Alberti and ΦΙΛΑΡΕΤΗ.

A Study in Their Sources

Author(s): John Onians
Source: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 34 (1971), pp. 96-114
Published by: The Warburg Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/751017 .
Accessed: 09/12/2013 10:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Warburg Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND NIAAPETH
A STUDY IN THEIR SOURCES

By John Onians
I1 ALBERTI

' nless I am mistaken the language of this book is both undeniably Latin
and reasonably intelligible.'1 Alberti makes this claim about the De re
aedificatoriaat the beginning of the sixth book. With five books behind him
and five still to come, he pauses to review the obstacles that had faced him
in preparing a work on ancient architecture and to explain the methods by
which he had surmounted them. Later in the same book, he again refers to
his intention to write both in true Latin and intelligibly.2 It is clear that he
wishes us to remember the difficulties created by Vitruvius's use of language.
Though recognizing Vitruvius's inestimable value, Alberti had criticized him
for using a language that was Greek for the Latins and Latin for the Greeks
and consequently could be understood by nobody.3 Alberti is determined
to avoid this in his own work by paying great attention to his Latinity. Not
only are his constructions more Ciceronian than those of Vitruvius but he
replaces Greek technical terms with others of Latin derivation.
A further comparison of Alberti with Vitruvius reveals that the concern
for Latinity affects not only linguistic structure but architectural content.
For Vitruvius the basic types of temple were the Greek: Doric, Ionic and
Corinthian. The Tuscan temple had been treated briefly in a sort of
appendix.4 In Alberti by contrast we find, besides a general assertion of the
antiquity of the art of building among the Etruscans, a strong suggestion that
the so-called Doric form of capital was in use in Etruria at least as early as in
Greece.5 Indeed, he implies, if Italy was probably in at the beginning of
the development of columns, she certainly provided the culmination to that
development by originating a type unknown to the Greeks, which can only
be called Italic.6 This type, which we now call Composite, had, of course,
never been mentioned by Vitruvius. Hence Alberti could infer that it was not
of Greek origin. It was rather a form that figured prominently on surviving
monuments in Rome, more particularly on the Colosseum, where it was to
be found on equal terms with the three earlier forms. Alberti may even have
thought, like Serlio, that its position above the other forms and its character
of a blend between the two richest of those, Ionic and Corinthian, was
intended from the first to signify the superiority of Rome over Greece.' In
This article owes much to the help and sulted this in card index form and have been
encouragement of my teachers at the Cour- considerably helped by conversations with
tauld and Warburg Institutes, especially its compiler, Dr. Liicke.
Professor E. H. Gombrich. I am grateful to 2 De re aed., vi, 13.
the Central Research Fund of London Univer- 3 De re aed., vi, 1.
sity for financial assistance. 4 De architectura, iv, 7. References to this
1 De re aedificatoria, vi, I. The text used and all other classical texts are to the relevant
throughout is G. Orlandi, ed., L. B. Alberti, volumes of the Loeb Classical Library.
L'Architettura, Milan 1966, with introd. and 5 De re aed., vi, 3; and vi, 6.
commentary by P. Portoghesi. There will 6 Op. cit., vii, 6.
shortly be published a full index of the De re 7 S. Serlio, Tutte l'opered'architettura ...,
aedificatoria, prepared at the Zentralinstitut Venice 1619; reprint 1964, iv, fol. I83r.
fiur Kunstgeschichte, Munich. I have con-
96

