zyxwvutsr

zyxwvutsrqp
Renaissance Studies Vol. I2 No. 4

Giannoxxo Manetti on Architecture: the Oratio de

secularibus et pontificalibus pompis in
consecratione basilicae Florentinae of 1436
zyx
zyxw
zy
zyxwv
zyxwv
CAROLINE VAN

INTRODUCTION
ECK

In 1436 Giannozzo Manetti wrote an extensive account, with much descrip-

tive detail, of the consecration ceremony held in March of that year at Santa
Maria del Fiore in Florence. Several manuscript copies are preserved in the
Vatican Library,' and it was published for the first time in 1960 by Eugenio
Battisti.' In spite of its considerable interest as an eyewitness account of
the impression Brunelleschi's masterwork made on its contemporaries, as a
testimony of early fifteenth-century humanist views about architecture, and
as a discussion of the problems posed by describing a work of art, it has not

zyxwvutsrqp
received much scholarly attention? In my discussion of the Orutio, I will

Thii article is the result of research supported by the Dutch Foundation for ScientificResearch (NWO). I would
like to thank Sible de Blaauw, George Holmes, Mdjke Spies, and Auke van der Woud for their many helpful
suggestions, and in particular R e n k ter Haar for her meticulous checking of the Latin transcription and the
translations from it. I would also like to thank the two anonymous referees of this journal for their stimulating
comments and Dr Leofranc HolfordStrevens at Oxford University Press for his scrupulous reading of the
Latin text.
I Vat. Lat. 2919, Vat. Pal. Lat. 1605. fols 30-7; Vat. Pal. Lat. 1603 (both belonged to Manetti's own library);
Vat. Lat. 6303; Vat. Urb. Lat. 387, fols 261"-267; Vat. Barb. Lat. VIII 120, fols 36"-41. In Vat. Lat. 6303 the text
is called an 'oratio', and not, as Wittschier wrote, a 'narratio'. Cf. H. W. Wittschier, Giunoru,Munefti.Das CmpUr
der Omtimm (Cologne/Graz, 1968). 52. Since Battisti's transcription cannot be found very easily, and contains
a number of errors, I have made a new transcription of the omtio,based on Vat. Lat. 6303, dating from 1436,
which is more clear than the MS Battisti used (see Appendix). The manuscript copies listed all date from the

zyxw
fifteenth century; Vat. Lat. 2919 (the copy used by Battisti) is dated 1436;Vat. Barb. Lat. VIII: 120 is dated 1440.
The manuscripts differ in a number of (mostly) minor ways from each other, but since all copies were made in
a relatively short span of time and there are no significant differences between them, there is little need to
reconstruct a stemma, and the possibility that we might be dealing with corrupt manuscripts or a codex
dcsrriphLc appears to be small. Interesting variants are listed in the notes. Christine Smith is preparing a critical
edition and an English translation of the Omtio together with Manetti's other writings on architecture.
' 'n mondo visuale della Fiabe', in Urnuncsimo c motnino, a special issue of Anhivio di Fih+u (1960),
291-320, based on Vat. Lat. 2919. In fact it had been published before in 1904 by F. P. Luis0 in his F i m w in
W t n per la Carcnuione di Sunk Mu& del F i a 1436 (Lucca, 1904), but attributed to Lap0 di Castiglionchio,
Jr and based on MS Lat. 1616 c. 275b in the Bibliothhque Nationale in Paris. Luis0 did not give the reasons for
his attribution, although he did quote a remark in the margin by the same hand who wrote the title, which is
different from the hand of the main text expressing some doubts about the identy of the author: 'Guarinus e
Plutarco "De liberis educandis" etiam incipit Angclc suuvkimc. Ideo nescio an hanc epistolam composuerit;
tamen quia fuit veronensis, et hic dicit quod inflmenti vrbc n o s h et quod [sic] per hoc vult innuere quod fuit
f lorentinus'.
' Wittschier gave a brief account of the Orutio in his Ciunom Manetti. Das Corpus dm Omtioncs, 52-9. In the

0 1998 The Society for Renaissance Studies, Oxford University Press

450 zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqp Caroline van Eck

zyxwv
focus not on the consecration considered as urban ritual, but instead on the
ways in which architecture is represented and on the verbal strategies
Manetti used in order to describe the D u o ~ oWhereas
.~ the Oratio is usually
cited as an early instance of the theological use of anthropomorphy and

zyxwvuts
proportion theory which became current after 1450, I will argue that it
should instead be seen as an instance of an interest in architecture which is

zyxwvut
zyxwv
informed by humanist and rhetorical concerns for vivid description. As a
result it will become clear that the few existing interpretations of this text by
architectural historians all suffer from a tendency to project onto Manetti’s
text - without any supporting evidence - concepts and theories taken from
Rudolf Wittkower’s Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism, in par-
ticular the theologically motivated use of anthropomorphy or proportion.

THE AUTHOR AND THE TEXT

Giannozzo Manetti was born in Florence in 1396. His family had been
prominent in Florentine banking and trading from the end of the twelfth
century onwards5He was a pupil of Ambrogio Traversari (1386-1439), who
taught him Greek, and took part in the meetings at the Camaldulensian
convent of Santa Maria degli Angeli, which were also attended by Niccolb
Niccoli, Angelo Acciaiuoli, Cosimo de’ Medici, and Paolo Toscanelli.6 At
the Augustine convent of Santo Spirit0 he studied logic, theology, and

zyxwvutsrqp
literature about Brunelleschi this text is hardly mentioned. Among the exceptions are an article by Giuliano
Tanturli, ‘Rapporti del Brunelleschi con gli ambienti letterari Fiorentini’, in FiZiMo BruneZhchi. Sua Opmr e il
suo Tempo (Florence, 1980), 125-45, where the Oratio is mentioned in the course of an analysis of the
appreciation of Brunelleschi by contemporary writers, and an article by Gabriela Befani Canfield, ‘The
Florentine humanists’ concept of architecture in the 1430s and Filippo Brunelleschi’, in Srritti di Storia &UArte
in Onwe di Federico Zmi (Milan, 1984). I, 112-22. Eugenio Garin has discussed it in his ‘Brunelleschi e la Cultura
Fiorentina del Rinascimento’, Antologia Nova, 112 (1977). 13, reprinted in his Umanicti artisti scimzati (Rome,

zyxwvuts
1989). 153-71. It is also mentioned briefly in Christine Smith’s Amhitechrn in the Culture of Early Humanism.
Ethics, Aesthetics, and Eloquence (New York/Oxford, 1992),45,50,94 and 137: A. Campana, ‘Giannouo Manetti,
Ciriaco e I’Arco di Traiano ad Ancona’, Italia Medioeualia et Umanistica,2 (1959). 483-504 mentions the version
of the Oratio in MS Vat. Lat. 1603 which also contains Manetti’s De illustribus long&
d‘Ancona’s copy of the inscription of the Arch of Trajan at Ancona in its margins at 111.9.
which has Cyriaco

Consecration rituals do not figure very prominently in studies on Italian Renaissance urban ritual and

zyxwvutsr
religious ceremonies; see R. Trexler, Public L$e in ReMissance Flance (New York, etc., 1980), and Church and
Community 1200-1600. Studie-s in the Histmy of H m c e and New Spain (Rome, 1987); E. Muir, Civil R i t d in
Renaissance Venice (Princeton, 1981); R. Ingersoll, The Ritual Use o f h b l i c Space in Rcnaissanu Rome (Berkeley
PhD dissertation, 1985). All these studies tend to concentrate on the sociological or anthropological aspects of
urban ritual rather than on their architectural setting.
Cf. Vespasiano da Bisticci’s Commenkzrio della vita di messer Gianozw Manetti composts & Vespasiano e
mandata a Bemardo &l N m and his Vikz di messer Gianom Manetti in his Le V i k E d i z i m mitica con introduzionee
commenfo di Aula Greco (Florence, 1970), 11, 519-629 and I, 485-539; see also G. Holmes, The Florentine
Enlaghtenmmf (Oxford, 1992 (1969)), 260-1, Wittschier, Das Corpus der Orationes, 20-32, and the short
biobibliography in The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge, 1988). 825-6. On the
manuscripts in Manetti’s possession see R R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries (Cambridge,
1958), ad indicem.
On Traversari see C. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers. A m h g i o Tmvmari (1386-1439) and
Christian Antiquity in the Italian Renaissance (Albany, 1977). On the humanist gatherings at S. Maria degli Angeli
see pp. 23-4, 34-35 and 38.
 zyx
zyxwv Giannozzo Manetti on Architecture
philosophy, became very proficient in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and was
trained as an orator. From 1444 to 1453 he served the Florentine republic as
a diplomat and a public speaker, and visited the rest of Italy extensively on
his missions. In 1453 he was forced into exile under Cosimo de’ Medici,
45 1

zyxwv
probably because of his opposition to Cosimo de’ Medici’s policy of alliance
with the duke of Milan, and went to Rome, where he became papal secretary
to pope Nicholas V (born 1397, pope 1446-55). On Nicholas’ request
he made a number of translations from the Greek (Aristotle’s Ethica

zyxwvutsr
Nicomucheu) and the Hebrew (Psalms).After Nicholas’ death, he moved to

zyxwv
the court of Alfonso V of Naples (1395-1458), to whom he had dedicated
around 1452 his best-known work, the treatise on the dignity of man
(De dignitate et excelkntia hominis). Manetti also wrote a number of public
speeches, the lives of Socrates, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, and Nicholas V,
and the Dialogus consolatorius. He left behind a large library, containing
a very large number of Cicero’s works - mainly speeches and works on
rhetoric - copies of the Rhetorica ad Herennium and of the Historia augusta,
the works of many poets, and of Augustine and other theologians, and
speeches by Demosthenes, as well as many humanist translations from the
Latin and Greek by Leonard0 Bruni, Pier Candido Decembrio, Francesco
Filelfo, and others. A substantial part of his library is now preserved in the
Vatican Library as part of the Fondo Palatino.
The Orutio de secularibus et pontzjkalibus pompis can be divided into several
parts: following both the traditional rhetorical analysis of a text into an
exordium in which the speaker tries to capture the attention of the audience
and make it well-disposed towards him; a narratio, or narrative, which forms
the main part of the text; and a conclusion. Like the text itself, this division
also follows the sequence of events at the consecration ceremony:
A: Exordium or cuptutio benevolentiue (11. 1-30), consisting of some remarks
addressed to his brother-in-law the diplomat Angelo Acciaiuoli (born
c. 1400; died after 1467)7about the motives which caused him to write it,(for
the greater glory of God and the praise of his city), and of some reflections
about the manner in which he is going to try to represent (‘adumbrare’) the

zyxwvuts
consecration. He then briefly describes the presence of the pope in

* zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu
Florence at the right time, his willingness to act as consecrator,* and the

zyxwvuts
On Angelo Acciaiuoli see the Dizimurio Biogmfico degli Ikliuni (Roma, 1960) and C. Ugurgieri della
Berardenga, Gli Acciuioli di Fi+nua nella lucedel Imo ttmpa (1160-1834) (Florence, 1962). 504-15.
Eugenius IV Condulmer (c. 1385-1447) had fled from Rome to Florence in 1434, and remained there
until 1443. On the relations between the pope and Florence see N. Valois, Lepape cf Ic concile (1418-1450): la
h e religieuse du m e siicle (Paris, 1909), P. Partner, ‘Florence and the papacy’, in N. Rubinstein (ed.), F h t i n e
~hrdics.Politics and Sociefy in Rmairrance Flormu (London, 1968), 392-402. In this article, Partner underlined
the need for a detailed study of the political relation between Florence and this pope; but even now we know
much less about his pontificate than about that of his predecessor. Martin V (1417-31). See also G. Holrnes,
‘How the Medici became the pope’s bankers’ in the same volume, 357-80, in particular 379, and, by the same
author, ‘Cosimo and the popes’, in F. Ames-Lewis (ed.), Carimo ‘il kcchio’ de’ Medici 1389-1464. h a y s in
Commrmomtimt of the 600th A n n i m a T of Carimo de’ Medici’s Birth (Oxford, 1992). 21-31. For some details of
Eugenius’ dealing with Florentine financial policy see A. Gow and G. Griffith, ‘Pope Eugenius IV and Jewish
452 zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq Caroline van Eck
contest in pomp and circumstance of the secular and religious participants
(11. 31-43). Finally he gives a brief announcement of the content of the Oratio
(11. 43-9). The last part may be considered as ways of making the audience
attentive and well-disposed towards the speaker.
B-D: Narratio, describing the church (B), the procession of secular and
religious dignitaries (C), the celebration of mass, and the actual consecra-

