contents of a garden, s+ Gita aan ver hs own garden a Bessno, mndcating nt the pln, but the aoe sae Ait seiperes and other ornaments that i contained. Git any aremnet dig mons deoreeal than aoy of the satsntvcetory writings ane eee Jhaer with them an emphasis on the individual componen’s aoe er Ritcecthp tn each cher and tothe whole. Thoughout the den nan a and deseiptons together tell ws what was for both ownes ccpauy tnd totor most imorant about the gardens order trough eglr sh 64, Sto Uy, vi Mate Fis. gneanurable units, andthe pasar components ofeach pat cae ed th 3 “ane the compartment, geomet gues were the mot important and basicVee, Vill: Mes Pratoion, units of Renaissance g hhether defined by natural materials or enclosed il 1599, Horence, Muse Freee units of Meneses orme were inerent in mare, ox inyposed on its as AUD Sonera Detail offi, 13) -xplained with the example of circles and hexagons.” Appropriate therefore were trenmctic Figures composed of herbs ad flowers in bel, nd ase 2 one « brief comments najor planti yan a half, including his suggestion & Tr circles, semicircles, and other geometric figures." The entire piss ary later,!" and the recommended plantings ais_ Tn Duke Cosimo 1's renovation of his 6st at Poggio le at the right af dhe palace (Figs: 33 and oa) jlesigned by Niccolo Tribolo in the late 1540s, fextured an ose ete Fae yy Taw hedges as the cemterpicee of the garden. Two dest ater a6———————————— SS PURE ORDERED: LITE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS * fae Baie atime fH) Jay} 90mET? demate eben (lene Eofirmeree Pratolino, Bernardo Buontalenti juxtaposed regular and irregular forms, both 6 ‘ordered and “natural” nature, by planting, circle of fir trees on either side of the Te ee Rana | mount (Fig. 65) THN 35e Alberti’s notion of gcometry made directly out oF mature, festation of nature's ordered essence, was later applied co both an and its constituent parts, ln a well-known passage of his treatise on architecture of the last quarter of the fifteenth century, Francesco di Giorgio ted that 3 garden be shaped in a circle or square, a triangh hexagon.'? In his proposal for a palace organized symmetrically around a central fountain; only for a harco, or hunting park with animals, did the architect offe octagon with semicircular and rectangular projections (fig. 66).!" For viewing the order of the whole, he placed a circular pavilion at che summit of the regular mount, Directly ‘opposite this hemispherical hill with its beds in concentric circles. Francesco di Giorgio planned a “natural” one planted with trees, thus juxtaposing the two ‘concepts of nature as Buontalenti did a century later at Pratolino. However, only the woodcut illustration to the Hypueratomucia (fig. 10) survives to suggest that in the fifteenth century gardens may baw than squares and rectangles «, The circle is the most perfect of all yeometrie forms alone s simple, uniform, equa, strong, ant capable.” and the eirele secon aly tepresented the perfection of the cosmos. Therefore, the circlar garden in ropes reremachiais not only a peteet Form, but an image of divine harmony. seated in concentric circles ot simples and tees. Francesco Colonna’s garden i Taos abinary ones but circular gardens did exist after dhe book's publication in PF untt Before: One of them was Francesco Soderini’s in Rome (fig. 67), Not his garden in the ideal form af'a circle, sanctioned by antiquity, but i 0, Design more novel desi ly been created in figures other wecause of all the figures67, Gatden of France Sderin inthe Mausoleum of Angosas, Rome, after E. Dupre 1875, fom A Seer Vig dale nh di Rema, Tivol Pessoa gh Prague, 1606, Dumbarton Osh, Trustee or Haard Univery, Se Bee aE af tata ap Gr TA LE TE Fee in Gord oe Do ioe ae % [NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS ” was actually set within the remains of an ancient circular structure, the Mausoleum of Augustus, which Soderini aequired in 1549."* Inthe great interior space, almost 289 feet (89 m.) in diameter, beds formed by radiating paths intersecting concentric citces followed the models ofthe garden in the Hyperoto rmachia and on Francesco di Giorgio’s hemispherical mount. ‘The botanical garden at Padua retains its original circular form (fig. 32), but not the sixteenth-century compartments. Important to understanding the symbolic significance of the entre design, they are illustrated in Girolamo Porro’s book on the garden of 159 (fg. 68). Although che compartments were changed from the initial program, the basic elements of the design that Porto illustrates still correspond with the description of the first scheme in 1545. The garden, 2 contemporary noted, was governed by such good judgment as to employ the principal geometric figures, the round, the foremost of them all, the square, divided into four squares, and the wiangular, adhering to the sides of the squares." In the later project as well che vast circle of che Paduan garden contained a square, subdivided into four squares, each with a circle inscribed. ‘The whole is an image of the divinely ordered cosmos, which through the proportional relationships of perfect geometric figures expresses visually the harmony between the microcosm (all the specimens in this encyclopedia of the natural world) and the macrocosm. Early in the sixteenth century another configuration — the oval — was appended to the