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND OIAAPETH 97
any case he asserts that it is 'deservedly to be preferred' to the other three.8
From this it is clear that Alberti is at pains to minimize the contribution of
Greece to the development of the 'primary' element in architecture, the
column, by showing that the origin and fulfilment of that development
could be found in Italy. Where history failed to supply enough evidence,
he could support his argument with a rhetorical sneer: 'if we are to believe
that the Greeks invented everything'.9
Alberti's emphasis on the antiquity of Etruscan architecture can partly
be explained as a symptom of the endemic Florentine disease of Tuscan
nationalism, just as his boast of Latinity is partly inspired by a desire to put
Vitruvius in his place. But his concentration on the language and art of
ancient Italy at the expense of Greece is one aspect of a more deep-rooted
and significant attitude. This emerges in his brief history of architecture,
which is also to be found at the beginning of the sixth book. In a summary
we are told that the art of building first appeared in Asia, then flourished in
Greece and 'finally achieved maturity and perfection in Italy'.10 What he
means and more especially why, by the use of the term probatissimam, he hints
that the perfection is moral is made clear in the following paragraphs.
The architecture of the Asiatic kings was characterized by great size and
impressiveness, that of the Greeks, who were both poorer and wiser, was
more refined and carefully planned, but the Romans, who came to wealth
and power from modest and humble origins, constructed buildings that
combined all qualities in moderation. They were disposed 'to blend the
grandeur of the greatest kings with their ancient frugality, so that neither did
meanness prevent the attainment of functional sufficiency nor did attention
to function alone make them stingy in expenditure. Within the limits of
these considerations they did all they could think of to increase the delicacy
and beauty of their buildings'.11 It is particularly the restraint of the Romans
that Alberti would have us admire. The early Romans above all had this
virtue. 'The Italians, because of their natural frugality, decided for the first
time that buildings should be like animals. For they noticed that those horses
whose limbs seemed suited for particular functions usually proved most
efficient for those same jobs. Hence they thought that beauty of form could
never be separated from function and utility.'12 The same point is insisted
on much later; 'Among our forefathers I observe that the most careful
and moderate of them took great delight in frugality and restraint, not only
in their public and private dealings, but also in building and they thought
that no luxury should be allowed to persist among the citizen body.'13
Alberti makes it clear however that, although luxury is not appropriate to
the citizen, magnificence may certainly be appropriate to a city, especially
to ancient Rome: 'Because architecture had long been a guest in Italy and
felt that she was eagerly studied there, she decided to do all she could to
render the Roman Empire more admirable in its ornaments, just as had all
the other arts. So she gave herself to be thoroughly known and understood,
8 'Quod meritoprae his comprobes':De re aed., tem in Italia', op. cit., vi, 3.
vii, 6. 11 Op. cit., vi, 3-
9 Op. cit., vi, 6.
12 Op. cit., vi, 3.
10 'Postremoprobatissimamadepta est maturita- 13 Op. cit., ix, I.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
98 JOHN ONIANS
thinking it a shame that the capital of the world and the glory of all nations
should be equalled in her monuments by those whom she had surpassed in
all other skills.'14 The superiority of Roman architecture was a fitting
complement to her superiority in other fields.
Alberti's desire to write in pure Latin, his concentration on the columnar
forms of Italy and his admiration for the perfection of Roman architecture,
all create a pattern. This pattern enhances the reputation of ancient Italy
at the expense of Greece. It also distinguishesAlberti's interests and approach
emphatically from those of Vitruvius. The ancient writer was still a mouth-
piece for the Greek stage of architectural development. Rationality and
intellectual refinement are the qualities he most reveres. Alberti is the
spokesman for the final, the Roman stage.
This, we have seen, was characterized chiefly by its moral quality. The
Roman architect was neither miserly nor extravagant, but, while keeping his
mind focused on the problem of utility, still did what he could to increase the
elegance and beauty of his buildings. There was no hint of such a
characterization in Vitruvius and although it does derive from a passage in
an ancient text, as I will show later, it was Alberti's idea to introduce it as
the principle behind all Roman architecture. His purpose was evidently to
claim the same moral quality for his own treatise, which was based
specifically on Roman theory and practice. The principle was certainly in
harmony with the then prevalent Christian-Aristotelian morality. The
indubitable vices of miserliness and extravagance were avoided and the
essential goal of utility was obtained. The more dubious attributes of elegance
and beauty were only sought within the framework of this principle. Archi-
tecture in the fifteenth century felt itself extremely exposed to criticism on
moral grounds. The expenditure of money and effort on buildings, even
churches, implied an excessive interest in the earthly and the temporal and
could often be interpreted as inspired by a desire for personal glory. Proof
of the profound influence of this critical atmosphere is found in the fact
that no great builder of the middle of the century could afford to leave his
reputation undefended. The accounts of the building activities of Branda
Castiglione, Nicholas V and Pius II all constitute apologiaeon different
grounds. Not surprisingly the greatest builder of them all, Cosimo de'
Medici, had the most elaborate defence. Timoteo Maffei, in a long
dialogue, set about refuting the thesis that the magnificence for which
Cosimo was renowned was 'by Christian standards more of a vice than a
virtue'.15 As a verbal builder, reconstructing the architecture of antiquity,
Alberti too was aware of the need to avoid attacks. There was no better way
than by showing that whatever was true of the Asiatics and the Greeks, the
Romans who were his authorities were supremely characterized by the
morality of their buildings.
But Alberti obviously had to do more than just assert the morality of his
models, the Romans. He had to integrate morality into the very structure
14 Op. cit., vi, 3. of this text see A. D. Fraser Jenkins, 'Cosimo
15
'Vitium magis apud Christianos quam virtu- de' Medici's patronage of architecture and
tem', see G. Lami, Deliciae Eruditorum, xii, the theory of magnificence', this Journal,
Florence 1745, PP. I50ff. For a discussion XXXIII, 1970, pp. 162-70.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND NIAAPETH 99
and substance of his work, more especially in the last five books, where he
was concerned with the less utilitarian and more ornamental parts of
architecture. We have already observed how he mentions with obvious
approval the delight of the wisest of the ancients in frugality in building
and their hostility to the pursuit of luxury by private citizens. Already at
the beginning of his treatise he had praised sobriety and criticized the
unrestrained desire to build.16 But he needed to show how individual
buildings could be moral, too. This he did by applying to architecture a
well-known principle, that of decorum.'That which we should praise first
in an architect is the ability to judge what is appropriate'-'quid deceat'.17
He proceeds to apply this principle particularly to the morally more
vulnerable secular buildings. A basilica should not attempt to equal a
templum.Neither should it be raised on so high a podium, nor should its
decoration have the gravitasrequired in a sacred structure.'8 The architec-
ture of private buildings as a whole should be very restrained but it may
employ greater freedom in details. Yet although they do not have to follow
the same exact rules as public buildings do they should never become ugly
or depraved. Public works must attend to gravitasand the letter of the law
but private may tend to iocunditas.'9 As an example, Alberti refers to the
festivissimus use of figures to support the door lintels of triclinia and of
columns copied from tree trunks in garden porticoes.20 The opposition
between gravitasand festivitas in the last passage is one that recurs. Town
houses should give an impression of gravitasbut villas may have the attractive
quality offestivitas.21 Even within the town house, the portico and vestibule
should tend to gravitasbut the inner rooms to festivitas. Whatever happens,
in all environments, the qualities should not be mixed: gravitasand maiestas
should be kept quite apart from iocunditasand festivitas.22 A similar
opposition is seen in his assertion that temples to male gods should be
decorated with gravitasand those to female with venustas.23 This is certainly
based on Vitruvius's recommendation of Doric and Corinthian for tough and
tender deities respectively.24 Earlier Alberti himself had ascribed the quality
offestivitasto Corinthian.25 Thus the masculine Doric and feminine Corinthian
embody the same contrast.
This last observation leads us to the source of Alberti's idea. No such
clear opposition is to be found in Vitruvius. Instead we are reminded of
Cicero, who says in the De officiisthat 'there are two types of beauty. One is
characterized by venustasand the other by dignitas. Venustaswe should
consider a feminine trait and dignitasmasculine'.26 Like Alberti, Cicero is
insistent that the two should not be mixed. That Alberti's two terms
gravitasand festivitas are equivalent to Cicero's pair dignitasand venustasand
that he knew this passage is confirmed by the fact that he uses one term
from each pair for his own characterization of the masculine and the
16De re aed., i, 9. 22
23
Op.cit., ix, 4-
17 Op. cit., ix, I0. Op. cit., vii, 3-
24
18 Op. cit., vii, 14-. Vitruvius, De architectura,
25 De re
i, 2.
19 Op. cit., ix, I. aed., vii, 6.
20 Loc. cit. 26
Cicero, De oficiis, i, 36.
21
Op. cit., ix, 2.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I00 JOHN ONIANS
feminine: gravitasand venustas.The reason why he did not throughout use
the terms of Cicero is probably because he wanted words to describe character
or spirit, rather than merely types of beauty. The words he uses are in any
case Ciceronian, being used to mean 'seriousness'and 'gaiety', applied both
to manners generally and to rhetoric in particular. If Alberti wanted a model
for the application of moral terms to an art, rhetoric provided an excellent
one and there are many echoes of Cicero's rhetorical treatises in the De re
aedificatoria.
Is there other evidence to substantiate the suggestion that Alberti was
influenced by the De officiisin his treatment of architecture? In another
case, where he talks about architectural behaviour, but not strictly in terms
of appropriateness, he refers again to the heights of podia. 'The podium of a
private house should not be more lofty (superbior)than is necessary to link it
to the adjoining buildings.'27 This means more than just that the podium
should match those of neighbours for visual reasons. The use of the word
superbusand not altus shows that the greater height would be tantamount to
an arrogant claim to greater status. It is thus exactly an architectural
expression of Cicero's declaration in the De officiisthat 'the private citizen
ought rightly to live on terms of equality with his fellow citizens, being
neither submissive nor superior (nequesummissum etabjectumnequese eferentem)'.28
In a later passage, Alberti even seems to echo the construction of this
sentence. He does not approve of the addition of fortifications to private
houses, because these are appropriate to the castles of tyrants rather than to
the houses of citizens living at peace in a well-ordered state. 'They imply
either fear or hostility (aut conceptum metumautparataminiuriamsignificent).'29
In one passage in the De oficiis, Cicero himself deals with architecture.
He discusses what is the proper sort of house. 'The object (finis) of a house is
to be useful and the design should be made with that goal in mind, but at
the same time attention should be given to comfort and dignity.'30 This is
evidently the basis for Alberti's characterization of the whole of Roman
architecture, which I quoted earlier: the Romans concentrated on the
problem of utility but did what they could to create elegance and beauty.
As in the previous instance, we note that Alberti uses different words to
express a similar thought with a similar construction. This occurs also when
Alberti takes Cicero's statement a little farther on that 'a man's dignity is to
be enhanced by his house (ornandaenimest dignitasdomo)'and expands it into:
'Because we decorate our house as much to adorn our fatherland and
family (patriaefamiliaequecondecorandae) as for the sake of elegance, who will
deny that such activity is the duty of a good man (bonivirioficium)?'31 Alberti
here comes as near as he ever does to admitting his debt to this particular
treatise of Cicero by his use of the word officium.
But this word appears in another passage, where its use is even more
significant. Alberti says that the ancients realized that 'different buildings
should have different forms because they saw that they differed from each
other in purpose and function (fine et oficio)'.32 This is the first case I know
27 De re aed., ix, 2. 30 De officiis, i, 39.
28 De officiis, i, 34- 31 De officiis, i, 39, and De re aed., ix, I.
29 De re aed., ix, 4. 32 De re aed., ix, 5.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND FIAAPETH IOI
of an inanimate object being said to have an officium. Although the
meaning of the word is not precisely the same as that it has in Cicero's
treatise, where it is the translation of a Greek technical term -rO
Ka'lKov,
moral duty, it is very doubtful that Alberti understood the subtle changes
of meaning the word had gone through in antiquity. What is interesting
to observe is that Alberti applies to buildings a word that had usually been
reserved for men and that he uses this application as the basis for formulating
his theory that different buildings should have different decorative forms-
in this case Doric, Ionic and Corinthian. He thus equates the principle of
his theory of architectural forms with that of Cicero, who had shown that a
man should vary his actions according to his circumstances or his role in
life. This assimilation of architectural forms to human actions is possible for
Alberti only because he is determined to show that buildings, like men, can
be subject to the rules of morality.
The principle to which Alberti refers in the last passage discussed is in
fact that of decorum,which was mentioned earlier. Not surprisingly, this
principle is referred to explicitly by both Alberti and Cicero with equal
insistence on its importance. We have already quoted Alberti's statement
that the 'first ability to praise in an architect is his capacity to judge what
is appropriate (quid deceat)'. Cicero had said that decorum,the Latin trans-
lation of the Greek was so important in morality 'that it cannot
rpE-rrov,
be separated from "-r5 moral rectitude, for what is appropriate is morally
right and what is morally right is appropriate.'33 The notion of decorum
had, of course, been applied already in antiquity to many arts, as to
rhetoric by Cicero and poetry by Horace, but in none of these was it given
the over-riding importance here attributed to it by Alberti. His model in
this statement can only be the De officiis,whatever the detailed influences
from the ancient theory of rhetorical decorummay be elsewhere in the work.
Vitruvius had been influenced by the theory in one important passage, but
the influence is isolated and comes directly from rhetoric.34 The contrast
between Vitruvius and Alberti is seen in the fact that while Vitruvius uses a
part of the verb deceoonly once in his whole ten books, Alberti frames many
of his injunctions with its aid.
So far I have dealt only with the influence of the De officiison Alberti's
thought in general and on some detailed opinions in particular. But the
ancient moral treatise affected the whole structure of Alberti's presentation
of architecture. The place where Alberti reveals most about his working
methods is, as we saw, at the beginning of the sixth book. Here, at one point,
he declares that he has dealt with the two parts of architecture that concern
usefulness and strength (ad usum apta and ad perpetuitatemfirmissima)and that it
remains to treat of how grace and attractiveness (gratiaand amenitas)are to be
obtained. These two qualities, he proceeds to state, derive undeniably from
beauty and ornament (pulchritudoand ornamentum), and these will be the
subject of the remaining half of the work.35 With the exception of the last
book, which deals with restoration and a few other odds and ends, the whole is
thus divided into two equal parts, one concerned with functional aspects and
33 De officiis, i, 27. 35 De re aed., vi, I and 2.
34 De architectura,i, 2.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102 JOHN ONIANS
the other with decorative. In fact, the two parts run parallel, so that for
example in the first book columns are treated in terms of their function and
their essential parts, while in the sixth book it is shown that they can be given
different sorts of ornament to make them Doric or Ionic, for example. This
division has no parallel in Vitruvius, who moves step by step from the elements
of architecture to materials, to temples, to public buildings and so on. No
previous discussion of architecture had hinted at Alberti's separation between
structure and decoration.
In the De officiis,however, Cicero introduces his second book with a preface
reminding his son that in the first book he has shown how officiaare derived
from honestas(moral rectitude) and that he will now discuss the relation
between officiaand the material aspects of life, concentrating on the problem
of what is useful and what is not useful (quidutile, quidinutile).36 Indeed, of
the three books of the De officiisthe first deals with honestas,the second with
utilitas and the third with the problem of reconciling those two ideas. The
possibility that Alberti's division may be based on Cicero's is suggested first of
all by the formal resemblancein arrangement. Not only is the division between
the two sections in both cases marked by a linking passage but in both cases
the initial sentence of this linking passage summarizes the content of the first
section. Moreover, Alberti uses exactly the same idiom to refer to the previous
section: superioribus libriswhere Cicero says librosuperiore.
It is easy to see the connexion in subject between the first five books of
Alberti and the second book of Cicero. Both concentrate on the term utilitas
as the heading under which to discuss functionalism, usefulness, expediency
and need. The connexion between Cicero's honestasand Alberti's pulchritudo
and ornamentum is at first less obvious. Yet Cicero himself explains the
connexion in the De officiisitself.
'And it is no mean manifestation of Nature and Reason that man is the
only animal that has a feeling for order, for propriety (quoddeceat),for modera-
tion in word and deed. And so no other animal has a sense of beauty, loveli-
ness, harmony in the visible world; and Nature and Reason, extending the
analogy of this from the world of the sense to the world of the spirit, find that
beauty (pulchritudo),consistency, order are far more to be maintained in
thought and deed, and the same Nature and Reason are careful to do nothing
in an improper or unmanly fashion, and in every thought and deed to do or
think nothing capriciously.'37
Honestasis the quality which the human animusapproves in actions. It is
the exact counterpart of the pulchritudothat the oculusrecognizes in outward
appearances. In his treatment of a visual art, then, it was natural for Alberti
to devote a section to the discussion of pulchritudo(aesthetic rectitude) as
matching Cicero's account of honestas (moral rectitude) in his study of
morality. Alberti evidently understood the Platonic theory of man's innate
desire for the beautiful and the good, that is harmony, that lay behind Cicero.
'For the eyes are by nature especially desirous of beauty and harmony.'38
And this too he could have derived from a passage in the De oficiis almost
immediately following that just quoted: 'You see here, Marcus, my son, the
36 De officiis,ii, I. 38 De re aed., ix, 8.
37 Op.cit., i, 4.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND DIAAPETH Io3