zyxwvutsr
tion (D).
B1 (11. 50-95): Description of the interior of the church, based in part on
the analogy between the form of the church and the human body, and
praise of the cupola.
B2 (11. 95-112): Sequel to the description of the church; the use and effect
of light; the cathedral should be included among the seven wonders of the
world.
B3 (11. 113-58): Decoration of the church and its floor.
B4 (11. 158-67): Impression made on the visitors by the sumptuous
decoration.
C1 (11. 167-95): Secular part of the procession: musicians, servants of the
magistrates, eminent young men, orators, ambassadors, their costumes and
instruments.
C2 (11. 196-229): Religious part of the procession: canon lawyers,
chamberlains, clergy, patriarchs, cardinals, the pope; his costume and tiara;
the people; comparison with Roman triumphal procession.
D1 (11. 229-53): The pope approaches the altar, prays, and sits down;
celebration of mass; description of music and its effect on the audience.
D2 (11. 253-7): Prisoners are liberated.
D3 (11. 257-68): Sigismondo Malatesta (1417-68) and the ambassador of
the emperor are made papal knights.
D4 (11. 268-72): Consecration of statues of saints in the church by a
cardinal.
D5 (11. 272-81): The pope consecrates the high altar and the church’s
relics, and sprinkles Sigismondo Malatesta with holy water.
D6 (11. 281-9): Celebration of the Eucharist; performance of such delicious

zyxw
music that Manetti felt as if he had tasted the life of the heavenly blessed
here on earth.
D7 (11. 289-96): Through his pontifical indulgence Eugenius IV has
‘seasoned’ with holy salt the church that had already been consecrated; the
entire procession goes in stately order to the papal throne.
E: Conclusion (11. 297-304): the events Manetti has described were so
beautiful that he may be excused if he did not succeed in describing them in
terms worthy of them; even eloquence itself is not capable of doing so.
zyxw
money-lending in Florence: the case of Salomone di Bonaventura during the chancellorship of Leonard0
Bruni’, Renaissance Qmrtedy, 47 (1994), 282-329.
 zyx
zyxwv
Giannouo Manetti on Architecture
THE RITUAL OF CONSECRATION AND THE FOCUS OF MANETTI’S DESCRIPTION
Compared to other descriptions of the consecration held in March 1436
at Santa Maria del Fiore, Manetti’s Oratio is distinguished by its extensive
description of the building, by its stress on the impact of the building and
453

the events on the spectator, and by its explicit reflection on the problems of
verbal representation of objects of visual experience.
However, before discussing Manetti’s account, we should first clarify

zyxwvuts
what exactly was consecrated in March 1436.Actually, the consecration at
Santa Maria del Fiore on 25 March 1436 did not have as its object the entire

zyxwvu
cathedral; instead it was directed at the dedication of the high altar and its
relics by Pope Eugenius IV, and his pontifical confirmation of the previous
dedication, as is made clear by Manetti’s description of the Pope’s actual
actions (11. 272-81 and 289-96).The cathedral had already been blessed in
September 1296 after its substantial rebuilding, and renamed Santa Maria
del Fiore instead of Santa Reparata? In March 1412 the dedication of the
church to Mary instead of Santa Reparata had officially been recognized by
the ecclesiastical authorities at Florence. On 30 August 1436,on the occasion
of its solemn completion, the cupola was consecrated. Therefore, although

zyxwvu
Manetti and others speak of the consecration of the church, and suggest that
this was a celebration of the completion of the cupola, the documents col-
lected by Saalman demonstrate that the ceremony that took place in March
was in fact directed mainly at the pontifical dedication of the high altar on
the occasion of the completion of the roof, made more solemn by the active
participation of Eugenius IV.”
The consecration is mentioned in a number of contemporary or slightly
later accounts. The best-known of these is the letter by which Leon Battista

zyxwv
Alberti dedicated the Italian version of De pictura to Brunelleschi in which he
refers to the engineering feat of the cupola.” Pius I1 mentioned the cupola
and compared it to the dome of the Pantheon in Rome.” There are also
enthusiastic accounts of Brunelleschi‘s masterwork in the Chronicon universale
by I1 Sozomeno and in Matteo Palmieri’s Liber de temporibu~.’~ Two accounts
Cf. M. Bergstein, ‘Marian politics in Quattrocento Florence: the renewed dedication of Santa Maria del
Fiore in 1412‘. Rcnairrcmcc Quarterly, 44 (1991), 673-5.
lo Cf H. Saalman, The Cupoh ofSanta Maria dcl F i a (London, 1980). 133-34 and document 286.4, which is

zyxwvutsr
zyxwvutsrq
an account by a scribe to the Canon Chapter of San Lorenu, of the ceremony that took place on March 25.
Manetti also suggests that the papal presence was one of the motives in dedicating the high altar at this stage
of the building process when he writes that the pope was stayingin Florence in 1436, and that at the same time
the roof of the cathedral had been completed, adding that the ‘Florentines begged the pontiff for the
apostolical consecration of the cathedral’ (U. 32-35).
L. B. Alberti, On Painhng and On Sculphrn The Lotin Texts of De Pidurn and De S&tw (London, 1972). 32.
’* Pius 11, Commcn&rii (Rome, 1984), I, 153 (11.31):‘Ceterum inter edificia nonnullum memorabilius est sede
sancte Reparate, in qua fornix est ad amplitudinem eius proxime quam Rome in Agrippe templo admiratum,
quod Pantheon vocaverunt’.
Is See Tanturli, ‘Rapporti del Brunelleschi’, 133 for these accounts. I1 Sozomeno: ‘Fuerat enim huius
ecclesie florentine testudo sive tribuna istis diebus completa a Philippo Florentino architectore nullis
substentaculis ligneis, quod mirabile fuit univeno populo et mihi sic edificata. Nam eius altitudo ad brachia
centum quinquaginta est erecta; et etiam mirabilius fuit quod unus aut duo boves circumeundo quibusdam
454 zyxwvu
zyxwvutsr Caroline van Eck
from Florentine diaries vary greatly in length and focus of interest. One is
from the Diario Fiorentino by Bartolommeo di Michele del Corazza and is very
brief: ‘A &i 25 di Marzo il papa Eugenio IV consacrb la chiesa di Santa Maria
del Fiore. Disse Messa il Cardinale di San Marco.’“ The other is from the
diary of Franscesco Giovanni, and records the same event with more detail,

zyxw
concentrating on the road specially constructed from Santa Maria Novella to
the Duomo and its decoration, the composition of the procession and other
matters of ceremony, and the cost of the dinner hosted by the Signoria after
the consecration; the consecration itself is mentioned only in passing, and
the church is not described at all.15
Among Florentine humanists, Vespasiano da Bisticci, in his Vita di Eugenio
IV P.P., and Leonard0 Bruni, in his Commentarius, devoted considerable

zyxwv
space to the festive road and ceremonial matters, but they did not describe
Santa Maria del Fiore, nor did they mention Brunelleschi’s achievement.16

zy
Generally Florentine humanists seem to have been more impressed with
the size of the building, the large number of people that witnessed the con-
secration, the special measures taken for it, or the pomp and circumstance,
than with the completion of the cupola as an architectural event, symbolizing
the birth of Renaissance architecture, as architectural historians tend to

zyxwv
do.’’That is, all other accounts of the consecration were either notes in

zyxw
archis tectis ligneis et fune lapides septem milium librarum et ultra ascendere faciebat usque ad testudinis
altitudinem; et ego ipse testimonium perhibeo, qui fortasse si non vidissem huius architecture opus mihi
persuadere ad credendum difficile fuisset.’ (Sozomeni Pistoriensis presbyteri Chronicon Univenalc (AA.

zyxw
I411-1455),edited by C.Zaccagnini (Citta di Castello, 1908) (Rmrm Ituliccrrum Sm$tores, XVI part I), 18).
Matteo Palmieri wrote: ‘1436. Florentiae ecclesiam maximam. cuius testudo in terris singularis, Philippo
florentino architect0 curante. nullis sustentaculis absoluta est, Eugenius pontifex solemni pompa dedicavit.’
(Matthei Palmerii Liber de temponbus, edited by C.Scaramella (Citth di Castello, 1915) (Rnum Italicamm
Srriptmes, xxvi part I), 124).
l 4 R. Scholz, ‘Eine humanistische Schilderung der Kurie aus dem Jahre 1438’, Q w l h und Forschungen aw
Italienisch Amhiuen und Bibliotheke, series v vol. XIV (1894). 292.
I5 Ibid., 292 n. 3: ‘A di 25 di mano facemo consacrare a papa Eugenio 4 la chiesa di Santa Maria del Fiore:
ciot l’altare magiore, e Monsignore degl’Onini per sua commesione il resta della chiesa. Facemo fare una via
da Santa Maria Novella fino a detta chiesa in su cavalletti alti braccia 3, larga braccia 4 o circa, coverta di sotto
tutta di panni e tapeti, e da lato di pancardi sino a’ ginochio; il ciclo di sopra fu di due panni, uno bianco e uno
tuschino, per rispetto dell’arma del Papa ch’h di detti colori; et era in su colonnette coprete di mortella, olivo
e allora con drapelloni da qui dato, e sopra. Su per questa via andorno tutti prelati principali cioe Vescovi,
archivescovi e simili; di poi molti ambasciadori,cioe genovesi i vinitiani, quell0 del Re di Roma e gli Spagnoli,
il Signore di Rimini, dipoi noi a due e due [that is, the members of the Signoria], di poi i Cardinali, in ultimo
il Papa, a chui porto la coda lo ambasciadore dell’imperadore e al ritomare il Confaloniere della giustizia; il
..
qual, la mattina, in nella capella, dopo la consecratione, il Papa fa’ cavaliere; . Detto l’uficio va compagnario
il Papa. Dipoi i’nostra compagnia vennono tutti detti ambasciadori e’signori a mangiare con noi; nel quale
mangiare spendamo fiorini 92.’
l 6 Vespasiano da Bisticci, Vita di Eugenio IV P.P.. 14-6; L. Bruni, Rerum sw tempore in Italia gestarum
commentariw (Argentoriati, 1610), 264: ‘Per hoc ipsum fere tempus basilica Florentina ab Eugenio Papa
solenniter dedicata fuit. Cuius rei causa pons ligneus incredibili celeritate, ac mirabili opere aedificatus est ab
Ecclesia praedicatorum, ubi Pontifex habitabat, ad piam basilicam, quae erat dedicanda. Is vero pons non
solum ad magnificentiam pertinuit, verum etiam ad necessitatem. Tantus enim in ipsa dedicationis die
concursus hominum fuit ex agro, ac finitimis opidis, et ex multitudine urbana, ut complerentur omnes aditus,
omnesque viae.’ See also Bergstein, ‘Marian politics in Quattrocento Florence’, 713-5 for a few other
contemporary reactions to the consecration.
I’ This impression is confirmed by Tanturli in his ‘Rapporti del Brunelleschi’, who has shown that the
 zyxwv
zyx
Giunnouo Munetti on Architecture
private diaries, probably not destined for an audience, or part of historical
narratives such as biographies or histories of Florence. There seems to be no
455

zyxwvut
other description of the Duomo from this period which can be compared to
Manetti's in length, detail, interest in describing the architecture, or the care
he gave to the style of the description. In fact the only text with a similar
interest in detailed descriptions of buildings is Manuel Chrysoloras' Greek
Comparison of Ancient and New Rome, written in 1411.18This is also a long and
detailed description in the tradition of rhetorical description or ekphrusis,
culminating in an evocation of the Hagia Sophia, written in an elevated
diction and employing various figures of speech in order to convey the
impression the Hagia Sophia made on Chrysoloras. Manetti may have been

zyxwvuts
familiar with his work because, although the Comparison was addressed to the
Byzantine emperor, a copy of it was disseminated among Italian humanists.''
Also, Chrysoloras was a friend of Ambrogio Traversari, who stayed in
Florence from 1397 to 1400 to teach Greek."
There is no contemporary evidence about the exact date in 1436 when
Manetti wrote his Orutio, its intended audience or the occasion of its being
written.*' Actually, the fact that Angelo Acciaiuoli, its addressee, was present
at the consecration,99and that there seems to be no evidence pointing to any
particular reason why he should dedicate the text to the latter, suggests that
the Orutio was written as an exercise in the rhetorical genre of the descriptio or
ekphrusis with the aim of developing or displaying Manetti's skills in writing
humanist Latin, rather than as an account of important events by an

zyxw
eyewitness intended for an audience who could not have been present. Its
intended audience was probably the group of Florentine humanists of which
Manetti was a member at that time.
Unlike other accounts, Manetti's description is long (3500 words) and
detailed, and describes the procession, the church, the ceremony of consecra-
tion, the music played, and the engineering feat of the cupola - without,
however, mentioning Brunelleschi by name. He devotes relatively little space
to the actual ceremony of consecration.