list of suitable geometric forms. Baldassare Peruzzi’s unexeeuted garden design of about 1525 for Cardinal Agostino Trivueio at Salone (fig. 6) substituted a great oval forthe idea! circle." Approximately 256 feet by 165 feet (78 X 50 m.), its perimeter is defined by a wide avenue with a row of trees along[NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS n ' "the outer border. Four semicircular exedrae extend beyond the oval, each framed ‘with columns or perhaps with tes, since the two cannot be distinguished inthe drawing. Abutting the oval of greenery, Petuzzi planned a casino with a portico, the columns of which didnot follow the straight line ofits fagade, but rather yielded tothe design ofthe gaeden and continued the are of tree. In ds simple jut unusual project, Peruse joined the instructions of Alberto those of Francesco di Giorgio and created the unifying oval out ofboth architecture and nature, colomns and trees ‘The oval fused building and garden into a harmonious whole, but in contrast co the circle, the oval was a directional form whose unequal axes were exploited in esign. By placing the casino agsinst the broad curve ofthe oval rather its end, he contrasted the primary vinwal axis ffom the palace and the principal longitudinal axis of the garden. ‘The two axes, like those at the “y+ -Ambrogiana, ycid a more dymamie whole than the circular pian permitted. while ++ gal retaning in the oval an essential characteristic ofthe ideal ctl, that be without beginning oF end. Situated between the garden and arc ofthe iver, the casino viewed a natural featore ofthe landscape on one side and a human rdeding of mature on the other. Peruer'scompacrie, the Sienese Lorenzo Donat, thought ae terms in his project fr s garden in which he specified some ofthe plane als (fg. 12), dating probably in the second quarter ofthe sixteenth century. ‘There the ene scheme i similarly biaxial: the principal archicectaral features the casino and an exedra built imo the mountain, stand at opposite ends ofthe shor ais of the rectangle he compartments ofthe garden are aranged sym‘, Pon Cardn, Pr. GG. metrically on either side of the long axis, in Peruzz's oval project, 2 similar jy 'teskmplad alos Venice 171. cientation ofthe building with respect co the axes of the garden x given a more yin Paver, Desi fn th Carden novel expression. st PIANTAMDELE HORTO DET7" [NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS (Ovals soon appeared everywhere in che garden, ina lawn, a mount, fishponds, fountains, and beds of simples, sanctioned by antique precedent still visible in the femains of ancient villas on the Palatine in Rome. One of the great enthusiasts of the oval in both building and garden design was Giovanvittorio Soderini, who was an active diletante architec. Impatient with the usual squares in gardens, Soderini encouraged instead the oval forthe design of an entice estat, its palace, the conventional plantings, or an arrangement of trees." By the time that he proposed these ideas in his treatise late in the sixteenth cenuury, he had already implemented some of them in a series of drawings, perhaps of the 1560s, which are variations on a theme of easino and garden in adjacent squaces.”” All have 2 diagonal entrance at the far comer and an oval courtyard, but in the garden Soderini tried out different schemes, large square compartments, radiating seg mental wedges, and oval beds (fig. 70). Concerned with both geometric figures and directional forms, he created in'the design with oval beds a diagonal ‘movement through the casino fiom the enteance at the lower left, past circles, cueving stairs, and oval courtyard. Inthe square of the adjacent garden, a circle is inscribed; its semicircular projections fil the four corners and suggest diagonal axes in response to that ofthe casino. Radiating, almond-shaped beds and smaller tones in the corners repeat the oval ofthe courtyard, and their long axes reiterate the diagonal impulses inthe design eather than the stasis ofthe ceeles and square in which they are contained. In this series of drawings Soderin’ aso envisioned his inventive designs alive with plants, about which he provided detailed information in copious notes scrawled in the margins. The dark dots around the perimeter and inthe niches, he indicated, signify orange and lemon «wees, plants frequently trellised on walls ‘The smal beds in the comer niches were to contain fine herbs, which would provide an abundant quantity for one house, and which he suggested on another drawing of the series might include marjoram, basil, and tender little salad igreens.*° The large radiating beds he left an open choice, and a related passage in his treatise indicates chat his own might inchide hyacinth, geape hyacinth, lly of the valley, sweet-scented violet, and rose.”