very form and as it were the face of Moral Goodness; "and if", as Plato says,
"it could be seen with the physical eye, it would awaken a marvellous love of
wisdom".'39
Alberti makes one significant change in adapting the structure of the moral
treatise to his own on architecture. He reverses the order of the two main
sections. Cicero had treated honestasbefore utilitas, because it was obviously
a criterion of higher importance in moral decisions. But architecture, as
Alberti realized, was not an exactly analogous field. Indeed, it was Cicero
who defined the difference for him. Cicero, we remember, had said that the
prime object of a house was usefulness and that visual impressivenesswas only
a secondary consideration in its design. As Alberti had taken over this idea,
applied it to the whole of Roman architecture and consequently to the whole
subject of his book, it followed that he had to deal with the whole problem of
usefulnessfirst and beauty second. This scheme also conformed well with the
fact that a building was usually finished structurally before its decoration was
brought to completion.
It may seem strange that, if Cicero's work had the overwhelming impor-
tance for Alberti's treatise which I suggest, it still received no explicit mention.
But writers of the period frequently omit direct references to their major
sources. Usually they refer to previous works either to display their erudition
or to add authority to their own thoughts. No one would have thought
Alberti erudite for referring to what was possibly the best-known classical
text. Nor did he need to appeal directly to its authority, as the respectability
of his ideas and their source would have been immediately recognized by his
readers. His personal involvement in the De officiis had already been
demonstrated in the Della famiglia, which owed to Cicero's work not only
much of the content and phraseology but also the division into three books.
The importance of the work for the Renaissance as a whole is unquestionable.
Petrarch had said 'you would fancy sometimes that it is not a pagan philosopher
but a Christian apostle who is speaking'.40 The De officiiswas (with the De
oratore,also by Cicero, and with works of Lactantius) one of the first classical
books to be printed in 1465 at Subiaco, and was alone in being published in
the same year also at Mainz.41