zyxw
Traditionally, an altar or a church are consecrated when first used for Holy

zyxwvutsrqp
Communion. Basically, the ritual consists of seven parts: blessing outside,

majority of BruneUeschi's humanist contemporaries discussed his failure to change the course of the Arno in

zyxwvutsrq
the war with Lucca rather than his success in designing and building a cupola for the Duomo.See also Smith,
Anhitschrn in rhs Cultun of Early Humanism, chapters 1-3 for a discussion of the reactions of contemporaries to
the completion of the cupola in an ethical context.
See Smith, Architecture in the C d u n of Early Humanism, 199-217 and 150-71 for a discussion and
translation of this text.
Cf. Smith, Architechin in the C&w ofItalian Humanism, 150.
2o On the contact between Chrysoloras and Traversari see Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathm. 16-9.
As Wittschier has already pointed out in his Ginnouo Manetti.Das Cmpuc dmOmtiona, 52-3, the Omtio is
only mentioned in the lists of works at the end of the two biographies of Manetti by Vespasiano da Bisticci and
Naldo Naldi; they contain no information about the reasons why he wrote it, the exact date, or the
circumstances.
22 Cf. C. Ugurgieri della Berardenga, Gli Acciaioli, 515.
456 zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu Caroline van Eck
blessing in the middle of the church, preparation for the consecration of the
altar, ritual consecration of the altar, procession of the relics, and blessing of
altar vessels, ornaments, etc., followed finally by a celebration of the Mass."
The ceremony in 1436 was probably performed according to the Pontificale
Romanum, which was then in use in northern Italy, perhaps in combination
with the Pontajicale of D u r a n d u ~ . ~ ~
In the first three centuries AD there is little evidence of a regular
ceremony.25The inaugural sermon delivered by Eusebius in 314 at the
consecration of the church at Tyre is the first recorded instance of a con-
secration service.%In the Middle Ages brief mention or succinct descriptions
of the consecration are recorded, which often concentrate on the liturgical
aspect, above all the consecration of altars and relics. The course of the

zyxwv
ceremony, or the building dedicated, are hardly described." Two medieval
texts give a more detailed account of this ritual St Ivo of Chartres' sermon De
sacramentis dedicationis and Durandus' Rationale divinorum o&iorurn." St Ivo
of Chartres (1040-1 125) described the building of the church both in terms
of the actual construction and as an act of faith its stones are bound together
by the cement which is faith and charity. His sermon on the sacraments of
dedication is both a description of the ritual and a typological or figural
analysis of it. The water and salt which are mixed at the outset of the rite,

zyxw
for instance, are interpreted as figurae of penitence (because water, just as
penitence, purifies) and of the doctrine of the New Testament (because like
salt, these doctrines tighten the loose hearts of the hearers, and preserve
the freshness of life)." Durandus' Rationale, written in 1285-96, gave a very

zyxwv
complete account of this ritual, explaining its origins, by whom it should be

'' zyxwvutsr
zyxw
performed, the reasons why, in what way, and its significance?'

zyxwvutsrqponm zyxwvutsrq
Cf. L. Eisenhofer, GrundnJ der katholischen Liturgik (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1926). 287-8; The Catholic
Encyclopedia (New York, 1907-12). S.V. 'consecration', and F. L. Crou and E. A. Livingstone (eds.), &jd
Dictionary ofthe Christian Church (London, etc., 1974), S.V. 'dedication of churches'.
24 For the use of this pontfiak in Florence in the early fifteenth century see the critical edition in M.
Andrieu, L.e pontifical Romain au Moyen Age 11: Le p o n t i i de LJ curie romaine au xiiie siicle, 421-40, and 111: Lc

zyxwvutsrqpo
pontificnl de G. Lhmnd, 455-98 (Vatican City, 1940, Studi e testi vols 87 and 88).
25 Cf. J. Hastings (ed.), Encyclopaedia ofRe1igion and Ethics ( E d i n b u r g v e w York, 1911), S.V. 'dedication',
and the Lexikon des Miftelalfm (Miinchen/Ziirich, 1991), S.V. 'Kirchenweihe'.
26 Cf. C. Smith, 'Christian rhetoric in Eusebius' panegyric at Tyre', Vigiliae Christaanae,43 (1989). 226-47.
27 A number of German medieval dedications are discussed in K. J. Benz, Untenuchungen zur polificchen
Bedeutung der Kirchenweihe unim Teilnahme der deutrchol H m c h e r im hohen MitteLalter (Kallmainz. 1975).
D. Ivonis carnorensis episcopi sennones in P. Migne, Patmlogiae cunus complehrs. Series LJtina (Paris, 1844-64),
vol. 162, cols 527-35; Guillelmus Durandus, RatioMle divinonrm ojficiurum, eds A. Davril and T. M. Tibodeau
(Turnhout, 1995). i.vi.
29 St Ivo of Chartres, col. 529 A 'Primo itaque aquam benedicamus, cui et sal admiscetur. Aqua etenim
poenitentiae figuram gent, quae velut aqua. peccatorum maculas abluit. . . . Cui admiscetur sal, id est
Evangelica doctrina, fluxa auditorum corda suavi mordacitate constringens, et ad conservandam vitae
novitatem sapienter componens.'
'' G. Durandus, Rationale divinorum oficiorum, eds A. Davril and T. M. Thibodeau (Turnhout, 1995). 1.i.14:
'Dispositio autem ecclesie materialis modum humani corporis tenet. Cancellus namque, sive locus ubi altare
est, caput representat, crux ex utraque parte brachia et manus, reliqua pars ab occidente quicquid corporis
superesse videtur. Sacrificium altaris vota significat cordis. Sed et secundum Ricardum de Sancto Victore
 zyxw
zyx Giunnouo Manetti on Architecture
Manetti, however, singled out for description the architectural setting, the
457

zyxwvutsr
material splendor of the ceremony, and its effect on the audience, rather
than its religious significance. This is evident from his frequent use of
terms such as ‘magnificentia’, ‘admirable’, ‘incredibile’, or ‘pulcherrimum’,
and his mention of the onlookers and their reactions to the ceremony
(11. 93-5, 105-12, 109-19). His descriptions of the music show this very
clearly (11. 236-50 and 283-8): the entire church resounded with the music
sung and played during the elevation of the Eucharist; this music was so
sweet that it seemed as if angelic or rather divine sounds from Paradise came
down from heaven to breath into the ears of the audience. He also compares
the music to the songs of the sirens and the playing of Tymotheus and

zyxwvut
Orpheus. These are all instances of the power of music to move its audience
and bring it beside itself in rapture.

THE FORM OF THE ORATZO

Manetti’s evident concentration on the impact of the consecration on the
public, rather than on an analysis of the ritual and its religious (doctrinal,
figural) significance, leads us to a consideration of the form of his Oratio.
In its choice of subject (saeculares et pontificales pompae rather than the
sacrament of dedication), the ways in which it is presented, and its use of
language, the Oratio differs from medieval accounts of church dedications.
Instead, both in form and treatment it is much closer to the rhetorical tradi-
tion of description or panegyric than to theological or liturgical writing.
As we have seen, the description of the consecration forms the main
part of the Oratio, preceded by an exordium, which functions as a captatio
benevolentiae, and followed by a conclusio, in which Manetti again asks for
Acciaiuoli’s leniency in judging his work. The form of this Oratio is that of an
extended description (descriptio or ekphrasis). Its loose form is a characteristic
of epideictic oratory in general, which was organized in a less formal way
than deliberative or judicial oratory. That is, it did not have the usual
five-part structure of these rhetorical genres?‘ Descriptio has been analysed
and defined in various ways in antiquity and the Middle Ages as an exercise in
declamatio (that is, a writing exercise used in the earlier stage of rhetorical
training to develop the skills in invention and the appropriate use of styl-
istic levels and figures of speech), as a part of amplificatio (or varying and
amplifying a given theme or text), as a variety of epideictic oratory, or as
a part of n a r r a t i ~ Cicero’s
.~~ De oratore, Quintilian’s Institutio oratoria, and

zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvutsrq
dispositio ecclesie triplicem statum in Ecclesie significat salvandorum; sanctuarium enim significat ordinem
virginum, chorus continentium, corpus coniugatorum. Strictius enim est sanctuarium quam chorus et chorus

zyxwvutsrq
quam corpus quia pauciores sunt virgines quam continentes et isti quam coniugati; sacratior quoque est locus
sanctuarii quam chorus, et chorus quam corpus, quia dignior est ordo virginum quam continentium, et

zyxwvutsrqponml
illorum quam coniugatorum.’
” SeeJ. W. OMalley, h u e and 5lam in Rtnaircnnce Rome. Rhetwrc, Doctrine and Refmm in the S m d Omton

32
~ 1450-1540 (Durham, 1979), 79.
Of t b Papal C O Ucina
Cf. G . Ueding (ed.).Histurisches W67tn6uchdmRbtorik (Tiibingen, 1994),S.V.‘descriptio’.
458 zyxwv
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvut Caroline van Eck

zyxwvuts
Hermogenes’ Progymnasmata and Peri ideon all offer instructions on how to
write description^.'^ Cicero for instance wrote:

zyxwvut
For a great impression is made by dwelling on a single point, and also by
clear explanation and almost visual presentation of events as if practically
going on - which are very effective both in stating a case and in explaining
and amplifying the statement, with the object of making the fact we
amplify appear to the audience as important as eloquence is able to make
it.”

zyxwvu
Manetti seems to have taken these instructions very seriously, as is shown by
his use of the device of interrupting the narrative and drawing the attention
of the reader to a new occurrence (1. 167: ‘Behold, the most solemn day
of the Annunciation had arrived, famous above all others that have been
instituted by the Roman church.’), by presenting his own narrator’s role as
that of an eyewitness (1. 288: ‘I do not know very clearly what happened
further to the others present; about myself I am a reliable witness.’), and
above all by describing the consecration as an event that is unfolding before
our eyes. Instead of St Ivo of Chartres’ list of instructions on what to do and
the meaning of these actions, or Durandus’ figural interpretation, Manetti
presents us with a narrative plot, complete with an historical context and a
description of the stage on which the event is going to take place.
In his treatment of panegyric Quintilian observed that cities are praised in
the same way as persons: ‘The founder takes the place of the parent, . . . The
virtues and vices revealed by the deeds of [the inhabitants] are the same as in
private indi~iduals.’’~ Public buildings may also be the subject of panegyric:
‘Praise too may be awarded to public works, in connexion with their mag-
nificence, utility, beauty, and the architect or artist must be given due
consideration. Temples for instance will be praised for their magnificence,
walls for their utility, and both for their beauty or skill of the ar~hitect.”~

zyxwvutsr
zyxwv
Hermogenes stated that descriptions ‘bring before the eyes that which is to
be shown. Ekphrases are of people, actions, times, seasons and many other
” See Bolgar, The Classical Heritage, for a list of manuscripts of classical authors in Manetti’s possession;
after the discovery in 1416 by Poggio Bracciolini of a complete manuscript of Quintilian’s Inrtihrtio motorin, it

zyxwvutsrqpo
had been read eagerly by humanists; Manetti may very well have been acquainted with Hermogenes’ work
through the manuscript sent by Filelfo to Florence in 1427; cf. Bolgar, The Classical Hm.tage, and the letter by
Manetti’s teacher Ambrogio Traversari (Epirtulac xxiv.32) mentioned by Bolgar. Manetti may also have read
Hermogenes’ Pmi idem (On Style) through George of Trebizond‘s Latin synopsis: cf. J. Monfasani, Cwsge of
T r e b i d : A Siogmphy and a Study of his Rhetoric and Logic (Leiden, 1976), 17-8, and C. W. Wooten, Hmnogenes
o n Trpes ofstyle (Chapel Hill and London, 1987). xvii.
Cicero, De oratore, ni.liii.202, translation H. Rackham (Cambridge, Mass., 1992 (1942)): “am et
commoratio una in re permultum movet et illustris explanatio rerumque quasi gerantur sub aspectum paene
subiectio. quae et in exponenda re plurimum valent et ad illustrandum id quod exponitur et ad
amplificandum, ut eis qui audient illud quod augebimus quantum efficere oratio poterit tantum esse
videatur . . .’. In the Rhefolica ad Hermnium, 1v.h similar stress is laid on the vivid description of events and
actions so as to bring it before the eyes of the public (‘. . . statuit enim rem totam et prope ponit ante oculos’).
35 Quintilian, Institutio omtoria, 11r.vii.26,trans. H. E. Butler (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1980 (1920)).
s6 Ibid., 111.vii.27.Cf. also 1x.ii.44,where Quintilian made a distinction between descriptions of past events
(transkztio tempmum) and descriptions of a place (topogmphia or locorum dilucidu et sign@ans dcsoiptio).
 zyxwv
zyxwvuts Giunnouo Munetti on Architecture
things. . . . The special virtues of ekphrasis are clarity and visibility: the style
must contrive to bring about seeing through hearing.’37The description of an
459

zyxwvut
action originates ‘from that which was before, from the things that happened
at that time, and from the events that followed’. By thus integrating the
temporal dimension of the object described he laid the foundation for
the extension of descriptio into nurrutio. He structured the action described
in terms of Aristotle’s tripartition of a dramatic action into a beginning, a
middle, and an end.= Also, he stressed the structuring activity of the writer
of a description, who ‘composes and puts before the eyes what [he] is
de~cribing’.’~
The form of Manetti’s Orutio clearly fits in with some of these definitions
of u!.e.scriptio. He did not use the model of praising an individual which
Quintilian proposed, nor that of the kinesthetic description, structured as an
imaginary walk or periegesis through the city or building described, as it was
used by Greek authors of the second century AD such as Aelius Aristides or
Lucian, and in Eusebius’ account of the church at Tyre.“ Instead, the struc-
ture of his description is that of a narrative plot as discussed by Cicero and
Hermogenes. And as we shall see, metaphor is an important instrument in
achieving vividness.