! The triangular wedges between the beds are raised plots, cight inches high, bearing vases with flowers. Among, his several suggestions forthe center are other typical garden omaments, a fountain, piazza, little lawn, or little mount. ‘Geometric figures in Renaissance gardens had their ultimate inspiration in the architecture ofthe ancients and the writings of Vitruvius; other forms were also employed in the sixteenth century which referred more explicitly to antique building types used by che Romans in theit gardens. All were made out of nature as well as architecture, and the terms describing them were gencral and some- times interchangeable. Most vague were the designations theater and amphi- theater, applied to various circular and oval forms, including the great circle of the garden of simples at Padua — whether because of is shape, grand scale, or high enclosing walls uncertain." Inspiration forthe theater or amphitheater may have come from Pliny the Younger's description of his Tusean villa, but not from an aspect of the garden fashioned by act. It was rather the natural surroundings ‘hat he characterized as a ‘vast amphitheater sueh as could only be a work of nature."® Another amphitheater made entirely of nature was in the Regio Parco at Turin, which was begun in 1567. A contemporary visitor described the rustic architectural order with arches and columns of branches, niches and seats for resting, and circular benches, all covered with 3 earpet of herbs and lowers. A very tall and straight toe served as the obelisk that eradisionally occupied theNATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCEGARDENS, ” wi ral pt na as Se ee sam PRES 14 i Ge pe decnie SRT Sn cee Rae PN hae Sie Lint Si poadate’ od eng, SOBEL BS iE dom Sioa, Signin, TE ea et eel ee Hy po Ege ed poner tale a she = thi eps in Oe op ho be Hippodromes and circuses, the Greek and Roman terms respectively for the 70, Giovinittorio Seder, Design far architectural setting of horse and chariot races, were inspired by eheie remains in Palas snd Gane, Li 3B38Ay ancient gardens around Rome, and above all by Pliny's Tuscan villa” The grounds of his garden there included both a drive in the form of a circus, with topiary of box and dwarf shrubs inside, and 1 much grander hippodrome. Defined by plane, autel, and cypress trees, Pliny’ hippodrome contained regular plots of grass divided by paths and more box cut ito various shapes. In contrast to this aril manipulation of nature, the center ofthe hippodrome was planted “naturally,” in imitation of the open countryside, Emulating this well-known precedent, Francesco da Sangalo in his garden design of about 1525 for the Villa Madama (fig. 11) used the same hippodrome form for the colossal upper terrace planted with fr and chestnut rrces, At the botanical garden in Padua, outside the principal circular garden, there was aso a hippodrome, “as they used to have in the gardens of the ancients.”** Giacomo Lauto's 1616 view of the Vill Mattei (fg, 7), buil im the 1580s, depicts the hippodrome-shaped lawn or prato adjacent to the casino with an obelisk in the center and a colossal bust of Alexander the Great in the stepped exeda at the far end. The prato evoked not only the neatby sgatdens of Ciriaco Matte's Roman predecessors, but also a specific site with a Petsonal relevance, the Circus Flaminius, where the Mattel family palaces had been located for generations.”© [NATURE ORDERED: THE DESION OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS ‘The autonomy of individual units remained 2 primary design principle throughout the sixteenth century; at the same time parts were linked with dominant axes, vistas, and other means. Despite the limited evidence available, the development of some of these can be suggested, along with different coneepes and uses of axial organization, Throughout the Renaissance, a central avenue traversed the garden, often covered with a pergola. In the garden of Giovanni Rucellai at Quaracchi in the mid-fiteenth century, an avenue extended through the entire garden, first covered with a pergola, then tree-lined, past three gates, and on to the banks of the Arno River, so that Rucellat could sit at supper and ‘watch the boats going by.* Alongside this avenue were distinct nits, separated from each other by walls or avenues lined with tall hedges. The central axis linked distant elements visually, and from a high viewisig poine in the palace or on the ‘mouint, it ordered aid ified the parts. Standing within the garden, however, the experience would have been of separate, enclosed spaces. Movement from one tend of the garden to the other, but not excursions to either side, was encouraged by such an axis. In other gardens of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, central ‘venues, some with pergolas, functioned similarly.” Even in the 1570s in the ‘west garden ofthe Farnese vila at Caprarola (fig. 24), a pergola crossed the length cof the garden, terminating at the grotto of the rain, its function not to unify separate parts within the garden, but to connect end points physically and visually, and to create an axis visible from the palace windows above. in some gardens the distinctness of separate spaces was reinforced by pergolas ‘hat surrounded three or four sides of the garden, rather than covering, 3 central avenue, and by fountains that created 3 central focus in an enclosed space. Ruucellai mentioned no fountains, sculpture, or architecture at Quaracchi, but other fifeenth-ccntury gardens boasted a fountain, sometimes aquite ornate one, in the center of the garden of compartments, One of the Este gardens in Ferrara was fomamented not only with a fountain, but a great structure housing it, an tlaborate pavilion composed of 16 marble columns supporting a wooden ceiling ‘with lead roof More modest counterparts of the pavilion at Ferrara similaely ‘established a focal point in an enclosed ares. Such a centeaized space was sil 3 basic