Alberti's use of Cicero is not surprising, but it is revealing. His choice of

model demonstrates his awareness that one of the main obstacles to architec-
tural development in the fifteenth century was the belief that too great an
interest in building in general and in the imitation of ancient architecture in
particular was difficult to reconcile with accepted morality. He endeavoured
to remove that obstacle by showing that the best of ancient architecture, that
of Rome, was in fact only an extension of one of the most widely accepted
moral systems.
The effect his choice of model had on the future history of architecture and
of architectural theory cannot be overemphasized. His division of his work
and the whole treatment of his subject in termsof ususandpulchritudo/ornamentum
39De oficiis, i, 5. by W. Miller, p. xii.
40Cicero, De officiis,Loeb Classical Library, 41 Op. cit., p. xiii.
London 1915, translated with introduction

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104 JOHN ONIANS
gave the opposition between the two aspects of architecture enormous
authority. Applying the Ciceronian dualism to architecture, Alberti formu-
lates for the first time the opposition between structure and ornament. He
himself did not see the opposition in its extreme form, as for him pulchritudo
included proportions, which should be inherent in the structure. But, as the
importance of proportion declined very rapidly, the contrast became more and
more that between the functional structure of a building and its decoration.
The diffusion of this notion from such an authoritative source as Alberti must
have played an important part in creating the situation that lasted four
hundred years, in which architecture could preserve the same structure while
changing with increasing frequency its clothing of decoration. Certainly it
has only been a devotion to the same distinction that has allowed architects
in the last hundred years to deny the need for any ornament at all and to
concentrate on utilitarian considerations alone. If he would not approve of
quite such an extreme point of view, Alberti would certainly recognize as his
own many of the moral arguments used to support it. Before Alberti there
had been no hint of the separation between structure and ornament. For
Vitruvius, as for later writers, a building was an integrated whole from the
finest carving on its surface to the unformed rubble of its core.

II: NIAAPETH
To say that Alberti's use of the De oficiis is not surprising is not to imply
that it was as inevitable as was his dependence on Vitruvius. But his choice
of the best-known work of the most respected author of antiquity as his model
was much more obvious than that made by Filarete a few years later.
Alberti's work was probably completed in Rome in 1452, that of Filarete in
Milan in 1464.42 Although the purpose of both treatises is to improve the
image of architecture in general and to develop an interest in ancient
architecture in particular, they differ strikinglyin form and content. The most
obvious difference in form is that Alberti writes in Ciceronian Latin and
Filarete in fairly 'vulgar' Italian. The greatest contrast in content is that
Alberti writes for a republican aristocracy who worship superiwhile Filarete
speaks as a courtier to his God-fearing lord. These differences can be related
to Filarete's different social position, his craftsman origins and his current
employment as a retainer at the Sforza court.
There are however many more differences which cannot be so easily
explained and which are also differences from Vitruvius. Filarete begins his
treatise with the Creation in truly Christian fashion but he adds a novel detail,
saying that man's body was made by God 'organized and measured, pro-
portionate in all its limbs'.43 He then goes on to say that the first architect
42 For the dating of Alberti's work see C. tekturtheoriedes Filarete, Berlin 1963, PP- 7, 8.
Grayson, 'The Composition of L. B. Alberti's 43 'Orghanizzato et misurato et tutti i suoi
Decem libri de re aedificatoria', MiinchenerJahr- membriproportionati', I, fol. 2v. All references
buch der bildendenKunst, 3. Folge, xi, 196o, pp. are made by book and folio numbers to the
152-6 1. For that of Filarete see J. R. Spencer, Magliabecchi manuscript published by J. R.
'La Datazione del Trattato del Filarete de- Spencer, Filarete's Treatise on Architecture,New
sunto dal suo esame interiore,' Rivista d'Arte, Haven and London, 1965.
xxx, 1956, pp. 93-I103, and P. Tigler, Die Archi-