zy
zyxw
Manetti’s style is the grand style of epideictic or laudatory oratory.” This
is characterized by long periods (very frequent in the text), the avoidance
of vulgar terms, clear preference for elevated diction, and the use of many
figures of speech. To give a few examples: he employed unuphoru (repetition),
copiu (abundance), the extended use of simile and metaphor, pobptoton
(repeating a word in a different form as in 1. 215: ‘converteret convers-
osque’, or in 1. 112: ‘attraxerit: attractosque’), and purison (corresponding or
symmetrical structure of a number of clauses or sentences as in 250-3:
‘Ita per hunc modum fieri videbatur ut o m e s paulo humaniores sensus
nostri partim suavissimos cantus dulcissimosque sonos audientes: partim

zyxw
zyxwvutsrqpo
varios ac redolentes vapores olfacientes, partim denique admirabilia omnia

zyxwv
ornamentorum genera conspicientes varie ilarescerent.’). Rhetorical ques-
tions are also frequently used, as well as the inexpressibility topos or

zyxwvutsrqpon
37
Hennogenes, hgymnamtat., in Opno,ed. H.Rabe (Leipzig, 1913). 22-3. See also M. Baxandall, Giotfo
and the Omtms (Oxford, 1971), 85-86 and OMalley, h i s 8 and E l o m , 79.
38
Hennogenes, Progymnarmutu x; Aristotle, Poehks v11.1450b26;cf. Ueding, Histon.uk W 6 r t d w h der
Rhetod, S.V. ‘descriptio’.
39 During the Middle Ages, Hennogenes’ proglmr~nnatahad been one of the textbooks of rhetoric in the
translation by Priscianus: De 7hLtmicocpmccwmitamentis ex H m p (here quoted from the Basel edition of
1526), col. x, 145: ‘Descriptio est oratio colligens, et praesentans ante oculos quod demonstrat. Fiunt autem
descriptiones tam personarum. q u h rerum, et temporum, et status, et locorum, et multorum aliorum. . . .
Convenit . . . res quidem describere ab ante factis, et quae in ipsis eveniunt, vel aguntur. . . . Virtus autem
descriptionis maxime planities et praesentia, vel significantia est: oportet enim eloquutionem pent. per awes
oculis vel praesentiam facere ipsius rei, er exaequare dignitate rerum styhm eloquutionis, si Clara res est,sic et
ratio similis.’
40
Cf. Smith, ‘Christian rhetoric’, 228-30.
‘I Cf. for instance the description of the grand style in the Rhetoricu ad Hmnnaum Iv.viii, where the author
advises the use of grave words, of impressive and ornate sentences, and of grand figures of thought and
diction.
460
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwv Caroline van Eck
udynaton, the professed impossibility of expressing oneself adequately on a
given topic. Taken together, these figures of speech give the impression of

zyxwv
highly structured or even contrived speech.

‘SEEING THROUGH HEARING‘

However, when we compare Manetti’s text with the most famous epideictic
speech on Florence, Leonard0 Bruni’s Urbis Florentinae laudatio, written
about 1401, there is one evident difference: whereas Bruni is content with
mentioning the famous sights and buildings of Florence without attempting
to describe them, Manetti took great pains to write a description of Florence
cathedral that would comply with Cicero’s and Hermogenes’ demands
for vivid and evocative description. Bruni merely wrote: ‘These things
are certainly known to everyone and exposed before our eyes, and do not
need any de~cription’.~‘ But Manetti’s use of techniques to create a vivid
narrative discussed above clearly corresponds to Hermogenes’ demand that
in an ekphrasis ‘the style must bring about seeing through hearing’.
In the opening section of the Oratio Manetti explicitly addressed the
problem of adequate verbal description and the selection criteria to be used:

[We] shall imitate not without cause in our sketch (‘adumbratione’) that
excellent ancient painter who wanted to express the mournhl sacrifice of
the slaughtered Iphigenia in the best way. And having depicted [‘pingendo
statuisset’] Calchas dejected, Ulysses sad, Ajax shouting and Menelaus
lamenting before the altar, the head of Agamemnon himself he covered
completely. In this he did very well in my opinion: what he did not think
he could properly represent [‘exprimere’]by the drawings of his art, he left

zyxw
very rightly to the judgment of the onlooker. We shall in the same way
in this sketch [‘adumbratione’] of this very glorious ceremony touch as
lightly, so to speak, as possible only those things which can be explained
adequately in words, and omit all other things. However, we will leave
everything else to your excellentjudgment. (11. 20-8)45
Both in its grammatical structure and in its use of words and rhetorical
devices, this passage may very well be an amplification of a similar passage

zyx
in Alberti’s De picturu, completed at the time Manetti was writing the Oratio:

They praise Timanthes of Cyprus for the painting in which he surpassed

Colotes, because, when he had made Calchas sad and Ulysses even sadder

zyxwvut
at the sacrifice of Iphigenia, and employed all his art and skill on the
grief-stricken Menelaus, he could find no suitable way to represent the

zyxwvuts
42 L. Bruni, Urbis F l m t i n n e Laudatio, printed in H. Baron, Fmm Pctrarch to Leomdo Bruni: Studies in
Humanistic and Political Literatun (Chicago, 1968), 240: ‘Haec quidem omnibus nota sunt et ante oculos
exposita, nec demonstratione ulla indigent’.
43 Manetti used a similar formula while discussing the pope’s building projects in his Vita Nicohi V,ed. L.
Muratori, Rerum italicarum sniptmer (Milan, 1734), m.ii, col. 934A ‘. . . qualia quantaque fori debuissent,
diligentis lectoris iudicio existimanda relinquamus’.
 Giannozzo Munetti on Architecture 46 1
expression of her disconsolate father; so he covered his head with a veil,
and thus left more for the onlooker to imagine about his grief than he
zyx
zyxwv
zyx
could see with the eye.#
For instance, where Alberti uses a construction beginning with ‘quod cum’,
Manetti writes ‘qui cum’; where Alberti writes ‘tristem Calchantem’, Manetti
writes ‘Calcantem tristem’; where Alberti writes ‘pannis involuit’, Manetti
writes ‘involvendo cooperuit’; and they both describe a mounting intensity
of emotion in the bystanders (Alberti: ‘tristem Calchantem, tristiorem . . .
Ulissem, Menelao maerore affecto’; Manetti, with a small amplification:
‘Calcantem tristem, mestum Ulixem, clamantem Aiacem, lamentantem
Menelaum . . .’).
Given these parallels, I think we are justified in thinking that Manetti’s
text is one of the first, perhaps even the very first, instance of the impact of
Alberti’s text on his contemporaries. If this is so, it puts the period of the
demonstrable influence of De picturu among humanist writers, which is
thought to begin with Bartholomaeus Facius’ De viris illustribus of 1456,
twenty years back.45Alberti was in Florence in 1436, and frequented the
humanist gatherings at Santa Maria degli Angeli which Manetti also at-
tended. It is therefore probable that Manetti knew De picturu, which was
completed in 1435.
It is also interesting to note that Alberti’s remark was taken up not by
a painter, but by a humanist reflecting on the demands and techniques of
writing a vivid description of a building and the events that took place in
it. Alberti’s text was based on passages in Pliny’s Nuturulis Historiu and

zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvu
Quintilian’s Institutio orutoriu.* Whereas Pliny stressed the dignity of the way
in which Agamemnon was depicted, Quintilian and Alberti both told this

zyxwvu
zyxwvut
zyxwvutsrqp
Cf. Alberti, Dcpictum, 542 ‘Laudatur Thimanthes Cyprius in ea tabula qua Colloteicum vicit, quod cum

zyxwvut
@

in Iphigeniae immolatione tristem Calchantem, tristiorem fecisset Ulissem, inque Menelao maerore affecto
omnem artem et ingenium exposuisset, consumptisaffectibus, non reperiens quo digno mod0 tristissimi patris
vultus referret, pannis involuit eius caput, ut cuique plus reliquant quod de illius dolore animo meditaretur.

zyxwvuts
quam quod posset visu discernere’ (trans. C. Grayson).
45 Cf. the collection of tcstimmio in F. Borsi, Leon Buftitta A k t i The Compktc Wmkr (New York, 1986),
257-72.
‘6 Pliny, Natumlic histolio xxxv.73 ‘Eiusenim est Iphigenia oratorum laudibus celebrata, qua stante ad aras
peritura cum maestos pinxisset et omnes praecipueque patruum, et tristitiae omnem imaginem consumpsisset,
patris ipsius vultum velavit que digne non poterat ostendere’. Quintilian, Institutio matmi0 Il.xiii.13: ‘Ut fecit
Timanthes, opinor, Cithnius in ea tabula qua Coloten Teium vicit. Nam cum in Iphigeniae immolatione
pinxisset tristem Calchantem, tristiorem Ulixen, addidisset Menelao, quem summum poterat ars efficere,
maerorem, consumptis adfectibus, non reperiens, quo digne mod0 patris vultum posset exprimere, velavit eius
caput et suo cuique animo dedit aestimandum.’ Another common source for Alberti and Manetti might have
been a passage in Valerius Maximus’ Factarm d dicforum memodilium libri IX,voi.xi, ext. 6, which was
proposed by Luis0 in his Firmu in F . t a 24 n. 2 ‘Quid ille alter aeque nobilis pictor, luctuosum immolatae
Iphigeniae sacrificum referens, quum Calchanta tristem, moestum Ulyssem, clamantem Aiacem, lamentantem
Menelaum circa aram statuisset, caput Agamemnonis involvendo, nonne summi moeroris acerbitatem arte
exprimi non posse confessus est? ltaque pictura eius, haruspicis, amicorum et fratris lacrimis madet; patris
fletum spectantis affectui aestimandum reliquit.’ See also Cicero, Omtm 74: ‘si denique pictor ille vidit, cum
immolanda Iphigenia tristis Calchas esset, maestior Ulixes, maereret Menelaus, obvolvendum caput
Agamemnonis esse, quoniam summum illum penicillo non posset imitari’.
462 zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu
zyxwvu Caroline van Eck
anecdote to illustrate one way of appealing to the imagination of the public
in order to convey increasingly powerful emotions. Manetti used a com-
bination of Quintilian’s and Alberti’s retelling as a metaphor. The orator
becomes a painter with words - Manetti repeatedly calls his description an
udurnbrutio, a sketch or outline - who carefully distinguishes those aspects of
his subject that bear minute description from those that can better be left to
the imagination of the audience. By borrowing Alberti’s humanist analysis
of the activity of the painter, Manetti gives a rationale of the selective
composition essential to successful de~cription.~’ Comparing his own activity
to that of a painter, and his description to a sketch or outline through which
he shows the events (‘ostendemus’,1. 46; ‘Iustitiae deinde vexillifer, quem ad
sacros pontificis pedes astare pado ante demonstravimus . . .’, 11. 257-60), is

zyx
one of the stylistic strategies Manetti employed in order to convey a vivid
image of the consecration, not dissimilar to his use of the adynaton topos
(11. 83-4) which is also an attempt to engage the imagination of the audi-
e n ~ e . But
~ ’ it is not the only one: as we shall see in the next section, his use of
the metaphor of the body and of the ship in describing the form of Santa
Maria del Fiore can also be read as a way of rendering more vivid the
description of fairly abstract topics such as a groundplan.