notion of garden design in the mid-sixteenth century. a5 we will sec in “ribolo's plan for the Boboli garden witha colosal fountain inthe center ofthe prac. Garden ornaments of various kinds functioned as a centeal focal point, of simply as isolated decorative elements, until some time inthe sixteenth century when theie capacity to create vistas, encourage movement, and lik separate pares began to be exploited. Fifeeenth-century creatises recommended sculpture, log- sist, and chapels for theie ideal gardens, such as the dining loggia with marble columns in the Este garden at Ferrars. In most gardens, however, even in the sixteenth century, afcitecture of stone must have been outaumbcred by con- structions of wood and vegetation, which, as in Rucellai’s garden, had no apparent relationship with the design. In the eacly sixteenth century, gardens in Rome often housed collections of antique sculpture, for the miost part in ap hazatd assemblies; only from the 1530s were they placed more deliberately in harmony with the design, as in niche a the end ofa view.** Ancient statues then marked comers of compartments and lined paths, and soon garden sculpt served to relate separate arcas visually as well as through theit content. ‘The limited evidence suggests that sculpture and fountains first centralized a regular space, later served a8 a focal point at the end of an avenue, and finally linked parts thematically, but not all examples correspond with this general schema, In gardens where sculpture and fountains were used to establish vistas, theyNATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS 8 Poin vosro mincing SF DicDftac Phy | rar oP asd as edad al ‘i Acai adapter a, a 3 betbach ef Pockipe i Elite is¥onta gadarcse 2 | Bete chien?” | racine «eRe gs ‘utonmeon | atta, Wiicnie” “Seeman, eke © eee tcinforced a visual axis linking pacts within the garden, aot merely connecting. 72. Giacomo Lauro Vill Mat Rome, 66, dlstnt ones, which seems tobe z development ofthe sntentheoury but nota omni plder, Ro 113-2 characteristic ofall gardens ofthat period. In some sintcnthecenury gardens, 2 Pumaren Os Single axis dominates, but in a number of others there were two prominent intersecting anes. We have scen examples of this in Peruzzi's garden project of about 1525 fr Salone in the Roman Campagna Fg, 65), Lorenzo Donats garden plan ofthe next quarer-century (fg. 12), perhaps intended fora Tancan sit, and the Ambrogiana, near Florence, inthe late sixteenth century (fig. 63). The biaxial scheme in these and other gardens urges moversent through the garden and encourages the experience of both length and breadth, On the other hand, there were also gardens in the sixteenth century, owned by dukes and even much larger in scale, in which the separate parts were merely juxtaposed, without an axial organization, hierarchical sequence, or symmetcical plan, in some eases dae tothe ‘idiosyncrasies ofthe site. The garden in Urbino of Duke Francesco Maia Il ella Rovere in the second half ofthe sixteenth century hugged the city wall and eeupied an irregular sice with an uneven tereain. On a level terrace with 42 ‘NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS teapezoidal perimeter, a garden of compartments was located, its symmeteical beds surrourided by pergolas on three sides. Beyond ths, on steep is, a bosco of elm teees in rows Was planted, on the fit side of which more plots were later purchased. The parts were juxtaposed with no axial organization, 2s was typical Df gardens of the region.» The Farnese ducal garden at Parma, begun in 1561, which covered extensive grounds bue was nether axially aligned with the palace not symmetrical inchaded nits of different dimensions and shapes, a row of compartments with designs, a large oval labyrinth, woods of oak, pine, and plane trees, and a section planted with orange trees." “The design of contemporary gardens on te hills overlooking the city of Rome, created by wealthy and important individuals, exhibits a primary concern with 2 recliner organization on level terrace together with unaltered terrain on a steep slope. One ofthese was the Villa Mate (fig. 71), attributed to Giacomo del Dees and begun about 1580, The original garden is now completely destroyed, and the present, more extensive grounds have been transformed into a public park. Inthe late sixteenth ceneury, large level area planted in compartments Inetsected by straight paths was supported by massive walls and stretched ftom the entrance gate to the casino and hippodrome-shaped prato. This level also contained a dense and iregular Socket, planted with laurel, arbuts, olive, and fther evergreen trees, atthe lower left in Lauco's view. On the far side of the hippodome and easino (he top in the view) the ground fell off sharply, and on the slope was a thickly planted wood with ramps and steps providing access Lauto's representation emphases the flat terrace and its rectliear organization, not any single axis, changes level, of atchitectual inks. Ina view he engraved two years earlier, however, tvo axes predominated and met in the casino: the tuee-lined, longitudinal avenue from the enteance, and the tansverse axis across the hippodrome, Again, garden and residence were united by two prominent intersecting axes; but these did not wnify all the significant omaments, since fountains and sculpture were placed along the sides