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND <IIAAPETH 105

used the body of man so formed for his model in building. Thus he establishes
all the elements of architecture, the measurements (e.g. feet), the forms (e.g.
head/capital) and the proportions (e.g. I : ) from man inscribed in the square.
After this preamble, Filarete's lord decides to build a city using this ancient
anthropomorphic architecture. This is nearing completion when, at the end
of book twelve, a new site suitable for a city is found on the coast of the lord's
territory. At the beginning of the thirteenth book it is suggested that building
begin there too. Preliminary site exploration is carried out and brings to light
some ruins and a golden book, which is a record of a city that existed on the
site many years before and contains many architectural descriptions. The
book is written in Greek and has to be deciphered by the court scholar. It is
decided to rebuild this city, which was called Plousiapolis, as it was and this
the lord is enabled to do by the discovery, with the book, of some dust which
turns out to be extremely valuable. Building of the two cities proceeds con-
currently, but particular attention is paid to expounding the economic, social
and educational organization of the first. The treatise proper terminates with
the twenty-fourth book. The twenty-fifth book was added only when it was
decided to offer the book to Piero de' Medici as well as to the Duke of Milan.
It contains an account of Medici building activity. The whole treatise is in
the form of a dialogue between the architect and the lord and his son,
interspersed with brief narrative sections.
It is evident that the treatise is quite different in character from that of
Alberti, which follows the Vitruvian model very closely as a ten-book account
of an art, with some Ciceronian alterations in structure. It would be very
attractive to be able to point to one book as the source of all the new features
in Filarete. This is not possible. There is no one book that could have
inspired them all. There is however a collection of books that could have done
so. This is a group of the dialogues of Plato. The following is a list of these
dialogues, with a summary of the main elements which may have influenced
Filarete. The Timaeusdescribeshow the divine demiurge designed the universe
and man in the image of the universe. The Critiasis an account of two separate
and different cities, including details of their planning and architectural
organization. The Laws contains a description of an ideal city in terms of its
laws, political system, society, educational structure and economy. It is also
divided into twelve books. All are in the dialogue form.
The arguments against even the possibility that Filarete used these
dialogues are quite forceful. He mentions Plato only once and then in a very
insignificant context. There is no evidence that he knew Greek. In 1460,
none of the dialogues concerned were available in Latin translation except
parts of the Timaeus. Even Greek manuscript copies were extremely rare.44
All these arguments can be combated. Alberti himself never mentions his
main source besides Vitruvius: the De officiis.Filarete does actually hint at his
use of an unidentified Greek source. This is the golden book which is dug up
at the coastal site and is emphatically described as being in Greek. Moreover,
44 For a list of Greek manuscripts of Plato general picture of the knowledge of Plato
known in 15th-century Italy see R. R. Bolgar, at the period R. Sabbadini, Le scoperte dei
The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries, codici latini e greci ne'secoli xiv/xv, 1905-14,
Cambridge, 1954, PP- 483-5, and for a more passim.
8

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
io6 JOHN ONIANS
this book is translated, not by the architect who lays no claims to understanding
the language, but by the lord's poet 'valentissimo in Grecho e in Latino' who
is later identified as Iscofrance Notilento.45 This name is an anagram of
Francesco da Tolentino, better known as Filelfo, the most famous Greek
scholar at the Sforza court. Filelfo is referred to several other times by
Filarete. He composes the inscription for the Ospedale; he interprets the
hieroglyphics on the amphitheatre in Rome; he composes an epigram for a
bridge; he recommends the patronage of artists and writers; and finally he
interprets the hordiniet statuti of the country described in the golden book.
Filarete evidently relied on him in all matters of scholarship.
We know from Filelfo's side that he too was proud to be a friend of Filarete.
The artist is mentioned several times in his correspondence. In a Latin letter
of March 1447, he recommends Filarete as:
Antonius Florentinus fictor et excussor egregius aeque tempestate nostra
atque Praxitelem apud priscos memorant, Copanve, aut Phidian aliquem,
et te diligit plurimum et mihi est carissimus.46
Again in 1465 in a Greek letter he recommends him to a friend in Istanbul:
He is a good man and one of my best friends.... He is also skilled in
many beautiful works and is a particularly excellent architect.47
Filelfo had indeed already referred to Filarete as a 'KOlvbSqn0oS'in a letter
dated 1456.48
It is in this last year that we find also in Filelfo's correspondence evidence
of his interest in Plato. On 3I May 1456, he writes to Andronicus of Gallipoli,
the Duke's librarian at Pavia:
'I have heard that in the Duke's library in the castle there are preserved all
Plato's philosophical works. I am very anxious to learn the truth of this
from you and especially whether the Laws are there. The latter I would
like you to copy for me in your own hand. In return you would be well
rewarded.'49
This inquiry about Plato, and particularly the Laws, is followed up in June
with a more testy letter reminding the said Andronicus of the earlier request.50
We do not know whether Filelfo received the copy he asked for, nor whether
he perhaps had to go to the library himself. Nor do we know for what purpose
he wanted to consult the Laws in particular. Fortunately we do, however,
know exactly which manuscript he was referringto. The 1459 Pavia inventory
has a garbled entry:
Platonis greci videlicet disputatio Socratis cum Chritofonte Politie.
Timeus Platonis. Christias Platonis. De Lege. Leges Platonis. Phedrus
45Filarete, xiv, fol. Io2r. Historical and scultoree architettodel secoloXV, Rome 1908,
literary parallels to this discovery and study p. III.
of an ancient book are to be found in W. 47 E. Legrand, Lettresgrecquesde Franfois
Speyer, Biicherfunde in der Glaubenswertung Filelfe, Paris 1892, p. 120, letter 70.
der
Antike. Mit einemAusblickauf Mittelalterund 48 Op. cit., p. 82, letter 42.
Neuzeit, (Hypomnemata, xxiv), G6ttingen 1970. 49 Op. cit., pp. 83 and 84, letter 43.
46 M. Lazzaroni and A. Mufioz, Filarete 50 Op. cit., pp. 85 and 86, letter 44.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND OIAAPETH i07
Platonis. Epistole Platonis. Diffinitiones Platonis. Confabulationes
Platonis. Demodocus de consilio. Critias de divitiis. Axiochus de morte.51

Not only, then, were all the dialogues that concern us available near Milan,
but Filelfo was interested in the very manuscript containing them at a very
appropriate time, eight years before Filarete completed his treatise. Having
thus shown that Filarete, through Filelfo, could indeed have known the
contents of the three relevant dialogues I must now proceed to examine in the
case of each invididual dialogue the evidence that he really did.
The dialogue that contains the most architectural material is the Critias.
In it, Plato puts into the mouth of Critias an account of Attica and the rival
city of Atlantis, as they existed nine thousand years before. Critias had the
account from his ancestor Solon, who in turn heard it from the Egyptian
priests, who possessedwritten records of that distant time. This mention of the
survival of a written account of a lost civilization, complete with details of its
architecture and organization, could have stimulated Filarete to introduce his
golden book, with its similar account. Plato describes two different cities, the
simple Athens and the luxurious Atlantis. Filarete also describes two cities,
one Sforzinda designed on fairly rational principles and one on the coast which
is a reconstruction of the city of Plousiapolis (Greek, 'Rich City') and contains
many much more fantastic and extravagant structures. This is all paid for
with the extraordinarilyvaluable dust which was found with the golden book.
In a rather similar way Plato tells that the wealth and magnificence of
Atlantis was due to the possession of mines of a fabulous substance called
orichalcum.Another of the important ways in which Athens is contrasted with
Atlantis is that it is sited on the Akropolis away from the sea, while Atlantis
is right on the coast. The same contrast exists between Filarete's two cities.
Also in the Critias,Plato says that the city of Atlantis was built of red, white and
black rock, because stone of these colours was discovered when digging its
foundations.52 In Filarete stones of the same colours are important. The
great temple of Plousiapolis was built of such stones (xiv, fol. io8r) and when
Filarete goes into the hills to look for marbles he finds them black, white and
red, though with a sub-species that is green (xv, fol. I I2r). One of the
characteristicsof Filarete's buildings is that several of them are surrounded, not
just by one moat, but by a whole series of them alternating with rings of land,
which are laid out in the form of a maze. Good examples are the castles of
Sforzinda and Plousiapolis described and illustrated in vi, fol. 38r and
xiii, fol. 99r. Atlantis had consisted basically of a royal palace containing a
temple and surrounded by three rings of sea alternating with rings of land,
though not in a maze form. It is possible to enumerate further elements
common to both books, such as the description of a city sited on a hill in the
middle of a plain surrounded by mountains rich in animals and produce, the
accounts of land distribution and the detailing of laws and customs. But these