MANETTI’S DESCRIPTION OF SANTA MARIA DEL FIORE

Manetti’s concern with vivid description is not only of interest because it
tells us something about the development of epideictic oratory in the
Renaissance; it is also of interest as a testimony of early Quattrocento
humanist interest in architecture. In order to show this, we must now turn to
one of the major parts of Manetti’s text - the description of Santa Maria del
Fiore and the concept of architecture it conveys.
This description consists of five parts: an extended comparison of the form
of the church with a human body stretched out on the earth, with both arms
extended (11. 50-64); a listing of the dimensions (11. 64-73); a description of
the nave, and its columns, aisles, and doors (11. 73-82); a description full of
praise of the dome which ends with a plea to consider it as one of the seven
wonders of the world (11. 82-1 12); and finally a description of the decoration
made for this occasion (11. 113-58).
Until now, Manetti’s Orutio has attracted the attention of architectural

zyx
historians chiefly because of his use of an extended comparison between a
plan of the church and a human body in order to convey the form of the plan:

The admirable edifice of this sacred church appears to me, in my frequent

careful inspection, to be almost like a human body. In the first place, the

zyxwvutsrqpon
zyxwvuts
form of the human body, when prostrate from the chest to the feet, looks
47 Hermogenes/Priscianus also hints at the need for selective, ‘pictorial’ composition in his definition
quoted above of decriptio as an ‘oratio colligens et praesentans ante oculos’.
48 See also Smith, Architechire in the Culture of Early Humanism, 160ff on the use of this topos in Manuel
Chrysoloras’ Comparison of Old and N m Rome.
 zyxwvuts
zyx
Giannozzo Manetti on Architecture 463
very much to one examining it with some care like the oblong space of the

zyxwvut
church as it extends from the doors to the entrance of the cupola [that is
the nave of the church]. The rest of the space, which is lower down
enclosed by the cupola [i.e. at the East end of the church], is shown as in
no way dissimilar to the superior part of a human torso from the head to
the chest. (11. 50-56)
In order to judge whether the use of this comparison is right, Manetti asks
the reader to place somebody (as a thought-experiment) at the end of the
church, in such a manner that his or her entire body is prostrate on the
floor, the head placed towards the East, the arms extended towards the
North and the South, and the feet towards the West. When the body is
arranged in this way, the reader will be convinced that Manetti’s
comparison is very apt to illustrate the form of the plan. If, he concludes,
the form of Florence cathedral is similar to that of the human body, nobody
will deny that it has the most noble and perfect form, because the human
form easily surpasses all other forms (11. 56-64).
Manetti also employs terms derived from this comparison when he
describes the form and dimensions of the nave and the cupola:

The length of the temple, formed admirably in this manner stretches out
[protenditur] for 260 passus. Its width, measured up to the admirable arches
of the cupola, extends uniformly for about 66 pmsus, although it appears
much wider higher up towards the cupola. The height up to the arches of
the cupola varies. In the central space which is higher than the rest it is
seventy passus; the sides of this space rise to circa fifty passus. The rest of
the space encircled by the cupola extends [porrigitur] in length for about a
hundred passus; in breadth, it is extended [extenturnest] for more than 160
passus. The height of the cupola, rising to 150pusus, ascends majestically.
(11. 64-73)

The main space of the church is divided into a central nave and two aisles;
their forms are compared to that a ship (11. 75-77). Both here and in the
preceding extended comparison between the form of a human body and
that of the church, Manetti appears to look for ways to give fresh and con-
crete reformulations of traditional, abstract notions: the similarity between
the human body and the groundplan of a church, and the metaphorical
designation of the central space of a church as a ship had become a cliche
by the time Manetti was writing (I will return to the body analogy later).
However, Manetti is not showing the meaningfulness of these clichts by

zyxwvuts
drawing on their theological or figural connotations (the ship-like form of
the church recalls the Ark of Noah, and the form of the human body with its
extended arms the Cross); instead, his description is directed at conveying
the visual basis for their use. This interpretation is supported by his very
frequent use of words such as ‘apparet’, ‘efficere videntur’ and ‘formam
navis . . . pre se ferunt’ (all in 11. 75-77)when describing the ship-like shape
464 Caroline van Eck zyxwvu
of the interior space of the church. For Manetti, these metaphors serve not
to recall religious truths but to convey a vivid impression of the way the
church actually looked to this observer.
The description of the building ends with a flourish, again underlining the
impact of the building on spectators:
I would think that this temple, so magnificent, so admirable, and finally so
incredible, ought deservedly to be placed among the seven amazing sights
of the earth because of its incredible magnificence. If the Athenians are
exceedingly proud of their arsenal because of this reason, that it was a
work, as is written, which had to be seen because of its cost and elegance,
and if they are so proud of it that the writers of their history commended
to posterity Philo, its architect, with great praise, ought not the Florentines
too be very proud as well for the same reasons, because they have built an

zyxwvutsr
admirable work, sumptuous to such a degree that it would be extremely
difficult to estimate the incredible costs made for its admirable con-
struction; and also so very elegant that it has also attracted many foreign
persons from various places to gaze at its wondrous elegance; and, once
attracted, it has retained them to look more often and longer, in great
amazement. (11. 102-12)
In this description Manetti concentrates on the external form, magnifi-
cence, and dimensions of the church, and its impact on the beholder. This
last aspect recurs constantly in the text. He gives the dimensions of the
cathedral, but their list is too short and incomplete to serve as a basis for a
calculation of the proportions of the building. Rather, these numbers serve
to convey the immensity of the church.
Similarly, the use of the extended comparison between the form of the
church and the human body is not used to discuss the proportions of the
church, or to establish a parallel between the microcosm of the human body
or the building and the macrocosm, or between the human figure, with arms
extended, and Christ or the Christian church. Manetti’s analogy between the
form of a human body stretched out on the ground with extended arms does
not warrant any of these interpretations in terms of proportion aesthetics,
metaphysics, or theology. His analogy is entirely formulated in practical
terms; he stresses that he is concerned with the visual appearance of the
church when introducing this analogy by saying that often, when he was
looking at the building of the church, it looked like a human body (11. 50-1).
In other words, his analogy is not the result of theological or numerological
speculation, but of studying the appearance of things and trying to find the
best way of conveying in words how they look. Also, his asking the reader to
imagine, by way of a thought-experiment, a human body prostrate in the
space of a church would not be necessary if he were alluding to tradional
theological or metaphysical analogies.
Of course, the analogy between the form of the Christian church and the
 Giannozzo Manetti on Architecture
human body had become a commonplace by the time Manetti was ~riting.~’
We find formulations of it in medieval descriptions of the consecration ritual
such as Durandus’ Rationale divinorum oj”cinorum.50 In medieval theology
zyxwv
zyx 465

the figure of the human body with extended arms can serve as an image of
Christ the Redeemer or as a symbol of the new creation made possible by
Christ’s And the body of man can be interpreted allegorically
as a temple, the community of believers making up the ~hurch.~’ These

zyxwvuts
theological interpretations are based on various sources: in the first place on
the Bible, and in particular on passages in the New Testament where Adam is
interpreted figurally as a type of Christ; secondly on the very widespread
tradition of considering man as a microcosm, transmitted by early medieval
encyclopedists such as Isidore of Seville, who declared that ‘man is a micro-

zyxwvut
cosm - that is, a small world, or in the figural poems of Hrabanus Maurus,

zyxwvuts
where the texts describe the manifold connections between the Cross, Adam,
and the quarters of the compass, the seasons, the temperaments, and the
elements; and in the third place on Augustine’s interpretation of the Ark
of Noah in terms of the form of the human body in De civitate Dei.53Taken
together with Vitruvius’ description of the homo quadratus at the outset of
Book 111, devoted to the design of temples, of his De architectura Zihi X, these
theological and metaphysical interpretations of the formal analogy between
the groundplan of a church and the human body would provide a very power-
ful and suggestive foundation for Renaissance proportion theories.
Manetti does indeed allude to these interpretations in his other major
discussion of architecture, his description of the building projects of Pope
Nicholas V in his Vita NicoZai V , written after 1455.54In his description
of Nicholas’ projected rebuilding of Saint Peter’s, Manetti again used the
analogy between the groundplan of a church and the human body, repeating

zyxwvutsrqponmlk
zyxw
almost literally what he had written about Florence Cathedral.55However,

zyxwvutsrq
here he added a discussion of the analogy between microcosm and macro-
‘’ See B. Reudenbach, ‘In mensumm humani cmporis. Zur Herkunft der Auslegung und Illustration von
Vitruvs 11r.i irn 15. Jahrhundert’, in C. Meier and U. Ruben (eds), Tart und BiM. Aspektc dLs Zutummmwirkens

zyxwvutsrq
auicchcn WeicrKiinste im MitteMtm undfnchcr N m ’ t (Wiesbaden, 1980), 651-89.

zyxwvu
50 Quoted above in note 30.
51 Cf. Reudenbach, ‘In mensumm humani cmpmis: 670-72.
55 This identification was based on 1 Corinthians 6.19 and 3.19; 2 Corinthians 6.16 andJohn 2.21; cf.
Reudenbach, ‘In mensumm humani cmpmis’, 673.
53 Cf. Paul’s E@k to the Romans 5.14ff and 1 Corinthians 15.22ff and 45; Isidor of Seville, De m u m natum,
M (Migne. Patmologia Latino 83,col. 978A); Hlabanus Maurus. Liber de lawfibus sanctae mu&, Pahobgia Latino
107,cols 133-294, Augustine, Lk ciuitate Dei xv.26. Cf. Reudenbach, ‘In mensumm humani cmpmis’, 658-61.
On the dating of the Vitcr see F. Pagnotti, ‘La vita di Niccolb V scritto da Giannozzo Manetti’, Anhiuio
della R Socictd R m m di Stmi0 Porn’,14 (1891). 411-36.
55 Manetti, Vita Nicoloi V, cols 937k ‘Admirabileet stupendum ac summa Christianae Religionis devotione
venerandum huius sacri Templi aedificium, mihi crebro mecum ipsi animadvertenti ac, quale quantumque
foret, mente et cogitatione volventi, instar humani corporis futurum videri solet. Nam i thorace ad pedes
usque deorsum oblongo huius Basilicae spatio, quantum patentibus tertii vestibuli foribus ad magnae Crucis
initium porrigebatur, persimile apparebat. Alterum deinde illius Crucis spatium brachiis utrimque extensis
conforme cunctis diligenter et accurate considerantibus videbitur. Reliquum vero spatium, quod ambitu
magnae Tribunae continetur, nequaquam humano capite dissimile censebitur.’
466 zyxwvu
zyxwvutsr Caroline van Eck
cosm, mentioning that the human form is the most perfect of all animate and

zyxwvut
inanimate beings, because its ‘form is made in resemblance to the entire
world. Hence some very learned men considered man to be a microcosm.’
He also added that the Ark of Noah was built after the forms (‘fabrica’)of the
human body, and that, although the proportions of the human body (the
height is six times the breadth) could not be used for the forms of Saint
Peter’s (‘figuris . . . lineamentorum’), this church nevertheless did resemble
the form (‘fabrica’)of the human But here as well, he concentrated on
the formal analogy and its aesthetic and theological meaning, and ignored
the doctrines of proportions associated with it later in the century and by
modern historians.
Manetti, who was famous for his learning in theology according to
Vespasiano da Bisticci, was of course familiar with these metaphysical and
theological interpretations of the formal analogy between the human body
and the form of a church when he wrote his Oratio. But for some reason, he
chose not to mention these interpretations explicitly. He may have thought
that they were so familiar to his readers that he did not need to mention
them. But it could also be argued that in the Orutio he concentrated on the
visualizing potential of this analogy. As we have seen, Manetti used painterly
terms (such as ‘udumhatio’) throughout the text to describe what he was
doing, and his explicit reflection on the problems of ekphrasis are formulated
in terms that closely resemble a passage from Alberti’s De pictura. This choice
of vocabulary and of model suggests that Manetti considered his Orutio not as

zyx
an exercise in figural or theological exegesis of the consecration ritual, but as
an essay in vivid description.
The few existing interpretations by Battisti, Canfield, or Garin do not take
this view, but present the Oratio as an instance of the Renaissance concept of
architecture defined in terms of proportion theories, and metaphysical and
theological speculations on the human body as a reflection of the hidden

56 Ibid., cols 937Eff: ‘Si itaque huius Templi figura humani corporis instar fuiiet ceu supra potuisse videtur,

zyxw
nimirum ipsum nobilissimam speciem sortiturum fuiisse constat, cum forrnam hominis ceteris omnibus et

zyxw
animatarum et inanimatarum rerum figuris longe praelatam esse non ignoremus; eam quippe ad
similitudinem totius Mundi fabricatam fuisse nonnulli doctissimi Viri putaverunt. Unde Hominem, B Graecis
Microcosmum appellatum, esse existimarunt; nec defuerunt etiam, qui famosissimam illam ac saluberrimam
justissimi illius Consolatoris (sic enim Noe nomen Hebraice interpretatur) Arcam humani generis, quod jam
paene totum ex primo et general1 diluvio perierat, salvatricem, quoniam exinde reparati sumus, ad hanc

zyxwvutsr
perfectissimam humani corporis fabricam propemodum constructam fuisse autumarent. Etsi enim propria sui
ipsius longitudo I? vertice usque ad vestigia sexies ta n m habet, quantum latitudo, cuius mensura in latere a
dorso ad ventrem reperiatur, cum hujusmodi dimensionum proportio in Templi nostri forma servari non
potuerit, in figuris tamen lineamentorum similitudinem tenuit.’ Reudenbach has observed that Manetti’s
remark on the similarity between Nicholas’s design for Saint Peter’s and the Ark of Noah is based on

zyxw
Augustine’s text on the proportions of man and the Ark in De civitate Dci XV.26: ‘Humani quippe corporis
longitudo a vertice usque ad vestigia sexiens tantum habet quam latitudo, quae est ab uno latere ad alterum
latus, et deciens tantum quam altitudo, cuius altitudo mensura est in latere a dorso ad ventrem; velut si
iacentem hominem metiaris supinum seu pronum, sexiens tantum longus est a capite ad pedes, quam latus a
dextra in sinistram vel a sinistra in dextram, et deciens, quam altus a terra’. Cf. Reudenbach, ‘In mensumm
humont co@ris’, 678-9.
 Giannom Manetti 072 zyx
zyxwv
zyxw Architecture
structure of the universe. However, on closer inspection these interpretations
are problematic because they are not supported by Manetti’s text.
467

zyx
Battisti first published Manetti’s Oratio as an appendix to his essay on ‘I1
mondo visuale della fiabe’ of 1960, as an illustration of the Quattrocento
syncretism of medieval biblical symbolism and Renaissance proportional
theories as they had been presented in Wittkower’s Architectural Principles.
He called it an extremely important document, which anticipated by almost
twenty years the ideas expressed in Manetti’s biography of Nicholas V,
in particular in ‘la descrizione simbolica dell’edificio, equiparato a1 corpo
umano ed associato, sia proporzionalmente, sia come orientamento, alla strut-
tura del cosm0’.5~As we have seen, this projection of Manetti’s subsequent
ideas into an earlier work is not supported by the text of the Orutio, and more
generally Battisti’s interpretation of Quattrocento architecture suffers from
an uncritical overgeneralization of Wittkower’s ideas. Thus he wrote that ‘In

zyxw
certo senso, ogni chiesa ed ogni palazzo rinascimentali vogliono riflettere la
struttura razionale del cosmo, come gin il tempio di Sal~mone’.~’

zyx
Although Battisti’s Wittkowerian interpretation was not supported by
textual evidence, it has been echoed in practically all subsequent discussions
of Manetti’s text. Canfield for instance wrote that ‘Manetti applies the
classical norm of anthropometry to Florence’s Cathedral . . . Then he
renders the structure of the Duomo in mathematical terms to prove that
mathematical rules were respected (these were the mathematical principles
that Niccoli had sought in the architectural remains of classical antiquity.
Manetti also details the relation of the Duomo to the universe . . .’59 This
passage contains at least four unwarranted claims: that Manetti was applying
a normative concept of anthropometry in his description; that he rendered
the structure of the church in mathematical terms (whereas he only gave a few
dimensions, in no very complete or exact fashion); that Manetti was aware of
what Niccoli was looking for, and was using them himself in his description;
and that he in some way connected the Duomo to the universe. As we have
seen, all these elements are absent from Manetti’s text.
Wittschier’s discussion shows the same easy projection of mathematical
and proportional concerns into Manetti’s text. He claimed that: ‘Das
Bauwerk hat also in kthetischer und mathematischer Hinsicht eine

zyx
architektonische Vollendung erhalten, weil er dem menschlichen Korper
entspricht. Wir diirfen daraus schlieBen, das Manetti den Menschen fiir das
edelste und vollkommenste MaB aller Dinge h a t . . .’.m Both Canfield and
Wittschier seem to consider the enumeration of isolated dimensions as
a warrant to infer that Manetti was applying proportion theories in his
description; but as is clear from the text, his enumeration of dimensions is

57
58
59
Ibid., 306.

zyxwvutsrqpo
Battisti, ‘I1 mondo visuale delle finbe’, 308-9.

Canfield, ‘The Florentine humanists’ concept of architecture’, 116.

Wittschier, Gianom Mamtti. Dac C o w dm Omthes, 55.
468 zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqp
zyxwvuts Caroline van Eck

zyxwvutsr
too short and unsystematical; it does not give sufficient data to construct a
system of proportions from it.
Finally, this is also illustrated by Eugenio Garin’s reading of Wittkowerian
attitudes into Manetti‘s text. In an article of 1977 republished in 1989, he
mentions the Oratio as an expression of the ‘simmetria strutturale fra il
tempio, l’uomo e il cosmo’.6’He describes Manetti’s text as a minute analysis
of the symmetries between the human form and the temple, which refers to
a more profound system of structural correspondences that form the
ontological fundament of a precise concept of architecture: namely, that of
the structural correspondence between man and the cosmos. However, this
interpretation is based not on what Manetti wrote but on his own projections.
The most striking of these is his suggestion that Manetti used the term
‘symmetry’ in his text whereas this term is introduced by Garin in what is
presented as mere paraphrase.@By importing the term ‘symmetry’, Garin
precisely suggests all those connotations, such as regularity, proportionality,
and a systematic analysis of dimensions, which would have been necessary to
a Wittkowerian analysis of the Oratio, but whose absence in fact points to a
different concept of ar~hitecture.~~ Put briefly, Battisti, Canfield, Wittschier,
and Garin all confuse the phenomenon that an object possesses measurable
dimensions with the concept of proportionality.
However, the point of refuting these interpretations is not to score over
previous work but to show how easily a theory such as Wittkower’s can be
projected onto a primary source and may lead historians to read words or
concepts into a text that are not there. A close scrutiny of Manetti’s Orutio
may help us to correct the still prevalent tendency to consider the

zyxwvu
architecture of the Renaissance, and humanist attitudes to it, as unified and
homogeneous. In this view, High Renaissance attitudes can be projected onto
the early Quattrocento without any problem. This is facilitated by the fact
that almost all contemporary written sources about architecture date from
after 1450.64

62
zyxwvu
The value of Manetti’s Oratio as a testimony of early Quattrocento

zyxwvutsrqponmlk
Garin, ‘Brunelleschi e la cultura Fiorentina del Quattrocento’, 156.
Ibid.: ‘Scrive il Manetti “A me che spesso, e sempre pih attentamente, vado considerando il meraviglioso
edificio di questa sacra basilica, esso appare in tutto corrispondente a1 corpo umano”. Proprio perch6
esattamente simmetrico all’uomo - continua il Manetti - “quale mai persona di mente sana pou% negare che
esso ha la forma pi6 nobile e perfetta di tutte, dal momento che 5 evidente che la forma umana eccelle su
tutte”. SenonchC la minuta analisi che il Manetti fa della simmetria fra h o m o e il tempio rinvia a un pi6
profondo sisterna di corrispondenze strutturali, che costituisce il fondamento ontologico di una precisa
concezione dell’architettura: le strutture dell’uomo corrispondono a1 cosmo, il rnicrocosmi L. solidale col
macrocosmo.’ Garin suggests that he is paraphrasing Manetti in the brief sentence ‘precisely because it is
exactly symmetrical to man’. However, Manetti nowhere employs the term ‘symmetry‘.
63 In this context it is revealing that none of the authors discussed give a precise reference to Wittkower’s
Architectuml PTincipks. Battisti merely mentions Wittkower’s name (305 and 308); Canfield gives a very vague
reference in note 70.
64
For this tendency see, for instance, Peter Murray, The Amhi&cfureoffhe Italian h i s o n c e (London, 1986
(1963)), 12, and R. Wittkower,Architectuml Principks in the Age of Humaninn (London, 1988 (1949)), 15-26. For
critiques of this attitude with respect to Renaissance historiography in general see C. Holmes, The Flonnfine
 zyx
zyxwv
zyxwv
Giunnozzo Manetti on Architecture
humanist attitudes to architecture can therefore hardly be overestimated, but
in order to grasp its true meaning, we have to clear away the preconceptions
469

zyxwv
fostered by a careless reading of Wittkower's Architectural Principles. Instead,
when we leave behind us his view of Renaissance architecture and try to
read Manetti's text with an open mind, it clearly presents itself as an essay in
vivid verbal representation of absent objects and events. As a consequence,
Manetti's Orutio must be considered as an instance of the concern, typical of
the early humanists, to understand through sight, and to visualize, either in
images or with the help of metaphor and descriptive techniques, abstract or
absent topics.65Manetti used the analogy between building and human body
not as a vehicle for theological or metaphysical speculation but as a stylistic
strategy in order to give a vivid and lifelike description of the church and its
consecration, so that his hearers would see while they were listening.

zyxwv
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

zyxwvutsrqpon
Enlightenment 1400-1450; for Renaissance architecturalhistory see C. Smith, Anhik-durn in the Culturn of Early
Humnirm, in particular the Introduction and Chapter Six,and C. A. van Ekk, Oqunicirm in Ninek-cnth-ccnhny
Architecturn.An Inquiry into its Thmnrticol and Philosophical Backgmund (Amsterdam, 1994). 64-66.
65 Cf. on this tendency Smith, Architecturn in the Culture of Early Humanism, 11ff.

zyxwvut
APPENDIX: MS. VAT. LAT.6303
(The punctuation of the original has been modernized, and ligatures and
abbreviations written out. Indentation spaces between block of text reflect the usage
in the ms. Significant differences from Battisti's edition or other manuscripts are
indicated by footnotes.)
5

10
[fol. 17 Iannotii Manetti oratio ad clarissimi' equestris ordinis virum Angelum Acciaiolum
de secularibus et pontificalibus pompis in consecratione basilicae Florentinae

Rogitanti*tibi sepe numero, Angele suavissime, et tamen verenti ne mihi gravius esset -
perfacile enim cernebam - ut singularissimam omnium nostri temporis ac profecto
incredibilem pontificalis magnificentie pompam literis mandarem, quam in Florenti urbe
nostra, cum una forte essemus, nuper visebamuss, denegare non potui, ne prestantissimo
viro [fol. l']equestrisque ordinis dignissimo fieri videretur iniuria. Quamquam enim mihi
zyxw
magnum opus et arduum iniunxisse videaris, nihil tamen difficile amanti fore putabam;
amo namque et semper amavi generositatem magnitudinemque animi tui. Ad hec
15 accedebat, quo facilius tantum dicendi onus assumerem, ut hec nostra quaecumque
gloriosissime pompe adumbratio primum ad ineffabilem immortalis dei gloriam, ad magnas
deinde civitatis nostre laudes pertinere vel maxime videretur. Quando [fol Pr] quidem
igitur horum gratia id agimus, deus ipse, ut spero, adiutor noster erit. Nos itaque divino
freti auxilio brevius, quoad fieri poterit, hanc ipsam tam admirabilem nostri temporis
20 pompam adumbrare conabimur, ne tibi id petenti obsequi4 recusarem ut dixi fieri videretur

' clarissimum (Battisti)

' Cogitanti (Urb. Lat. 387,Barb. Lat. 120)
' videbamus (Battisti)
' <si>obsequi (Pal. Lat. 1605)
470

25
zyxwvutsrq
zyxwvu Caroline van Eck
iniuria. Proinde egregium quemdam veterem pictorem in hac nostra adumbratione non
immerito imitabimur, qui cum luctuosum immolatae Effigenie sacrificium sua pictura
exprimere quam maxime vel[fol. 2-]1et ac propterea Calcantem tristem, mestum Ulixem,
clamantem Aiacem, lamentantem Menelaurn ante aras pingendo statuisset, ipsius
Agamemnonis caput involvendo cooperuit; in quo mea quidem sententia rectissime fecit.
Quod enim sibi per artis liniamenta probe exprimere nullo modo posse videbatur, non
iniuria intuentis iudicio dereliquit. Sic nos in hac ipsa gloriosissime p m p e adumbratione
ea dumtaxat, que verbis apte explicari poterunt, omnibus aliis omissis ve15 leviter attinge-
mus. Cetera vero6 tuo [fol.37 optimo iudicio relinquemus. Sed hec iam satis. Nunc ad
30 ipsam gloriose7adumbrationem faustis omnibus accedamus paulo altius pro cognitione
rerum ab origine repetentes.

Summus igitur pontifex Eugenius Quartus quadragesirno' trigesimo sexto supra

millesimum christiane salutis anno forte Florentie residebat, quo quidem in tempore
Florentini altissimam simul atque admirabilissimam cathedralis basilice testudinem per
35 multos [fol. 3'1 antea annos edificari ceptam tandem aliquando expleverant. Ex quo

zyxwvutsrqp
factum est, ut pro apostolica eiusdem basilice consecratione sumis precibus pontificem
obsecrarent. At vero' ubi acceperunt pontificem sua postulata benigne admodum
concessisse atque etiam de constituta consecrationis die certiores ipsi facti sunt, mox
perpaucis ante consecrationem diebus omnia que ad se spectabant mirum in modum
40 preparare contenderunt. Pontifex quoque, quantum ad se pertinere videbatur, ut divine
glorie - sic [fol. 4'1 enim arbitror - exemplar quoddam nostris hominibus demonstraret,
omnis pontificales dignitates suas egregie admodum parare non dubitavit. Adeoque in
magnificis apparatibus utrique conabantur ut de pomparum magnificentia certatim inter se
agi omnibus videretur. Verum enim vero ut hec nostra quecumque vel descriptio ut potius
45 adumbratio suo quodam ordine incedat, primum admirabiles Florentini populi apparatus
breviter attingemus; pontificales deinde dignitates pro magnitudine rerum brevit[fol. 4T]er'o
demonstrabimus; postremo in basilica consecranda gesta pontificis parumper ostendemus.
Sed antequam hunc dicendi ordinem aggrediamur, non alienum visum est pro pleniori
rerum notitia basilice nostre interiorem dumtaxat situm paucis exponere, quo varia
50 ornamentorum genera hinc inde dispersa facilius explicari atque intelligi possint
Admirabile huius sacre basilice edificium mihi diligentius sepe numero intuenti prope
instar humani corporis esse videtur.
Primum nanque forma humani corporis a thorace ad pedes usque de [fol. 5r]orsum
oblongo basilice nostre spatio quantum a foribus ad exitum testudinis porrigitur paulo dili-
55 gentius intuenti persimilis apparet. Reliquum deinde spatium, quod ambitu testudinis
inferius continetur, superiori hominis trunco a capite usque ad thoracem nullatenus
dissimile ostenditur. Atque ut hec nostra similitudo recte convenire videatur, constitue
aliquem in superiori ecclesie parte, cuius universum corpus humi prosternas" velirn, ita ut
caput eius ad orientem vergat, brachiis in diversa utrinque extensis altero [fol. 5"] ad

zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrqpon
60 septentrionem, altero vero ad meridiem vergente, pedes autem ad occidentem spectent.
Atque humano corpore per hunc modum ab ste constituto dubirare non poteris quin hec
nostra similitudo omnibus prope modis convenire videatur. Si itaque nostri templi figura
humani corporis instar est, ut supra patuit, nobilissimam omnium atque perfectissimam
speciem sortitum esse quis sanae mentis in inficias ibit, cum formam hominis ceteris
65 omnibus quaruncunque rerum figuris prestare perfacile [fol. 6'1 constet. Huius igitur
templi per hunc modum egregie formati ad ducentos usque sexaginta passus longitudo
protenditur. Latitudo vero usque ad admirabiles testudinis fornices sexaginta circa sex

ut (Battisti)
igitur (Battisti)
gloriose <pompe>(Battistiand Barb. Lat. 120)
quadragentesimo (Battisti and Urb. Lat. 387)
ii (Battisti)
'" leviter (Battisti)
I' prosternaturn (Battisti)
 Giannozzo Manetti on Architecture zyx
zyxwv
passus pariter extenta est, quamquam superius versus testudinem multo latior appareat.
Altitudo autem usque ad eosdem testudinis fornices varia ac diversa est. Nam inter
70 medium spatium ceteris altius ad septuaginta passus porro elevatur; latera vero huius spatii
471

zyxwvutsrq
ad quinquaginta ferme a[fol. 67scendunt. At reliquum quod ambitu testudinis inferius
continetur in longum per centum circiter passus porrigitur. In laturn'* vero per centum
supra sexaginta extentum est. Altitudo vero testudinis ad centum quinquaginta erecta
admirabiliter prominet. Oblongum" huius admirabilis delubri nostri curriculum, quod
75 truncati hominis capite cum spatulis except0 instar esse dkimus, in tres partes distinctum
esse manifestissime apparet. Ingentes etenim quedam saxee columne quadra[fol. 77to
lapide utrinque instructe tris velut naves efficere videntur. Nam singula intercolumnia a
suo latere formam navis egregie pre se ferunt. Reliquum vero" spatii, quod inter ipsas
utriusque lateris columnas interiacet, tametsi duobus aliis navium lateribus longe latius
80 appareat; formam tamen navis quam optime reddit. Ita per hunc modum intercolumnia
bifariam structa tres integri spatii dietas speciosissime efficiunt. Ad has basilice dietas per
totidem ianuas usque ad testudinis extremum recto tramite intratur. [fol. 77 Bine vero
fores utrinque a navium lateribus pulcherrime patent. Ceterum quid de admirabili ac pene
incredibili ecclesiastice testudinis constructione dicemusI5, de qua satius esset omnino silere
85 quam pauca dixisse? Nam preter admirabilem eius altitudinem, qua cetera orbis terrarum
edificia exuperat, inferioris eius spacii figura ad rotundam proxime accedere videtur, nisi
quod aliquantulo latior quam longior apparet, ut formam spetiossissime crucis pre se ferat.
Hoc itaque tam admirabile testudinis spatium per [fol. S']tres admirabiliores fornices
egregie distinctum prominet; vulgo tribunas vocant, quorum unusquisque per quinque ceu
90 cameras distinguitur, quas capellas nuncupant. Ita universus testudinei soli ambitus per
quindecim capellas speciosissime distinguitur. In medio vero huius inferioris spatii
tabulatum quoddam circulare prominet, ubi altare ceteris altius collocatum extat. His
insuper accedit, quod hec tam admirabilis edificii structura ab imo usque ad summum
lapide ingenti examussim politissime, quadrat0 deduc[fol. S']ta videtur esse divinitus. Nam
95 ab hominibus factum prospicientium oculi ob incredibilem edificii magnitudinem non
immerito non suspicantur. At vero universum ambitum superiorem rotunde quedam
fenestre in magnorum oculorum formas egregie redacte velut egregia quedam coronal6
speciossissime ambiunt, per quas quidem solis radii ita ingrediuntur, ut non mod0 singula
testudinis loca luce sua collustrentur, sed divine quoque glorie specimen quoddam reddere
100 aspicientibus videantur. In vertice vero testudi[fol. 9'Inis rotunda quedam fenestra ingens
mirum in modum prominens omnia condecorat. Sed omissis suis exterioribus
magnificentiis ceu miracdis quibusdam et ad nostrum propositum minime pertinentibus de
interiori dumtaxat huius basilice situ hec dixisse sufficiat. Hoc igitur tam magnificum, tam
admirabile, tam denique incredibile templum inter septem illa orbis terrarum miranda

zyxwvutsrqpon
105 spectacda ob incredibiles magnificentias eius non inmerito co11ocandum'' esse crediderim.
Si itaque Athenienses armamentario [fol. 9'1 suo gloriantur," quod fuerit opus, ut scriptum

zyxw
est, impensa et elegantia v i s e n d ~ m ' ~
et, ita gloriantur quod Philonem illius architectum
magnis cum laudibus suarum rerum scriptores memorie prodidemnt, nonne Florentini
etiam propterea gloriari summopere debent quod opus admirabile construxerunt, usque
110 adeo sumptuosum ut incredibiles impensas ob eius admirabilem constructionem iam factas
connumerare difficillimum fuerit, usque adeo insuper elegans ut complures externos
quoque homines [fol. lor] ad intuendum mirabilem eius elegantiam variis ex locis

*' Although both the ms and Battisti have 'altum', this does not make sense, since Manetti describes the
height in the next sentence. Since 'altum' and 'latum' can easily be confused, I propose to substitute the latter
here.
I' Ob longum (Battisti)
ii (Battisti)
l5 diremus (Urb. Lat. 387)
l6 fenestramm corona (Battisti,Urb. Lat. 387, Pal. Lat. 1605, Barb. Lat. 120)
I' cornmemorandum (Battisti)
suo ob id magnopere gloriantw (Battisti, Urb. Lat. 387, Pal. Lat. 1605)
videndum (Battisti)
472

115
zyxwvutsr
zyxwvu
zyxw
Caroline van Eck
attraxerit attractosque videntes sepius ac diutius magno cum stupore mentis retinuerit. Hoc
itaque gloriossissimum templum, ut ad apparatus tandem aliquando accedamus, Florentini
omni ornamentorum genere pulcherrime exornarunt. Ut enim a levioribus incipiam, omnia
superiora universi delubri loca integro solo magnis tersisque lateribus perpolito ac velut
egregio quodam pavimento effect0 lauri, mirti, olee frondibus multisque aliis arborum [fol.
107 atque herbarum floribus, varie ut fit distinctis, primum refertissima erant. Ordinata
deinde insignium draporum agmina altius a solo suspensa universo" basilice parietes
120 magno cum decore circuibant. Per omnes insuper basilice dietas eadem insignium*' agmina
superius appensa circumspiciebantur. Harum quidem tam insigniumPPrerum species
aspicientibus iocundissima erat, sed pre ceteris ea insignia, que in ambitu testudinis altius
collocata extabant, diversam ab aliis seriem atque inter se variam sortita mirabile profecto
spectaculum pre se [fol. 117 ferebant. Nam ita collocata erant, ut singula agmina se
125 invicem spectantia omnia condecorarent ac propriam testudinei ambitus figuram mirabiliter
exprimere viderentur. Scuta insuper ac clipei" varie noviterque formata ac pontificalibus
armis insignita magno cum decore inter illa insignium agmina pendebant. Pontificales
quoque mitre altius suspense omnia adornabant. Mille preterea ornamentorum genera
singula queque varie atque speciosissime distinguebant. Capelle etiam testudinei ambitus
130 ornatissime erant, in [fol. 11.1 quarum medio prope spatio sue queque are extabant ita
regaliter ornate, ut regie nempe camere apparerent. Altare vero, quod in medio testudinei
ambitus soli collocatum esse diximus, quantis ornamentorum generibus condecoratum esset
difficile dictu foret. Nam preter eius egregium opertorium purpura auroque intertextum
calices, toreumata, candelabra variaque vasorum genera aurata, argentea, aurea una cum
135 odoriferis pontificalesZ4rose dignissimis muneribus preciosissimum altare mirum in modum
redi [fol. I27mibant. Sacre quoque multorum martirum reliquie magaritis [sic], gemmis,
unionibus ceterisque id genus pretiosis lapidibus multum admodum illustrabant [sic].
Astabat preterea in ips0 ambitu, quo altare pene divinitus ornatum erat, regale, quin imo
pontificale quoddam solium regie adornatum, quod ceteris sedibus universum ambitum
140 circumventibus longe altius prominebat. Nec tantis ac tam singularibus ecclesie ornamentis
contenti omnem insuper viam, qua ab apostolica sede recto tramite ad basilicam [fol. 127
ibatur, tametsi latis tersisqueZ5lapidibus nuperrime strata esset, omni tamen ornamentorum
genere mirum in modum illustrarunt.'6 Tabulatum quippe admirabile ceu longissimum
quemdam pontem subliceum altius per ternos fere passus a terra elevatum in hunc modum
145 egregie pre ceteris fabricarunt. A gradibus nanque sedis apostolice incipientes per aream
primum, per mediam deinde viam omissis utrinque spatiii quibus visens populus
deambulare posset, ad aedem usque dedicandam magnifice simul atque admirabiliter [fol.
13r] deduxerunt. Hoc tam admirabile tabulatum, quod a terra altius per tres fere passus
elevatum esse diximus, quinque circiter in latitudinem extendebatur; longitudo vero eius

zyxwvutsrqpon
150 usque ad mille ferme passus, dignissimum visendarum rerum spectaculum, egregie
admodum portendebaturn. Huius tam admirabilis, tam incredibilis tabulati magne quedam
sublicee columne ab utroque latere prominebant odoriferis omnifariam frondibus ita vestite,
ut preter suavem cuiuspiam viriditatis aspectum variis quoque vaporibus [fol. 137 omnia
replerent. Columne vero" tabulati ita alte erant, ut ultra spondas stragulis vestibus
155 mirabiliter ornatas (utrinque enim spondas continebant) varia conspicuaque aulea
pontificalibus armis insignita suspendere speciosissime apparerent. Multa insuper
egregiorum insignium agmina hec magnifica aulea circumeuntia vehementer

2o
21 zyxwvutsrqponmlkj
universos (Battisti)
. .
insignum (Battisti)
** insignum (Battisti)
23 ac et (Battisti)
24 pontificalis (Battisti)
" terrisque (Battisti)
26 .
illustrarentur(Battisti)
" protendebatur (Battisti)
quoque (Battisti)
160
zyx
zyxwvu
zyxw
Giunnozzo Manetti on Architecture
condecorabant. Solum autem tabulati, quantum eius longitudo portendebaturPg,ornatis
perpetuisque tapetis constratum pulcherrime apparebat. Basilica igitur omni ornamentorum
genere, quem[fol. 147admodum diximus, adornata tabulatoque etiam egregie admodum
constructo omnibusque insuper ornamentis accumulatissime predito quid aliud ad omnes
regales, imperiales, pontificales, denique ac divinos” nostri temporis apparatus restare
473

videbatur, nisi ut parietibus quoque vie stragule varii generis vestes conspicuaque aulea

zyxw
appenderentur, quod ita egregium factum est, ut ad summum ornamentorum omnium
165 cumulum accedere aspicientibus omnibus appareret; ex quo manifeste fieri videbatur, ut,
sive [fol. 14.1 per tabulatum incederent sive per viam deambularent sive denique per
basilicam ipsam spatiarentur, ut [sic] et conspiciendo simul atque olfaciendo variis
oblectationibus titillati multiplicibus voluptatibus replerentur. His itaque ornamentis egregie
admodum peractis ecce solenissima celebratissimaque pre ceteris omnibus ab ecclesia
170 Romana” institutis angelice anunctiationis” dies adventabat, quam quidem paucis ante
diebus, ut supra diximus, pontifex oportunum consecrationis tempus fore constituerat.
Quocirca Flo[fol. 157rentinorum presides, qui vulgo priores appellantur, quique ceu reges
ornati cum omnibus pomparum ornamentis ad apostolicam sedem contendebant, ut ibi
pontificem convenientes concomitarentur. Harum secularium pomparum ingens sane ordo
175 inter pontificales dignitates ex eo aptius connumerabitur, quod, ubi ad apostolicam sedem
per admirabile tabulatum incedentes applicuerunt, mox omnes pontificales pompe perpetuo
quodam ordine egregie admodum structe versus basilicam per tabulatum ipsum mature ire
con[fol. 15.)tenderunt. Pomparum omnium transmissiones bifariam instructe” erant;
quippe ecclesiasticas dignitates omnes seculares pompe antecedebant. Primum namque
180 tubicinum fidicinumque ac tubicenum ingens ordo erat. Singuli quidem tubas, fides,
tibias,% sua manibus instrumenta portantes rutilis vestibus induebantur. Hos multi pretorum
famuli adolescentes partium viridioribus, partim vero rubeis indumentis vestiti sequebantur.

zyxwvutsrqpo
Post istos infinita prope famulorum et quidem adolescentium turba [fol. 167 discoloribus
vestimentis ibat induta. Omnes deinde presidum apparitores cum rutilantibus vestibus
185 prediti, tum argenteis quoque baculis a latere pendentibus proficicebantur. Tum nonnulli

zyxwvut
postea egregii adolescentes magnorum quidem oratorum illustriumque principum assecles5
comites ue magnifice ac varie pre ceteris antecedentibus ornati continue accedebant.
PresulesI 6 denique una cum urbanis pretoribus multisque quorundam regum imperatorisque
augusti egregiis oratoribus ac etiam cum precipuis [fol. 167 quibusdam populorum
190 principibus suo quodam ordine permixti magnifice incedebant, talaribus togis purpura
auroque intertextis usque adeo ornati, ut reges quique aspicientibus ob regios ornatus non
immerito viderentur. Has tantas tamque admirabiles secularium pomparum transmissiones
multo mirabiliores profecto pontificales dignitates parvo intervallo sequebantur, quo
facilius a precedentibus dignosci possent. Verumtamen ne quid vacui interesset, complures
195 pontificis apparitores singuli suum illum argenteum baculum ma[fol. 177nibus deferentes
hoc ips0 parvo intervallo intercedebant. Pontificalium dignitatum non humanus, sed
divinus prorsus quidam ordo esse videbatur. Nam magni primum iuris civilis interpretes
omnes sua quadam religione ornamentis prediti ac suis egregiis ornamentis induti ceteros
omnes anteibant. Prestantes deinde pontificii iuris magistri ac professores variis a prioribus
200 indumentis distincti assequebantur; egregii deinceps pontificis ministri accedebant, quos
vulgo cubicularios appellant. Ingens preterea turba ec[fol. 177clesie prelatorum incedebat,
quorum primum locum episcopi obtinebant vestibus albis induti candidisque mitris capita
ornati. Archiepiscopi deinde (non parva hominum multitudo) vestibus itidem dealbatis,
paulo tamen ornatioribus sequebantur. F’atriarche quoque predictos episcoporum,

zyxwvutsrq
205 archiepiscoporums7 ordines sectabantur. Romane insuper ecclesie cardinales velut veri

59 protendebatur (Battisti)
pontificales ac divinos (Battisti)
Romana ad celebrationern(Pal. Lat. 1605)
” annuntiationis(Battisti)
55 structae (Battisti)
fidetibias (Battisti)
35 a sede (Battisti)
s6 Presides (Battisti)
’’ archiepiscorumque (Battisti)
474

210
zyxwvu
zyxwvutsrq
zyxw
zyxwvuts
Caroline van Eck
Cristi apostoli ultimo pene loco adventabant. Summus ad extreMum pontifex in medio
duorum apostolorum gravissime incedebat, pur[fol. 187pura, auro gemmisque omnifariam
intertextis usque adeo admirabiliter ornatus, ut vere supra hominem ac deus ipse papa
intuentibus appareret. Nam subtalaris toga purpura. auro, gemmis affatim ornatissima erat,
cuius oblongam caudam egregius quidam ecclesie prelatus ab humo attollens altiuscule

zyxwvutsr
deferebat Cirothece insuper omni anulorum ac gemmarum genere admirabiliter redimite
was sacratissimas manus speciosissime adornabant. Sanctum denique caput admirabilissima
om[fol. 18"]nium, que ullo unquam vise sunt tempore, pontificali mitra divinitus tegebatur,
que quidem tantis gemmarum margaritarum, unionum ceterorumque id genus preciosorum
215 lapidum ornamentis predita esse videbatur, ut omnium oculos ad intuendum converteret
conversosque in suo admirab ntuitu ita defutos ac demersos continebat, ut nihil prorsus
aliud prospicere posse viderentur. Huiusmodi militantis ecclesie tam admirabilis tamque
divinus ordo tres illas triumphantis militie ierarchias paulo diligen[fol. 19']tius intuentibus
divinitus exprimere videbatur. Quod si hec ita se habuerunt, ut diximus, que unquam
220 Romanorum trophea aut qui aliarum quoque gentium ullo tempore triumphi extiterunt, ut
sint cum huiuscemodi admirabilibus atque incredibilibus pompis comparandi? Quippe
omnia divina ac humana pomparum genera accumulatissime constiterunt. Ad hoc igitur
tantum tamque divinum spectaculum incredibilis populorum concursus factus est tantaque
utriusque sexus, puerorum, mulierum, virorum cuiuscumque etatis mul[fol. 19*]titudo
225 visendi gratia discurrebat", ut cuncte urbis vie h u i ~ s c e m o d hominum
i~~ capitibus
refertissime apparerent. Cum igitur admirabiles Florentinorum pontificisque apparatus, ut
potuimus, verissime pertractarimus, reliquum est ut pontificalia gestam prosequamur.
Pontifex itaque cum omni humanarum ac divinarum pomparum genere basilicam ingressus
circulare tabulatum in medio testudinei soli spatio astans magna cum gravitate ascendit.
230 Atque ibi ad altare genibus flexis manibusque pro more [fol. 207 orantium ad celum

zyxwvu
elevatis parum commoratus pontificale solium regalissime ornatum residendi gratia
contendit Quo fact0 ceteri omnes suis sedibus pro cuiuscumque dignitate consederunt.
Atque paulo post ubi ipse consessum se recepit, vexillifer iustitie, qui amplissimus apud
nos civitatis magistratus est, ad pedes eius proxime assedit. Unus deinde postea Romane
235 ecclesie cardinalis omnibus sacerdotalibus ornamentis de more preparatus ad altare accessit,
ut divinum officium celebraret. Interea tantis tamque [fol. 207 variis, canoris vocibus
quandoque concinebatur, tantis etiam symphoniis ad celum usque elatis interdum
cantabatur, ut angelici ac divini cantus nimirum audientibus apparerent. Adeoque
audientium aures mira variarum vocum suavitate titillabantur, ut multum admodum ceu de
240 Syrenum cantibus fabulantur obstupescere viderentur. Quod in celis etiam quot annis hac
ipsa solenissima die, qua principium humane salutis apparuit, ab angelis fieri non impie
crediderim, ut diem festum celebrantes suavissimis cantibus [fol. 21'1 vehementius
indulgerent. Interdum vero, ubi consuete canendi pause fiebant, usque adeo iocunde
suaviterque personabatur, ut ille mentium stupor iam ex suavissimarum symphoniarum
245 cessatione sedatus rursus vires ob admirabiles sonos resumere videretur; quod non nulli
gravissimi auctores Thymotheum Orpheumque, prestantissimos omnium personandi
magistros, fecisse memorie prodiderunt, ut alter sua varia armonia ad quemcunque animi
motum homines converteret, alter vero, quod mirabilius est, ob incredibilem [fol.
217 quandam4' suavitatem lapides ac arbores ceteraque id genus omnia partim animata,
250 partim vero inanimata (incredibile dictu) ad se pertraheret. Ita per hunc modum fieri
videbatur, ut omnes paulo humaniores sensus nostri partim suavissimos cantus
dulcissimosque sonos audientes, partim varios ac redolentes vapores olfacientes, partim
denique admirabilia omnia ornamentorum genera conspicientes varie ilarescerent. Dum hec
agebantur, ecce magna captivorum turba adventabat, quos Florentini suis carceribus
255 educ[fol. 227tos summo pontifici condonabant, ut eos immortali Deo offeret4*atque a
captivitate liberaret. Eos mox, ut ad pedes eius procubuerunt, sancta sacrarum manuum

'' discurrebant (Battisti)

59 urbis huiuscemodi (Battisti)
40 gesta parumper (Pal. Lat. 1605)
41 quandam armonie suavitatem (Pal. Lat. 1603, Urb. Lat. 387, Pal. Lat. 1605)
42 offerret (Battisti)
 Giannozzo Manetti on Architecture zyxw
zyx
benedictione impertitos vinclisque solutos magno cum eorum gaudio dimisit. Iustitiae
deinde vexillifer, quem ad s a c m pontificis pedes astare paulo ante demonstravimus,
oportune iussus assurgit genibusque" pro more flexis egregia militie insignia magna cum
260 civitatis gloria atque ingenti sui honore ab ips0 pontifice repor[fol. 22.]taviM Pontifex
nanque cupiens hac ipsa solenissima omnium consecrationis die Florentinum nomen
475

multum admodum honestare prestantissimum virum omnium, qui in ipsa Florentinorum

civitate eo tempore reperirentur, antea egregiis militie insignibus donare constituerat;
quocirca illustri Ariminensium principi atque egregio imperatoris legato, dignioribus
265 personis, hoc quodcumque officium non indigne commisit, quorum alter de more aurata

zyxw
calcaria pedibus immisit, alter vero militarem ensem ac[fol. 2fr]cinxit, quem spatam
vulgato nomine appellant. Ita per hunc modum vir prestantissimus militaribus ornamentis
honestatus, mox equestribus donatus insignibus, ad eundem sedis sue locum ad sanctos
videlicet pontificis pedes revertitur. Dum hec interim agerentur, alter et magnus quidem
270 Romane ecclesie cardinalii aha quadam lectica delatus astante universo populo per sacra
basilice loca hinc inde ceteris altius ferebatur, ut sanctorum apostolorum imagines basilice
, parietibus paulo superius [fol. 23'1 depictas consecrationis oleo perungeret ac dignissime

consecraret Pontifex autem, ubi satis consederat, demum assurgit, ut ad altare assisteret,
ibique aliquantulum commoratus sacrum consecrationis oleum suis manibus assumpsit, quo
275 crebro altare hinc inde perfricuit ac linivit. Has sacras consecrationes sanctissimis
orationibus ceu quodam divino sale divinitus condiebat. Sanctas deinde martirum reliquias,
que super altare ut diximus astabant, propriis manibus suscipiebat va[247riisque
orationibus velut divino quodam condimento aspersas in altaris die ti^^^ dignissime
recondebat. His igitur pie admodum peractis ~anctissimas~~ manus suas recentis primum
280 medulla panis pontificali ritu perfricuit; illustri deinde Ariminensium principe aquas aureo
vasculo religiosissime exhibente perlavit; postremo ad solium reversus consedit. Paulo
deinde postea quam consedere visus est, ecce maturum dominici consecrandi corporis
tempus oportune advenerat, quod eucaristiam Creci rectissime [fol. 24.1 appellant. In cuius
quidem sanctissimi" corporis elevatione tantis armoniarum simphoniis, tantis insuper
285 diversorum instrumentorum cons~nantionibus'~ omnia basilice loca resonabant, ut angelici

zyxwvuts
ac prorsus divini paradisi sonitus cantusque demissi celitus ad nos in terris divinum nescio
quid ob incredibilem suavitatem quandam in awes nostras insusurrare non inmerito
viderentur. Quocirca eo tempore tantis equidem voluptatibus potitus sum, ut beata vita frui
hic viderer in terris. Quod [fol. 257 utrum ceteris astantibus accederit, non plane scio; de
290 me ips0 idoneus testis sum. Perfectis igitur per hunc modum dignissimis universe
consecrationis muneribus divinisque officiis omnibus religiosissime ~ e l e b r a t i ssummus
pontifex admirabili quadam pontificali indulgentia basilicam iam consecratam quot annis
ea ipsa consecrationis die ut pote sanctissimo quodam ablutionis sale condivit. Quo
~~

absoluto e vestigio omnes ille et seculares et pontificales pompe eo ipso, quo paulo ante
295 venerant, ordine (egregium [fol. 2.57 sane ac prorsus mirandum spectaculum) ad

zyxwvutsrqp
apostolicam sedem magnificentissime simul atque gravissime contenderunt.
Hec habui An ele suavissime, que de huiusmodi admirabilibus pompis in presentia ad te
B
scriberem. Et si delicatissimas aures tuas implebunt, mihi profecto gratissimum futurum
scias velim; sin minus, tu primum in culpa es, cuius gratia hec ipsa litteris mandare
300 adductus sum. Usque adeo deinde adrnirabilia fuerunt, ut venia mihi danda esse videatur,
si [fol. 26'1 incredibiles tantarum rerum apparatus verbis dignissime explicare non valui.
His insuper accedit, quod ipsa eloquentie minime capacia esse manifestum est. Dabis igitur
hanc veniam, si tibi viro eloquentissimo minus eloquens vel potius, ut verissime dixerim,
ineptior in hac ipsa nostra adumbratione quam videri soleam apparuero.

43 genibus (Battisti)

zyxwvutsr
reportavit (Battisti)
45 dictis (Battisti)
46 sacratissimas (Pal. Lat. 1603, Barb. Lat. 120)
47 sacra (Barb. Lat. 120)
48 consonationibus(Battisti)
49 celebratis (Battisti)
5o quod si (Barb. Lat.)