throughout the garden. Nor dd stats and ramps function 8 foci or emphatic Features the stairase atthe far tight in the view owas hidden behind a pergola, and the ramps leading up to the ‘asino were reached from stair inside the aviares* All lements in the design Seem rather t0 emphasize the contrast between the ordered garden (the level terrace) and natural planting and terrain (the unaltered slope). To farther this contrast, connections between them were deliberately hidden, which would have treated a lively play between visible goals and physical access Other sites in Rome exploited 4 similar contrast. Observing this, Montaigne temarked that he had leaned “how aptly art can make use of a rugged, hilly, and tineven spor, for here they detive from them charms that cannot be duplicated in four level places, and very artfully take advancage ofthis diversity.” This was tue as well of Cardinal Ippolito dEste's villa on the Quirinal hil, which he began jn 1550 and to which he made additions until is death in 1572, Now completely akored, its earlier state is recorded in Maggs en the garden on the level terrace, from which Hi splendid view ofall Rome, the land fll off steeply and was lft unaltered, 28a the Villa Mattei, ‘The fat ares was ordered with compartments, both square and trapezoidal, intersected by straight paths, and atthe upper part ofthe garden in the view their low regularity was inruded upon by a bscheto. Ippolito dste, we have noted, spent 2 considerable sum on telis constructions for this garden, and, fountains and their water, a well 3 like Mati, on ancient and modesn scuptu ‘exotic and expensive plants. Jean Jacques Boissard, a French visitor who saw the garden in 1555, considered its planting more splendid than any othe Rome:[NATURE ORDERED; THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS, e ‘exquisite shate trees, pomegranate, bitter orange, citron, and lemon trees espal- tered on walls, various Rowers, and yellow and white jasmine.” The embellish- ‘ments of both nature and sculpture made it a noble gatden, one more concerned with the contrast between art and nature than with a single dominant axis, a hierarchical sequence of spaces, of architectural embellishnents ‘The garden of the Villa Medici in Rome (figs. 21 and 22) resembled the Mattei and Este gardens in its level terrace and arrangement in a grid pattern with two principal axes. Schickharde observed that one avenue extended from the mount across the entire length of the garden; a prominent longitudinal avenue stretched from the street entrance through the garden of fruit eees (at the right of the palace in the views).“® Leveling the ground, building retaining walls and water conduits, constructing the mount and pergolas, delineating all the compartments with hhedges, and trelising the walls with citron and pomegeanate trees — these were the improvements and embellishments that Ferdinando de’ Medici brought to the property he purchased in 1576, which transformed it into a modera and magni- ficent garden in late-sixteenth-century terms." A flat terrace, often a major 72. Giovanni Maggi, Ville Este on he % it Rome, 1, The Betsh bay1B. View ofthe Garden of Villa Pete expense, was an important characteristic of the sixteenth-century garden. The leveling of the land was essential; additional akterations and architecture were further enhancements that depended first of all on the terrain and its location, ‘Considerable suns of money were also expended on omaments of nature, water, and sculpture, as at the Mattei, Fste, and Medici gardens in Rome in the 1550s ‘through the 1580s, In these examples expense and prestige did not translate into architecture and terracing on a hillside, whose dominance in a few surviving examples has deflected attention from other significant features of aristocratic ‘gardens. Ferdinando de’ Medici's renovation in 1591-97 of the Villa Petrain (ig. 73), ‘one of his family’s estates in Tuscany, included terracing the sloping site and the requisite retaining walls, although not major land alteration or architeewral features, ltde of sculpted decoration, but extravagant consttuctions of greenery, and a design that had much in common with that in contemporary gardens. ‘The rnew garden did not compete in fountains and sculpture with its neighbor at Castello created by Ferdinando’s father, Cosimo I, since much of the water from[NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCEGARDENS. 6 the spring behind Petraia had been diverted there. The palace at the summit of the 74, Gisto Utes, Vila Petri, 159, Florence hill, long pre-dating the landscaping, determined the general disposition of the Misco diFirenze confers arden below. The basic layout of three terraces remains: one long and gently sloping, two narrow and fat, supported by retaining walls and linked by modest staircases. There is no sixteenth-century documentation of this garden, but substantial information on its later state, which reveals that litle changed for two centuries, until the replanting in a new garden style inthe late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries under the House of Lorraine.” Later changes in planting at Pecraia have removed the most salient featutes of its original design — symmetry and geometry conveyed through the thece conventional plantings. In Utens’ painting (fig. 74), the garden is laid ou symmetrically on either side of the palace, fishpond, and central avenue of the hill - below. Originally the central axis was not further siessed, 3s iis now, by a ‘mound with a fountain; and the entrance to the palace was not on the garden 7 side.