51 E. Pellegrin, La BibliothIque des Visconti greco listed in the 1426 inventory (op. cit.,
et des Sforzas ducs de Milan du XVe sidcle, p. 98, number A 420) which in its turn may
Paris 1955, P- 310, number B 463. This was have been the one owned by Petrarch.
probably the same manuscript as a Plato in
52Critias, I I6b.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
i o8 JOHN ONIANS
are not so unusual. One detail in Filarete which is unusual, however, is the
golden book with its account of the ancient Plousiapolis. The idea for this
may have come from Plato's mention that all the legal decisions of Atlantis
were written down on gold plates.
The Critiasis itself only an appendix to the Timaeus,where a more general
account of Atlantis is found. But this is in turn only a prelude to the exposition
by Timaeus of a myth of creation, beginning with the question 'after what
model did the maker of the universe fashion it', and going on to answer 'after
himself'. Thus he made the Cosmos as a living creature, a smooth sphere
containing everything. He then had his children, the gods, make men and
women after the same model but with certain necessary additions. The
emphasis throughout is on rationality, the mean, proportion, harmony and
order. Right at the outset the Creator is called 'the architect'.53 This could
have prepared the way for Filarete's assimilation of man in his architectural
capacity to God. Filarete, of course, left out the universe as in the Hebrew
creation story it was only man that was made in God's image. Plato says that
the Creator decided that all should be as far as possible copied from himself
and that his children imitated this in making man.54 Filarete says that God
wished that man, just as he was made in His image, should in his turn make
something in imitation of himself (i, fol. 5v). In both cases the stress is on
imitating God, and on transferring forms and proportions from something
higher to something lower. Filarete knew the Vitruvian account of human
proportions and was inspired by the Tiniaeusto explain it and give it greater
authority by linking it to the Christian Creation story. He took no more
elements from Plato than were necessary to make the link. Only one detail
of the Timaeusseems to have made a strong independent impression. Neither
Alberti, nor Vitruvius, nor the Bible, had paid any particular attention to the
head as being more important than the rest of the body. Only in the neo-
Platonic tradition and in the canons of workshop practice was the head treated
as specially significant. But nothing in such writers as Augustine or Cennini
prepares us for Filarete's discussion of the subject. He attaches such impor-
tance to the head that he gives the proportions of both men and columns only
in terms of head-heights or capital-heights and even eliminates those capital
forms which do not have the proportions of the human head. He explains this
by saying that the first architects, copying the body of Adam, which was the
most perfect, took their first measure from his head, 'il piu degnio membro e
il piu bello' (i, fol. 3v). This is closely parallel to a passage in the Timaeus,
where the gods when making the first man, start with the head which is the
'most divine [part of the body] and ruler of the whole of it'.55 The head is
always the most important element in the dialogue, because it is copied from
the sphere of the universe, which in its turn is copied from the nature of the
Creator.
Plato's Laws is a discussion of every aspect of life in a city community and
its surrounding territory. It is in twelve books. Filarete's treatise is composed
of twenty-four with the twenty-fifth forming an appendix. A division can be
made at the end of the twelfth book. The first twelve books are concerned
53 Timaeus, 28c. 55 Op. cit., 44d.
64 Op. cit., 29c and 69c.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND DIAAPETH Io9
almost entirely with Sforzinda. The last are not so unified in subject. Although
the reading of the golden book and the construction of Plousiapolis in accor-
dance with the book's description proceeds quite consistently at first, digres-
sions occur about work remaining at Sforzinda. Some of this is also inspired
by the golden book. But finally the last three books are quite unrelated and are
devoted chiefly to drawing lessons for the lord's son. Probably, however, we
should still see the work as consisting of two twelve-book sections, each of which
concentrates on a different city and is thus equivalent to the Laws. The corre-
spondence with the Laws is most obvious in the last twelve books. There it is
specifically a Greekpolis that is being described. Many elements in these books
of Filarete are paralleled in the Laws, but in no other work that I know. Both
Plato and Filarete, for example, give detailed accounts of schools for boys and
girls. Both insist on the value of competitions and training in the intellectual
and military fields.56 At a later stage both writers describe prisons and the
penal system and in Filarete these are explicitly based on the golden book.57
Both divide their prisons into three named sections for different classes of
criminals; though Filarete has one building in the country divided vertically
into three and Plato has three separate buildings, one in the city centre, one
away from the centre and one in the country.58 Following this, both describe
property rights.59 Not only is there a correspondence in the sequence of
treatment but even in large part in the numbering of the books: prison and
legal system are described in Laws vii and viii and in Filarete xvii and xviii;
and property rights in x and xx respectively. This could, of course, be a
coincidence. But I would interpret it as indicating that Filarete probably had
before him a written book-by-book summary of the contents of the Platonic
dialogue made by Filelfo. If he had such for the Laws, he may have also had
written summaries of the other two dialogues. Filarete says that the golden
book was actually 'trascripto' by Iscofrance (xiv, fol. Io3r). The fact that in
no subject does Filarete give the same directions as Plato, but relates everything
to his own day as surely as Plato did to his, may suggest that what was written
down by Filelfo was only a skeleton.
Other dialogues in the Pavia manuscript may have influenced Filarete,
but I have found no striking connexions. Indeed, none of the major problems
of the sources of structure and subject matter remaining after the recent
researches of Tigler and Spencer are still unsolved once the Critias, Timaeus
and Laws have been brought into the discussion. It is not difficult to see why
these three are the important dialogues. The Laws was of particular interest
to Filelfo himself and contained a detailed account of a city's institutions.
The Timaeus,with its interest in order and proportion and its characterization
of the Creator as architect, could easily be connected with architecture-as
is proved by its influence on later architectural theory.60 The Critiascontains
the most architectural material of any Platonic dialogue. A work such as
the Republic,which was also available, was much less systematic and concrete
than the Laws and consequently much less useful.
56 Compare Laws, vii and viii, with Filarete, 59 Laws,xi, and Filarete,xx.
xvii and xviii. 60 R. Wittkower, Architectural Principles in
51 Laws, x, and Filarete, xx, fol.
165r.
theAge of Humanism,
London 1962, pp. 25,
58 Laws, 9o8a, and Filarete, loc. cit. III, etc.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IIo JOHN ONIANS
Having demonstrated Filarete's dependence on Platonic material, we now
have to reconstruct how this came about. This has to be done on the basis of
inference. Filelfo wanted to consult the copy of the Laws in Pavia in 1456.
Eventually he either had the manuscript copied in toto,or went to consult it
personally, or arranged to borrow it. At the same time Filarete was beginning
the construction of the great Ospedale for the Duke. The two had long been
friends and consequently the scholar may have brought to the architect's
attention the architectural material in the Plato manuscript. It is possible that
Filarete had already decided to write a treatise on building and that this is
why Filelfo introduced him to the ancient source. I am more disposed to
believe that it was as a result of their discussionof the Platonic material, and at
Filelfo's instigation, that Filarete had the idea of writing at all. No reason has
yet been given why this architect, who showed no interest in writing otherwise,
should suddenly have sat down to write a book about his art. This suggestion
is confirmed by the close dependence on Plato of the whole scheme of the work.
Moreover, the seminal role of Filelfo may be suggested by the parallel between
Filarete's treatise and the Sforziad,a work on which Filelfo was engaged at this
time. The Sforziadglorified the ducal family of Milan. It was modelled on
the Iliad and consequently was to be in twenty-four books.61 Filarete's treatise
was also in honour of the Sforzas, was also in twenty-four books and was also
modelled on the work of a Greek writer.
It is this last feature which is most important and points most clearly to
the decisive role played by Filelfo in the conception of the treatise. Only he
can be responsiblefor its many Greek elements. Indeed, we should not speak of
Greek elements but of Greek character. For the result of the fact that the
golden book is in Greek is that the ancient architecture that is reconstructedis
specifically Greek architecture. Moreover the port and coastal city inherit
their Greek names, Limen Galenokairen and Plousiapolis, and are decorated
with Greek inscriptions. Indeed the treatise has a Greek character even before
the golden book is discovered. Right at the beginning, Filarete mentions
only Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns, omitting all mention of either
Vitruvius's Tuscan or Alberti's Italic, although he knew both treatises well.62
Our recognition of the Greek character of the treatise and of the Platonic
character in particular now enables us to understand the significance of the
name Filarete itself. This is, of course, not a family or baptismal name but one
acquired by Antonio Averlino when a man, derived from the Greek tpi\apETroS
meaning 'lover of virtue'.63 This word occurs rarely in ancient literature.
Much the most accessible example of it was one in the Nicomachean Ethicsof
Aristotle. But the ancient writer who had attributed most significance to the
word &pE-r was Plato. More specifically, the last pages of the Laws are entirely
devoted to its discussion. The development of this quality in the citizens is
the one object of all the laws in the city. We have already observed that
Filarete modelled several of his institutions on those described in the Laws.
61
M. Cosenza, Biographical and Biblio- 62 Filarete, i, fol. 3r.
63 P. des Filarete,
graphical Dictionary of the Italian Humanists Tigler, Die Architekturtheorie
and of the World of Classical Scholarship in Berlin 1963, p. 2. For another person
Italy 300oo-r8oo, Boston 1962, p. 2728, named Filarete see note 72 below.
card 35-

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND DIAAPETH III
He even went so far in adopting a Platonic tone as to call his main educational
centre the 'Casa Areti'.64 The notion of virtz was certainly so important in
the fifteenth century that it is not strange that Filarete should use it in his
treatise. But the fact that he uses not this well-known Latin derivative, but the
Greek form, shows that he is alluding to something rather more precise than
the generally accepted idea. There is certainly nothing to suggest that he
really understood the peculiar character of Platonic areti, but this must be
what he has in mind. If the values of his treatise are, at least in this case, the
same as those of the Lawsit is not surprisingthat Averlino should have claimed
them as his own too. It is probably not insignificant that the first association
of a form of the wordfilaretewith Averlino is in the introduction to the treatise
itself and that it is used there as an adjective applied by the writer to himself-
'yourfilaretoarchitect'-not as a name.65 It is likely and indeed appropriate
that Averlino only acquired this attribute at the time that he was writing
his modern architectural version of the Laws. Presumably he was thus
'christened' by the high priest of Greek culture in Milan, Filelfo.
In the concern for aretj displayed both in the treatise and in his own
adopted name, Filarete came closer to being truly Platonic than in anything
else except his belief in a God who created man with a body that was ordered
and proportioned. He could only understand and accept these two aspects of
Plato's thought because both could be related to current beliefs. The impor-
tance of virtue was a common-place of moral thought and the theory of human
proportions had been transmitted from Vitruvius and others into conventional
workshop training. But his penetration of Platonic ideas is amazing if we con-
sider that Filarete relied throughout on Filelfo as his interpreter and could
never really study and assimilate the works for himself. There were few indeed
even of the most learned humanists who could have got more from Plato at this
period. Ficino had yet to make his complete translation. All this explains the
difference between the influence of Plato on Filarete and that of Cicero on
Alberti. Alberti assimilates and applies much of the system of thought of the
De oficiis. Filarete takes from the Critias, Timaeusand Laws the structure of
composition of his treatise, his didactic method and his major themes.
Yet the same significance attaches to both authors' choice of model. Both,
when trying to discuss classical architecture in a way that would lend it
authority in the mid-fifteenth century, turned to texts of ethical philosophy.
In view of this common approach it becomes important to establish why their
choices were so different. We have seen that Alberti's choice was not surpris-
ing; so it is on Filarete's that we must concentrate. The answer lies, I believe,
in the very reason why Filarete should have chosen to write a treatise on
architecture only a few years after Alberti, in the first place. If we consider
the fact that Filarete had a Greek name, reconstructed Greek buildings and
dealt only with Greek columns we notice a striking contrast with Alberti, who
deliberately removed all Greek words from his Latin vocabulary, who claimed
that architecture only reached perfection in ancient Italy and even went to
the lengths of inventing an 'Italic' column to prove the point. Filarete's point
of view is as assertively Greek as Alberti's is Roman. Because of the
chronological sequence, the contrast can only have a polemical intention. If
64
Filarete, xviii, 65 Filarete, Ded., fol. ir,