° On the lowest terrace the longitudinal axis was balanced by a traneverse one, This axis bisceted two large squares, each of which was inscribed witha great citcular pergola (planted with widely spaced trees following the same arc) and subdivided into four compartments. In the corners of this terrace are boschett, which appear to be holm oak trees in Utens' view, probably reduced in number, ‘The holm oaks were still there in the eighteenth century, along with cypress and Jasrel trees; and they remain there today. The pergolas aso had along life in 1773 it was suggested that they be removed, but the owner and grand duke of Tuscany, Pietro Leopoldo, wanted them kept.!* In the same yeat there were citrus trees planted within the pergolas, where Utens has painted more holm[NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS oaks. Hlowers and hietbs filled the compartments flanking the fishpond (Fig. 29), 4s they stil did inthe eighteenth century. On the highest rerace, on either side of the palace, Utens indicates small tees, which were surly the, same citrus trees that were recorded along with the flowers in 1769." “The garden was experienced in two typically contrasting ways: ascending feom the lowest level, visitors saw each part in sequence: and looking down from the palace they perceived the order and unity. Because ofthe long sloping terrace and the absence of grand stairases, major architectural forms, fountains, and other visual goals, the autonomy of each level was the primary experience within the garden. Prom the entrance tthe base ofthe hill the greenery of pergolas and trees Swould have predominated and framed the palace with its tower looming over the state, the principal enticement to ascend the garden. A central double staircase Teads to the second terrace, but from there a diversion from the visual goal is necessary t0 texch the upper terrace. Two flights of stairs flanking the fishpond, tly one of which remains, ed to the compartments at ether side of the palace. Only fromthe highese level could the geometry be discerned along with the proportional relationship of parts and a numerical progression. On either side of the central axis there wete four large compartments on the long slope, three small fones above, and on the upper terrace two squares, cach divided into two rectangular beds, The splendid view from the piano noble of the palace (ig. 75) encompasses the entre garden below, the plain of the Amo, and the far distant hills ll Ferdinando's domain once he shed his cardinals hat and became grand duke of Tuscany in 1587. On his estate, nature was ordered in harmonious Configurations. The tees in the wood on the slope were planted in geometric forms; che pergolas emphasized the order in nature on a grand scale. The separate spaces of each enclosed area, experienced in succession from the lower entrance, Yielded to the view of the order, symmetry, and harmony of the whole Tn the eighteenth century the garden remained remarkably close to its original state. The present garden is instead modern in conception, plant materials, and design, lacking the very things that once made it a characteristic Renaissance garden. The sloping ground is now planted with box-lined beds, filled with flowers in spring and saramer from the hothouses buile in 1833 for the new tropical plants that began to ornament the garden. Citrus trees in vases are ‘brought out in warm months, along with bougainviller and azalea, and plane ‘recs line the lower boundary of the garden, Although its planting is completely altered, the principal garden is nevertheless still defined by sweeping curves, ongitudinal nd transverse axes, the second with three round piazzas, and Ioachet! of holm oak tees in the corners. The central mound, its fountain, and the circles of holm oak tees inthe side piazzas all date from the late eighteenth or the ‘beginning of the nineteenth century, Abundant information on former Medici holdings in cighteenth-century documents chronicles the income and expenses of these grand gardens and repeated coneemns with their economic state.*© In contrast, the present garden, dating ftom the nineteenth century or perhaps even the early twentieth for the lowest terrace, is entirely ornamental, and forthe most part open space, dry and hot on a midsummer day.” Tm other gardens water was one of the means used to connect garden parts visually and conceptually, not only through fountains ut also by means of water channels, which could be given significant architectural form, Necessary to the ferigation of the garden and documented from the time of Boceaccio's Decameron in the fourteenth century,“ water channels later evolved into the water chains and ‘water stairs of the grand sixteenthcentury gardens in central Italy. The end result is known, but the stages of development can only be suggested, since the evidencei scattered. Accounts from the end of the fifteenth century hine that in some gardens water channels funetioned in the design and were not simply a practical necessity. The garden of Caterina Cornaro $1 4t Asolo, described in the late fifteenth century by Pietro Bembo in his dialogue, g Gli Asolani, consisted of three sequential parts: che garden of compartments with | ¥eross pergola, p 1 litle Lawn, and two small woods of laurel trees." At the end of the garden, ral spring fed a fountain carved out of the living rock af the base of the mountain. ts water flowed into a small marble channel that ‘\divided the pravello in half, then continued on into the beds, almost hidden in the {grass, as Bembo observed, probably in small conduits such as those visible in a ‘detail of Utens’ painting of the Ambrogiana (figs. 25 and 63). From this account it ‘seems that at the termination of the first garden the pergola-covered avenue ceded -/o4to the water channel, which continued the central axis to the end of the garden. “> Elsewhere water which originated in a mountain spring, aqueduct, or its outlet “Hina fountain flowed through the garden in channels and came to rest in a pond, so {that the passage of water in the garden seemed to imitate its course in nature, i through mountains, grottoes, rivers, and lakes. ‘The apparent source of water was often a grotto, which imitated naturally dripping caverns and intimated the «Presence of a real mountain spring. In the mid-sixteenth century Bartolomeo ‘Taegio saw a yarden near Milan in which water emerged from a fountain in the iddle of a grotto, situated on one side of the garden. Some of the water from {his fountain ran in a stream around the garden, and some emptied directly into a Sshpond, so that the source and flow of water suggested mountain spring which «feeds tivers and lakes." In Anton Francesco Doni’s contemporary proposal for a Vila Civile" fora king, dukes or powerfal lord, the intention rotate + natal 24 $0URee of water is clear, although he does.not explicitly continue the analogy in Dis Account ofits farther progress in the garden, Doni imagined water issii indocuments and descriptions is ae View From. ~ Villa Pra cs NATURE ORDERED ATTIE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GAINS id of which was op a mount at the emerged in a rustic funtain in the center of « labyrinth, by conduits down through the mount, i¢ The vault as in a natural cave, Prom there various den and emptied into Owe fish tanks.“ saver could pass through a garden we inventive trom a the garden, Passing grotto below, dripping rom Streams passed through the ‘Other tests suggest different combining practical, design, an eUimples of water channels appear in Cosinn syett forthe garden ofthe Disha of Corton shih Hugged 1s oy walls of aaesce, This garden consisted of a pirate ere of rare simpkes, orchard oF Vig ao reemd. Waret brought from the Mugnone River by. aquedict is large anaemia canuduts were termed) enigrged in two Fourains ome BN Ina aneeetton which presents a pictuse of a garden surrounded by: te refreshing Sight and soni of bubbling, sid mnursatingg water Ne explained that the water Fateat dhrough vases and channels on Low walls enclosing ¢he ove presumably a vahen passed into the oechard, th the orchard, water fell from ora, actually two canals, each almost 4 feet Ihich emptied finally ito a 1s in his treatise on aygricul= ways in which W: nd metaphorical considerations, Som 1 Bartoli’s unidesinteenth-century on sloping, the channels into what Bartoli calls & ee Neade (2 hein), on either side of a eunteal aventte, W Oval pond. One of Soderini’s recommenda doe ee century resembles Bartel's eather proposal for hls with an aoe af water he suggested creating a laege canal whic would similarly seers into channels with an avenue Betawecn ter”) Wraect channels Hankiny passageways, particularly on a sloping fers, ¢ucour™ sue physical movement, unify parts, and display sevantion am playfulness in the se patation of water. In the Este garcen at Tivol in the 150% ae flowed anil ther side or sais and ramps, etc che ascenling Vntar S cout the ae enpurce, The Stars of dhe Bubbling Fountains (Seale ¢ bold) (Ps 76). eer oe tir length include both stairs and ramps, are bordered BY long, steppeel channels with a pedestal atte end of each seep- A small jet of water rises Fownnins, Vill este Tv [F7 Wator Chain, Vila Farnese, Copal7s. Water Chain trom the side Copratels, sles cam'era, (Detail ottig, 1) Vills Fare, ” NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS from the pedestal, then falls to the next level from spouts in the mouths of faratesqe eats, i a. wet Season when the water supply fs abundant. wares Cabbles up and drips down, making constant gurgting and erickling sounds and even appearing 10 boil. The development fron water conduits (0 prow srehitertural steps and canals in Halian gardens may have been mspited by the ar tvelous fountain displays scen in Islamic Spain in che sixteenth century, and pempunted at engl in a fetter published as early as 1556 by the Venetian envoy to the court of Charles V in Spain. The water stairease deseribed by the en TAvddren Navagero, had channels along, the sides as well ws in ¢he center and on Iandings every few steps, There were valves to direct dhe floye of water down cher central-or side channel, oF both, The precariows progress his account 1 more risky, since (miuich co the delight of tahun iting, the steps and suggests was potentially vinitors) the water could also be made to overflow. inun drenching everyone on them. Taian versions seen) tame by comparison, but jn different ways they too artfully, replicate wild nature inthe garden. In two later sixteenth-cencary tuardes, hte Villa Lante at Bagnaia, dating from 15635 and the upper gardew of the Fills Farnese at Caprarola (ig, 77). begun almost ewenty years Hater, a channel of water wae aligned with the central axis down the slope. rigging dolphins form the seilloped sides of the stone channel at Caprarolt, shila basa giant she ats be, and sprightly grotesque heads initiate and ened che water courses Ay i the Spanish version, theve ae hidden water ets along the ramp on either se." Water Fishes down the center of the stepped bed and swirls around the shells the channel, as it would in nature's own stream, From the side Structure appears as an undulating, living mass, water and channel fused ina ane, Such a seater chain is an extension of the central fountain, finking dhe water's nouree with the receptacle for it below. At the same time, the Form of the water efain scems ain architcetural analogue for the meandering of rivers: nature's owe Fe adored and replicated by art. Inthe park at Pratolino. a sequence of ponds ular shapes meandered down the hillside with water Howing a few years after their creation.2 NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS Uy SENSEND! SDEEITH CHAR DIN BQ scHI FONTANE 1 MARAVEGLIOSE DI BELVEDERE IN RO} Sen teg de palin hts [Pidiifotiee |* piglets ele {0. Mate Cat, Belvedere Cou and Wace Gardens om Specon Romane Magnferntar, 314, Neu Yor, copie Mite At. His Bebone Dek Por Beeneolp. Giovanni Guerra explained that for the most part these ponds conform to the ations made by nature. Caprarola’s symmetrical dolphins, although more artful, nevertheless also intimate the sinuosity of rivers and streams, they link separate spaces in the garden by following the model of nature's own course of water Ancient architectural complexes offered other models for linking garden parts ona hillside, among them the Sanctuary of Fortuina at Palestrina and the gardens of Lucullus on the Pincian hill in Rome, Yet more accessible to sinteenth-century arden designers was the modern example they inspired —Bramante’s Belvedere Court (fig. 80) of about 1504~13. This was an enclosed courtyard connecting the Vatican palace with the Belvedere, the papal summer retreat at the summit of the bill Essentially a courtyard garden, like the later ones at the Villa Giulia in Rome and the Villa Imperiale at Pesaro, the Belvedere Court enclosed three terraces, two of them planted with compartments and all linked along 4 central axis by architectural ‘elements derived from antique models, Later, other architects, among them Raphael, Pirro Ligorio, and Vignola, applied to full-scale gatdens terraced on a hillside some of the Belvedere Courts design principles, ‘monumental double staircases, and other atchiteetural forms, They also emulated Bramante’s aim of recreating — reinstating 2s whole, new, and alive again — the ‘imperial villas of the Romans,NATURE ORDERED: THE DESIGN OF RENAISSANCE GARDENS By Raphael's garden design for the Villa Madsma of about 1518 (fg. 81) was probably the first of the few ceraced archteeaial gardens allantice that tuly combine architectural linking features on a hillide with the conventions of Remassance gardens. The entice villa was intended to recreate those of the ancients, in scale architectural forms, decoration, and design. Raphael's own description of the palace echoes those of ancient writers; borrowing. their architectural vocabulary just ashe revived the forms themselves.» Less than half the planned structure’ was ever completed, but the early nineteenth-centary reconstruction by Percier and Fontaine (fg. 82) indicates the basic plan of the building complex with a great circular courtyard in the cemter. The spiit of the cxiginal is aleo rendered by thie presentation of the floorplan enshrined within 2 clasial frame. The engraving serves 1s well oillastate the siting ofthe vila, Iaid out along a transverse axis parallel to the side of Monte Mario, noth of Rome, Raphael’ terraced garden was tobe situated on the south-east se, or the left of the palace, perpendicular to the principal axis ofthe building. Extending along the hillside from the Tiber River below, the garden would have had an ext oo tothe avenue atthe far lft ofthe engraving, approximately where the frame intersects i” Other garden projects were designed forthe opposite side of the palace complex, most of which, ike Raphael's, were never executed, Among them was Francesco da Sangallo's design (fig. 11), in which he indicated the planting on each of the teraces, The sim of reviving clasical antiquity through architectural forms and a harmonious design informed Raphael's gatden ast did the architecture. Each of the thre terraces isa geometric figure — 4 squate, circle, and square with semicircle on cither side. This last is the same configuration that Bernardo Veechiet later employed at fl Riposo, where semicircular orchards famed 4 large square osc. Ac the Villa Madama the terraces are also proportional the 220-foot dimension (68 m., 30 came) of the upper square is repeated in the diameter ofthe circle below, and the lowest terraces double their width. Raphael drew compartments on the upper terrace, but did not specify any plant materalsin the garden. In later comparable designs — Francesco da Sangallo’s plan for the samse villa and the garden of the Villa Ptraa (fg. 74) — cach of the terraces was