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
x12 JOHN ONIANS
Filarete knew that the Roman character of Alberti's work was largely a pro-
duct of its dependence on the De oficiis it was natural, and almost inevitable,
that he should take as his guide a Greek writer on ethics. A choice between
Aristotle and Plato could have been decided by Filelfo's discovery of the Plato
manuscript, if not by Plato's greater mystery and power.
This leads us again to the problem of Filelfo's role in all this. The same
reasons that led us to him as the person responsible for the Greek elements of
the treatise lead us again to propose him as the man who had the initial idea
of writing a specifically Greek treatise. He was well aware that it was because
of his understanding of that language that he had a position of authority in
the humanistic world. As one of the few Italian scholars who had actually
studied in Constantinople (and married a Greek wife) his sense of identification
with Greek culture must have been unique. Perhaps this sense alone was
enough to make him urge his friend to write a Greek complement to Alberti's
work, which was so assertively Roman. But his knowledge of two celebrated
texts from earlier in the century may have made him feel that such a reply
from Milan was particularly appropriate. Soon after 1400, Leonardo Bruni
had written a Laudatioof Florence which had belatedly stimulated Pier
Candido Decembrio, about 1435, to compose a Panegyricus on Milan which
began by putting both Bruni and Florence firmly in their place.66 The attack
on Bruni's work, which he repeated to his friends, was evidently based largely
on supposed inadequacies in Bruni's Greek scholarship. Not only did
Decembrio introduce Plato and Aristotle in making his case but he gave his
work the sophisticated Greek title of Panegyricus,instead of the banal Latin
Laudatioused by Bruni. Bruni tried to defend himself in letters by assertingthat
he too had used Aristides, the Greek source of Decembrio.67 Alberti, like
Bruni, was primarily associated with Florence and his exaltation of Roman
culture only developed Bruni's ideas. Bruni was the immediate source for his
sneer: 'If we are to credit everything to the Greeks,' and the case for Virgil's
rank as a philosopher which Alberti was to make in Landino's Camaldoline
Disputationshad also been supported by the earlier humanist.68 So Filelfo
may have felt that it was time once again for Milanese Greek scholarship to
show up the southern Latinists.
But it is clear that Filelfo's intention was not to antagonize Florence or
Florentine scholars as a whole; indeed, it was probably the reverse. After a
period of genuine hostility following his banishment by Cosimo, Filelfo was
engaged in re-establishing his contacts both with the Medici and Florentine
humanists. In 1454, he sent the first four books of his Sforziadto Piero de'
Medici and at the same time he had an active correspondence with figures
66 L. Bruni, La vera lode de la inclita et Graecosque referamus, Maronis nostri
gloriosa citta di Firenze, trans. L. da Padova, sapientia quam multi facienda est! Cum
pref. F. P. Luiso, Florence 1899, and G. tamquam ex oraculo quodam adytoque
Kirner, Della Laudatio Urbis Florentinae di naturae illa revelat.' [Here follows a quota-
LeonardoBruni, Livorno 1889. P. C. Decem- tion from Virgil.] 'Quae cum legimus, quem
brio, De laudibus Mediolanensis urbis panegyricus philosophum non contemnimus.' From
in RR. II. SS., Tom. xx, part. i, fasc. 13 with Bruni, De studiis et litteris liber, quoted in
introduction ibid., fasc. 8, pp. xv-xxii. E. Garin, II pensieropedagogico dello umanesimo,
67 See G. Kirner, op. cit., p. 7. Florence 1958, p. 60o. Cf. note 9 above.
68 'Age vero, ne cuncta ad Homerum

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALBERTI AND (DIAAPETH I i3

such as the Acciaiuoli.69 The formation of the Florentine Academy in 1455

had demonstrated the interest of a group of humanists associated with the
Medici, and including the Acciaiuoli, in Greek culture generally and in Plato
in particular.70 Filelfo may well have sought to win his way back to the rich
and profitable intellectual environment of Florence by demonstrating his
interest in and usefulness to the new group. This might be the reason for his
unheralded interest in the Plato manuscript in 1456. Filarete, who was him-
self Florentine, would have readily joined Filelfo in his attempt to win favour
in Florence. He explicitly praises the architecture of his native city in the
version of his work dedicated to the Sforza duke, and eventually wrote a
separate book on Medici buildings to accompany a copy dedicated to
Piero de' Medici. Filelfo eventually achieved his goal of returning to Florence,
but only just before he died. The impressive performance of Notilento in the
treatise may have played a small part in procuring this. Certainly Lorenzo,
who recalled him, was much more seriously involved in Platonism than either
Cosimo or Piero. In fact it was only after he had succeeded his father in 1469
that the Academy became a really committed institution and that the work of
Ficino made all of Plato accessible.71 Whatever the nature of the connexion
between the Milanese treatise and the Florentine Academy it is certain that
there was one. For a member of the latter also had the name Filarete.72 This
lends weight to the suggestion that in Averlino's case its associations were
Platonic.

Scholars often judge by appearances, so it is not surprising that Filarete's

treatise, unlike Alberti's, has been either neglected or misunderstood. If his
accent had been less coarse and his punctuation less erratic the importance of
the Greek golden book and the role of Notilento might have been acknow-
ledged long ago. Only if we follow these clues does the true significance of the
work emerge. It is a uniquely well-documented example of the collaboration
between artist and scholar, and an exceptionally early one. Only later was
such collaboration in the circle of Lorenzo de' Medici in Florence and at the
court ofJulius II at Rome to produce the articulate and intellectual art of the
High Renaissance. It is also a landmark in the assimilation of Plato into
the European intellectual tradition by a return to the Greek text. Not only does
it anticipate the spirit and the achievement of the mature Florentine
Academy but it inaugurates a new awareness of the inter-relation between
architecture and social organization which depends directly from its Platonic
models.
Finally, Filarete's treatise is the first work to assume that the highest
achievement of ancient art was embodied in Greek rather than in Roman
civilization. In this Filarete looks forward to Winckelmann and attempts to
69 A. della
Torre, Storia dell'accademiapla- His real name was Francesco di Lorenzo.
tonica di Firenze, Florence I902, pp. 367-73. I have been unable to establish when he
70 Op. cit., pp. 361-7. aquired his nick-name and consequently
71 Op. cit., pp. 585ff. cannot say whether he imitated or anticipated
72 Op. cit., pp. 394 and 402-3. This other Antonio Averlino.
Filarete held the post of Florentine herald.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
114 JOHN ONIANS
inspire European art with a new breath that only truly arrived with neo-
Classicism. If the architecture that he describes does not have the qualities
that we think of as Greek, that is not his fault. Its opulence and complexity
derive from Plato's Atlantis, the description of which in the Critiasis still one
of the fullest architectural descriptions surviving in ancient Greek. The
truncated form in which Plato left the dialogue effectively prevented Filelfo
and Filarete from realizing that Atlantis was not held up as a model to be
imitated. Instead, confirmation that the qualities it embodied were really
Greek, could be found in the buildings of the greatest Greek city still surviving,
Constantinople. It has been dimly perceived hitherto that Filarete's
architecture is influenced by Byzantine churches." We can now see that the
domes, mosaics and gold backgrounds, that are recurring features of his
buildings, are introduced as essential to an architecture that was distinctively
Greek. The break in continuity between classical Greece and Byzantine
Constantinople, of which we are so aware, could hardly have been understood
by a generation that looked to that city not only for its teachers of classical
Greek but for the manuscripts that preserved ancient Greek wisdom.
Constantinople was a Greek-speakingpolis and 'Greek' was commonly used
for 'Byzantine'. Filarete had only seen St. Mark's in Venice, but Filelfo could
have provided glowing descriptions of Hagia Sophia. At a time when
Constantinople had just fallen to the Turks the feeling that Greek culture
should not die with it must have been particularly strong. The treatise seems
almost to urge on Francesco Sforza the construction of a new Byzantium,
where all that was finest in Greek art and culture would find a new life. But
Filarete had never seen the art whose imitation he desired. This he had to do
in order to fulfil his dream. In 1465 Filelfo recommends him to a friend in
Constantinople.7 Then we hear nothing. Filarete like Winckelmann vanishes
from history before he could visit the monuments of that Greek culture whose
praises he had sung.

3 P.
Tigler, Die Architekturtheorie
des Filarete, 74 Op. cit., p. 6.
Berlin 1963, 79.
p.

This content downloaded from 207.10.141.86 on Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:02 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions