Tr i

Italian Renaissance Designs

for the Decorative Arts”
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
In 2023 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https ://archive.org/details/disegnoitalianreOO0Ounse
J
ae
eres %
r+
+
es
Distributed by
University Press of New England
Hanover and London

KENDALL/HUNT PUBLISHING COMPANY

4050 Westmark Drive Dubuque, lowa 52002
 (IDNENIEIDY WIGHINEI
INTRODUCTORY BSSAYS) BY

Beth L. Holman

ONOUSI
Italian Renaissance Designs
for the Decorative Arts — Cooper-Hewitt
National Design Museum
Smithsonian Institution 1997
This catalogue accompanies the exhibition Disegno: Italian Renaissance
Designs
for the Decorative Arts at Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution, New York, February 11-May 18, 1997

Support for the exhibition and catalogue has been generously provided
by Stuart Pivar and Jeffrey Epstein, the Arthur Ross Foundation, the
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, and the,Samuel H. Kress Foundation.

Edited by Kathleen Luhrs

Designed by Two Twelve Associates, New York
Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum photography by Ken Pelka

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

Text and bibliography © 1997 Beth Holman

Publication © Smithsonian Institution

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Disegno : Italian Renaissance Designs
for the Decorative Arts / edited with
introductory essays by Beth L. Holman.
p. cm.
Catalog of the exhibition held at Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution, New York, February 11—May 18, 1997.
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN O-910503~-61-3 (paper : alk. paper)
1. Decorative arts, Renaissance—Italy—Design—Exhibitions. 2. Decorative arts—
Italy—Design—Exhibitions. 3. Graphic arts—Italy—History—1sth century—Exhibitions.
4. Graphic arts—Italy—History—16th century—Exhibitions. 1. Holman, Beth L.
i. Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum.
NKI4§2. AIDS9 —-1997
745.4'0945°0747471—DC21 97-1977
CIP

Printed in the United States of America

3 1223 06091 6153
1O1O'8 76.5 4 32.0
CONTENTS

VII Director’s Foreword

IX The Masters Program

X Acknowledgments

x0 Contributors

I INTRODUCTION

TS ORNAMENT

31 FRAMES

43. OBJECT AS ORNAMENT

61 DINING PLEASURES

94 GUILIO ROMANO:

DESIGNS FOR COURT LIVING

116 Artists’ Biographies

2

118 Bibliography
 DIRECTOR’S
FOREWORD

Since the Renaissance, drawing has been the

primary means of creating design; whereby
eye, hand, and mind act in concert to trans-
form ideas into physical form. The drawings
that result provide an important record of the
design process. Today, the computer provides a rich holdings of drawings and prints as the
different means of design production; yet the basis for firsthand study of the history of
designer’s vision and creativity remain constant design. The exhibition continued as a work-
and critical to the process of design. That shop in 1995-96, during which time five stu-
drawings are at the core of Cooper-Hewitt, dents from the seminar—Elisabeth Agro,
National Design Museum’s collections is Elizabeth Eustis, Grace Kaynor= Famiara
illustrated through the exhibition and cata- Rebanks, and Susan Vicinelli—researched and
logue Disegno: Italian Renaissance Designs for the wrote catalogue entries. Professor Holman and
Decorative Arts. these students are to be commended for their
This publication documents the first col- excellent work and achievement.
laboration between the Museum and the This educational experience embodies the
Masters Program in the History of Decorative spirit in which the Museum was originally
Arts. Established in 1982 by Cooper-Hewitt, founded a century ago. The Museum for the
National Design Museum, and Parsons School Arts of Decoration was founded in 1897 by
of Design, the program has been a training the Hewitt sisters to complement the progres-
ground for curatorial, education, and adminis- sive Cooper Union for the Advancement of
trative professionals in the decorative arts. Its Science and Art, a free school established by
history and the success of its graduates in a their grandfather Peter Cooper in 1859. They
variety of fields related to the decorative arts envisioned that the collection of drawings and
are testimony to the fine educational experi- prints for the decorative arts would instruct
ence the program provides. Disegno: Italian and inspire students and designers. Drawings, a
Renaissance Designs for the Decorative Arts grew creative element in the design process, and
out of Professor Beth L. Holman’s 1995 grad- prints, a means of disseminating design ideas,
uate seminar when she used the Museum’s were central to the Museum from the start.
Throughout their lives, the Hewitts tirelessly
devoted their energies and funds to acquiring
drawings and prints pertaining to the decora-
tive arts, ornament, architecture, and the fine arts.
In—a1907, Sarah and Eleanor Hewitt
arranged for an extraordinary purchase of
3,620 drawings, primarily by Italian artists and
designers, from the personal collection of
Giovanni Piancastelli, curator and director of

vied
the Borghese collection in Rome. This single asm for the study of original designs, she
acquisition, which formed the basis of the col- worked tirelessly and selflessly in guiding them
lection, launched the Museum’s eventual pre- toward high professional standards. She has also
eminence in this country in European organized an international scholarly sympo-
drawings pertaining to ornament, decorative sium, “Bringing the Renaissance Home:
arts, and architecture. Miraculously, over 8,500 Domestic Arts and Design in Italy, c. 1400-
more drawings from Piancastelli’s collection c. 1600,” which promises to inspire and engage
came to the Museum in 1938 through a gift of students and scholars alike. |
Mr. and Mrs. Edward D. Brandegee, who had Finally, my sincere appreciation goes to our
purchased what remained of the collection in generous exhibition, catalogue, and sympo-
1904. While most of these drawings date from sium sponsors.
The exhibition was made possi-
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a ble by the contributions of Stuart Pivar and
small group of drawings were created in the Jeffrey Epstein, and the Arthur Ross
Renaissance. Eight drawings from Piancastelli’s Foundation. The catalogue was funded, in part,
collection—seven from this Museum and one with grants from the Samuel H. Kress
lent by the Metropolitan Museum of Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon
Art—form the nucleus of the Disegno exhibition. Foundation.
The symposium, jointly sponsored
Today the National Design Museum’s col- by Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum,
lection includes nearly 60,000 drawings and Smithsonian Institution, and the American
approximately 100,000 prints of European and Academy in Rome, received funding from the
American designs for architecture, theater, Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation and the
decorative arts, ornament, interiors, gardens, Samuel H. Kress Foundation. In addition, we
and textiles, as well as graphic and industrial are grateful to the Metropolitan Museum of
design. This vast holding can be consulted for Art, the Pierpont Morgan Library, and
insight on the arts and design in the Drue LAntiquaire & the Connoisseur for lending
Heinz Study Center for Drawings and Prints. drawings and objects from their collections.
The Museum continues to actively seek and DIANNE H. PILGRIM

acquire drawings and prints documenting the

process of design.
I am grateful to the Museum’s Drawings
and Prints Department, especially Marilyn
Symmes, Curator, and Gail Davidson, Assistant
Curator, who gave generously of their time in
attending to the myriad issues and details that
accompany an exhibition project such as this.
Kathleen Luhrs patiently shepherded the man-
uscript for this catalogue with care and expert
judgment. Beth Holman had the original idea
for the exhibition and for using it as a tool for
teaching. Instilling in her students an enthusi-

VIII
 THE MASTERS PROGRAM
IN THE HISTORY
OF DECORATIVE ARTS

shape as an exhibition and catalogue. Their

interaction with the curatorial and design staff
In 1982, Cooper-Hewitt, National Design of the Museum was an essential element in the
Museum and Parsons School of Design students’ educational experience.
responded to the increasing demand for well- Through such experiences, graduates of the
trained curatorial, educational, and administra- program are prepared for work in a variety of
tive professionals in the decorative arts by areas, including curatorial, education, and pub-
creating the Masters Program in the History of lishing. Furthermore, through our internship
Decorative Arts. This prestigious two-year program students acquire additional profes-
graduate program confers a Master of Arts sional experience, making them valued col-
degree to students from around the world. leagues for museums, historic houses, historical
The Masters Program focuses on the study societies, and auction houses. Since the first
of European decorative arts from the class graduated in 1984, our students have met
Renaissance to the twentieth century and the challenges of a changing field with dis-
American nineteenth- and twentieth-century tinction. Today, the Masters Program has
design.
The museum’s encyclopedic collection expanded to include a new degree program in
of furniture, glass, ceramics, architectural and American decorative arts offered in coopera-
ornamental drawings and prints, textiles, wall- tion with the Smithsonian Associates in
coverings, and graphic and industrial design Washington. The Masters Program is a para-
serve as a primary source for student research digm of academic excellence and _ practical
and scholarly endeavors. The close relationship training. As the field continues to grow and
with curatorial departments provides students define itself, our students are there to meet the
with direct contact with objects, and the challenge.
accessibility of the library’s rich holdings fur- MARIA ANN CONELLI, CHAIR
ther distinguish this program.
The exhibition Disegno: Italian Renaissance
Designs for the Decorative Arts is testament to the
program’s comprehensive training, which goes
beyond connoisseurship to include critical
understanding of historical and cultural issues
as well as the relationship of materials, form,
and function. Under Dr. Beth Holman, a fac-
ulty member in the Masters Program, a num-
ber of graduate students who participated in a
seminar on Renaissance designs for the decor-
ative arts did research and catalogued the
works they studied and saw their efforts take
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This exhibition and catalogue represent the

fulfillment of two goals: to explore new areas
in Renaissance art and to help launch the
careers of future colleagues. In a 1995 seminar of the exhibition and catalogue. The students
given at Cooper-Hewitt/Parsons Masters and I worked closely with the Museum’s
Program in the History of Decorative Arts, I Department of Drawings and Prints, particu-
worked with students to develop an approach larly Marilyn Symmes, Curator, and Gail S.
that combined the study of drawings with Davidson, Assistant Curator, as well as
the history of decorative arts, using Italian Elizabeth H. Marcus and Samantha Finch,
Renaissance designs for the decorative arts in Curatorial Assistants, and John Randall,
the collection of Cooper-Hewitt, National Preparator. Konstanze Bachmann, Paper
Design Museum.As the exhibition took shape, Conservator, and conservation fellows Valerie
five members of the class researched and wrote Faivre and Wendy Cowan expertly cared for
catalogue entries in a collaborative enterprise, the drawings presented in the exhibition.
marked by dedication and cooperation. | Deborah Sampson Shinn, Assistant Curator
would like to express my special gratitude to in charge of the Department of Applied Arts
and admiration of those students: Elisabeth and Industrial Design, advised us on the
Agro, Elizabeth Eustis, Grace Kaynor, Tamara Museum's collection of Renaissance decora-
Rebanks, and Susan Vicinelli. tive arts objects. Stephen Van Dyk, Librarian,
Such a project would not have been possi- and Leonard Webers, Technician, were indis-
ble without the support of Maria Ann Conelli, pensable in helping us gather research materi-
Chair of the Masters Program, and Dianne H. als. Kathleen Luhrs oversaw all aspects of the
Pilgrim, Director of Cooper-Hewitt, National editing and production of this book with col-
Design Museum, who provided the students legial and professional expertise. Ellen Lupton,
and myself the opportunity to see the fruition Curator of Contemporary Design, and the
of our labors. The other participants in the Design Department staff, Christine McKee,
original Masters Program seminar included Jen Roos, and Brent Rumage, created an ele-
Cornelia Barnwell, Frances Coulter, Stephane gant installation for the exhibition. Others
Houy-Towner, and Emily Miller, who pro- who participated in the realization of this
vided the class with photographs for study. project include: Nancy Aakre, Jill Bloomer,
Susan Vicinelli and Michael Brody of the Dorothy Dunn, Linda Dunne, Pamela
Masters Program ably assisted with final stages Haylock, Laura James, Steven Langehough,
of the manuscript preparation. Heather Lemonedes, Barbara Livenstein, Jeff
I would like to acknowledge the staff of McCartney, Caroline Mortimer, Tracy Myers,
Cooper-Hewitt, National Design Museum. Katy Reed, Sheri Sandler, Cordelia Rose,
Susan Yelavich, Assistant Director of Public Larry Silver, Hilda Wojack, Egle Zygas, and
Programs, has been an enthusiastic supporter interns India Leval and Beth Petriello.
 I would like to express my appreciation to Avery Library and Butler Library, Columbia
the Metropolitan Museum ofArt, the Pierpont University; Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, New
Morgan Library, and LAntiquaire & the York University; British Museum Library;
Connoisseur for lending important drawings Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary;
and decorative arts to the exhibition. Those Stephen Chan Library, Institute of Fine Arts,
who were generous with their time and New York University; Doris and Henry
knowledge at these institutions include Dita Dreyfuss Study Center, Cooper-Hewitt,
Amory, Carmen Bambach, Catherine National Design Museum; Frick Art
Bindman, Suzanne Boorsch, Helen Evans, Reference Library; Adam and Sophie Gimbel
Helen Costantino Fioratti, George Fletcher, Design Library, Parsons School of Design;
George Goldner, William Griswold, Laurence New York Academy of Medicine; New York
Kanter, Donald LaRocca, Charles Little, Public Library; Thomas J. Watson Library,
Robert Parks, Stuart Pyhrr, Olga Raggio, Metropolitan Museum ofArt.
James Sansum, Marjorie Shelley, Clare Vincent, Ann Harakawa, Ellen Conant, and Patricia
Linda Wolk-Simon, and Eugenia Zazowska. Kelleher at Two Twelve Associates in New York
From the early formulation to the final deserve credit for their work on the design of
preparation of this exhibition and catalogue, the catalogue.
we profited from the valuable advice and assis- I wish to join the Director of the Cooper-
tance of many colleagues:
Joe Alchermes, Ugo Hewitt, National Design Museum in acknowl-
Bazzotti, Giovanna Gaeta Bertela, Jane Bestor, edging the generous grants for the exhibition
Phyllis Bober, Kathleen Weil-Garris Brandt, and catalogue from Stuart Pivar and Jeffrey
Susan Braunstein, Joan Brickley, Jutta-Annette Epstein, the Arthur Ross Foundation, the
Bruhn, Charles Burroughs, Martin Clayton, Samuel H. Kress Foundation, and the Andrew
Helen Clifford, Nicola Courtright, Peter W. Mellon Foundation. Photography was
Dreyer, Colin Eisler, David Ekserdjian, Daniela financed with the support of a Faculty and
Ferrari, Carter Forster, Peter Fuhring, Tia Curriculum Development Grant from Parsons
Fuhrmann, George Gorse, Clare Hills-Nova, School of Design/New School for Social
Mary Tavener Holmes, Isabelle Hyman, Research.
Susanne Kaletsch, Martha McCrory, Katie Finally, I would like to express my
McLaughlin, Elizabeth Miller, Catherine affectionate appreciation to my _ parents,
Monbeig-Goguel, Lisa Monnas, Stephen Richard Holman and Eleanor Margolis
Ongpin, Peter Parshall, Paolo Dal Poggetto, Holman, and my _ parents-in-law, Calvin
Mayer Rabinowitz, Michel Richard, Emily Sawyier and Fay Horton Sawyier. This book
Rosen, David Shive, Michael Snodin, is dedicated to my patient and supportive
Kimberly Spence, Beatrice Paolozzi Strozzi, husband Stephen Sawyier and children Mark
Herbert Tillander, Richard Tuttle, Harm-Jan and Paul. BETH L. HOLMAN, GUEST CURATOR
van Dam, Paolo Vicinelli, Lucy Whitaker,
Timothy Wilson, and Lella Zoboli.
All scholars depend upon research libraries,
and we would like to acknowledge the staffs at

XI
KEY TO CONTRIBUTORS

Elisabeth R. Agro
Elizabeth S. Eustis
Beth L. Holman
Grace W. Kaynor
Tamara L. Rebanks
Susan H.Vicinelli
 INTRODUCTION
Pollaiuolo’s works had already been melted
down or otherwise destroyed during time of
war. ! Of Rosso Fiorentino’s “numberless
designs... for salt cellars, vases, bowls and other
things of fancy” for Francis 1, “all of which the
king afterwards caused to be executed in sil-
ver,’ there are no extant pieces known. Of the
“F n the Renaissance, renowned painters, silver and gold vessels described in Cellini’s
sculptors, and architects designed so-called autobiography, the only one to survive is his
“minor” arts. Giulio Romano, Rosso famous saltcellar (1540-43) for the French
Fiorentino, Perino del Vaga, Raphael, and even king. This too was nearly destroyed in 1562,
Michelangelo produced drawings for rock before its timely rescue from the Bastille by
crystal plaquettes, wool and silk tapestries, sil- Sieur de Gonnort.*
ver vessels, saltcellars, and oil lamps. Yet, with Other domestic objects were also vulnera-
few exceptions, the furnishings of everyday life ble to use, the elements, and changes in fash-
are accorded only a secondary—if any—place in ion. Benedetto da Maiano, one of the most
the history of Italian Renaissance art. successful intarsia workers of his time, suppos-
Drawings for the decorative arts are also rarely edly gave up this profession for marble sculp-
accorded the same attention as figural, narra- ture when his inlaid cassoni for King Matthias
tive, and architectural studies. This exhibition. Corvinus of Hungary fell apart; humidity had
catalogue brings together the study of draw- loosened the glue.3 Emperor Frederick 11,
ings and that of decorative arts. The combined presented by the Venetian senate with a
investigation of formal and functional tradi- Murano glass vase during his visit in 1468, let
tions is intended to enrich our understanding it fall from his hand. The emperor, noting the
and deepen our appreciation of both Italian worthlessness of the shattered shards, remarked
Renaissance design and material culture. that gold, by contrast, would not have been so
In the decorative arts, function is crucial to. fragile, and, had it broken, its pieces at least
the interpretation of design. Occasionally, we would have retained their material value.4
are fortunate to have both the original draw- Because of these and other losses, drawings
ing and actual object. The survival of two and prints often comprise a more complete
designs and corresponding silver by the same record of Renaissance decorative arts than the
artist-Antonio Gentile, one of the leading small cache of objects we know today. In 1516,
goldsmiths of the sixteenth century (Nos. 11, war with Pope Leo x forced Francesco Maria
18)—is extraordinary. Precious metalwork had a della Rovere, duke of Urbino, to flee to
particularly precarious existence and_ short Mantua and melt down his silver in order to
lifespan. The monetary value of the material
proved to be its undoing. Silver and gold plate
were often converted into currency or more

“modern” vessels in the latest style. By the

mid-sixteenth century, many of Antonio
 DISEGNO © Introduction

raise money. Despite his desperate straits, there In the Renaissance, there arose an interna-
was an effort to preserve some basins tional market for designs on paper. Giulio
“designed by Raphael in the antique style.” Romano’s metalwork drawings were copied
Francesco’s mother Elisabetta Gonzaga and and assembled into albums by Jacopo Strada
wife Eleonora Gonzaga offered to exchange and his son Ottavio, artistic advisers to the
them with Isabella d’Este—“rather than throw emperor in Prague; some were also reproduced
away such beautiful work.’s Although today by the Flemish printmaker Hendrick van der
these basins remain unidentified and are prob- Borcht (Fig. 35). Developed in northern
ably lost, designs by or after Raphael may Europe during the late fourteenth to early
record their appearance.® fifteenth century, printmaking allowed for rel-
When the works of art are no longer atively cheap and easily reproduced multiples.*
extant, their identification from drawings can Prints, also called “printed drawings” [disegni
be difficult, often based on little information stampati| disseminated new designs more
and involving much guesswork. A beautiful, widely and more quickly than ever before.
highly finished design by Giulio Romano Nicoletto da Modena’s grotesque prints and
(No. 25), described by some as a saltcellar and Vico’s engravings ofvases (Nos. 34, 3B, and 12)
by others as a cradle, illustrates the difficulty of were copied by artists such as Jacques
deciphering medium and scale from a draw- Androuet du Cerceau in France. The new
ing. The uncertainty faced in interpreting medium was also used to issue thematic series
designs 1s particularly frustrating given the rich of ornament and objects (Nos. 1, 2, and 12).
record of decorative arts described in books, Pattern books were published for a variety
discussed in letters, and listed in inventories. of media, including Giovanni Antonio
Pre-Renaissance drawings are rare. The ear- Tagliente’s Essempio di recammi (Venice 1527)
liest ones, however, include designs on papyrus on embroidery.9
for Coptic textiles.7 Fifteenth-century draw- Both prints and drawings provide impor-
ings for decorative arts are still relatively few in tant primary documents of Renaissance
number, although by that time the production designs for objects of ritual and everyday life.
of better and cheaper paper made the graphic In Italy, design—the foundation of art—and
arts more practical and economical. By con- drawing—the cornerstone of design—were so
trast, sixteenth-century designs for dining ware intimately linked that they were embraced
and metalwork alone number in the hundreds, under the same rubric: disegno. As Federico
even thousands, sometimes with multiple ver- Zuccaro wrote at the end of the sixteenth cen-
sions of individual designs (see, for example, tury, drawing is the external, physical manifes-
No. 17). This substantial increase is evidence tation [disegno esterno| of an internal,
not only of the important role of drawings in intellectual idea or design [disegno interno].!°
the design process, but also of their novel pres-
tige. Drawing, essential for the communication
of artistic ideas to patrons and craftsmen, was
considered to be the most immediate expres-
sion of artistic creativity.
 DISEGNO °* Introduction

DISEGNO tion], and capriccio [originality].!3 In the twelfth

Since antiquity, artists were classified as century, monks had condemned decorations of
skilled manual workers, along with carpenters, monstrous fantasy [fantasmata] and urged
weavers, blacksmiths, and bakers. Treatises on painters to refrain from such license (licentia).14
art by the twelfth-century German monk In the Renaissance, by contrast, fantasy was
Theophilus and by the Florentine painter seen as the fountainhead for invention.'5
Cennino Cennini (c. 1400) were primarily Novelty and ingenuity were prized for their
manuals on the physical preparation of materi- own sake. The marchioness of Mantua Isabella
als and workshop techniques. One of the func- d’Este (1474-1539) ordered glass in. “some
tions of medieval guilds was to control the beautiful style... and new invention. T6

quality of materials and workmanship, aspects Giorgio Vasari praised the “licenza” of
frequently stipulated in contracts. The guilds Michelangelo’s ornamentation which, “com-
also maintained a guarded separation of the posed in new ways,” “broke the bonds and
crafts, whereby artists were identified accord- chains that had previously confined [artists] to
ing to the media in which they worked. Thus the creation of traditional forms.”!7 Artists like
Florentine painters, who bought their pig- Baccio Bandinelli demonstrated that they
ments from pharmacists, belonged to the same could “make various inventions” by providing
guild as doctors and apothecaries, while sculp- their patrons with several design options (see
tors were members of the stonemason’s guild. No. 6).78
In Renaissance Italy, painting, sculpture, Design was viewed as separate from and
and architecture were elevated from the superior to manual execution. Even patrons
mechanical to the intellectual or liberal arts. might “design” works. In 1451, the merchant
Leon Battista Alberti’s treatise On Painting Marco Parenti sent his brother-in-law Filippo
(1435) stressed the theoretical and formal Strozzi a silver belt buckle with personal
underpinnings of art, its principles of science emblems of Parenti’s own invention [“una_fan-
(optics, perspective, geometry, proportion) and tasia a mio modo’ |.'9 Isabella d’Este, known for
rhetoric (decorum, variety, ornament). These her exacting control over the iconographic
precepts were incorporated into the concept programs of paintings for her studiolo, was
of disegno or design.'! An early example of the equally demanding about vessels for her table
term design occurs in reference to architec- and decorations for her bedroom. In 1500,
ture, which generally requires a plan or model Isabella asked her father Duke Ercole of
for execution by other craftsmen.'? The term Ferrara to send gilded leather wall-hangings in
also underscores the conceptual basis of art; in honor of the birth of her first son Federico.
everyday speech, the Italian word disegno Soon she wrote again to complain that she had
signified, as it does today, “intention.” received only a bed covering, which, she
The implications of disegno were both noted, was “not to our design” [non é al nostro
broad and profound. Ideation was considered disegno|.?°
to be paramount in the creation of art. In Italy, women were considered “inven-
Artists were praised for their invenzione [inven- tors” of fashions, “more changeable than the
tion], ingegno [ingenuity], fantasia [imagina- phases of the moon.”?! Isabella’s sister Beatrice

Les)

d’Este, duchess of Milan was called an “inven-
tress of new clothes” [novarum vestium inventrix]
and “‘author” of a new “Tutkish” style. These
stylish inventions were, moreover, subject to
proprietary control and restricted use by oth-
ers. Women wrote to ask permission to copy
headdresses and other fashions introduced by
Isabella, whom the queen of Poland called the
“font and origin of all the beautiful styles of
Italy.’2?
295)
In 1493, feeling little inclination
“devise new inventions” [far inventione nove],
Beatrice asked Isabella if she could use an
emblematic device proposed by Niccolo
Correggio—if Isabella had not already used
it herself.?3
Design was distinguished as a separate and
distinct creative activity. When describing the
works of sculpture, painting, and inlay by “the
best masters,’ such as Verrocchio,
Uccello, and Desiderio da _ Settignano,
Giovanni Rucellai used the phrase “master of
design” for only Antonio Pollaiuolo and Maso
Finiguerra.*4 These artists, who
goldsmiths, may have provided drawings for
intarsia in the Rucellai palace.*5 In 1463, Maso
Finiguerra (1426-1464) designed five figures
for his brother-in-law the intarsiatore Giuliano
da Maiano (the drawings currently attributed
to Finiguerra are figural studies and narrative
scenes). A century later, in Vasar1’s day, he was
still known as a draftsman.
bequeathed fourteen volumes of drawings to
his family goldsmith workshop.
their commercial value, it was later stipulated
that they be preserved, maintained, and shown
every three years to Maso Finiguerra’s son, a
shoemaker, who was granted the right to bor-
row them on demand.?°
Medieval examples of artists in one field
designing for another are found, for example,
DISEGNO © Introduction
in architecture, an inherently collaborative
enterprise. In about 1290, the sculptor
Giovanni Pisano was named head of construc-
tion for the Siena Cathedral facade. The
painter Giotto designed the campanile of
Florence Cathedral (1334). In the late four-
teenth century, major sculptural commissions
were also assigned to painters such as Agnolo
Gaddi and Giovannino de’ Grassi. These early
to instances, however, seem to have been spo-
radic. At the height of their careers, Raphael
and Giulio Romano were full-time designers
da in a variety of media. They executed relatively
little with their own hands, but left the realiza-
tion of their drawings to other artists and artisans.
Artists wrote of design as the common basis
of all the arts for the first time in Renaissance
Italy. In the 1440s, Lorenzo Ghiberti noted
Castagno, that “disegno is the foundation and theory” of
painting and sculpture.*7 In the mid-sixteenth
century, Giorgio Vasari defined design as “the
animating principle that conceives and nour-
were both ishes all intellectual processes” and as “the par-
ent of our three arts, Architecture, Sculpture,
and Painting.’?8 Vasari was the motivating
force behind the founding of the first academy
of art, the Accademia del Disegno, in 1563. Its
emblem, three intertwined circles, symbolized
the unity of painting, sculpture, and architec-
ture, also known as the “arts of design” (arti del
Finiguerra disegno). This notion of design encompassed
the decorative arts as well. After discussing
Because of techniques of glass, stone, and wood mosaic,
stained glass, damascene, enamel, niello, and
printmaking, Vasari noted: “All these ingenious
arts derive from design, which is the necessary
font of all of them; if they are lacking in
design, they amount to nothing.’29

DISEGNO AND ITALIAN
RENAISSANCE DECORATIVE ARTS
During the Renaissance, there was a vast
increase in the production of decorative arts
objects.3° The few types of multipurpose
medieval furnishings were replaced by a
greater variety of richly carved and orna-
mented chairs, benches, tables, beds, cupboards
and chests. Paintings of narrative scenes [histo-
rie] were introduced on chests [cassoni] as well
as furniture backboards and wall paneling
[spalliere|. Botticelli’s Primavera, for example,
formed the back of a daybed or lettuccio.3! The
wall fireplace, newly introduced into Italy
from northern Europe, not only increased the
comforts of palace life but also provided a
sculptural focus for room decoration (No. 8).
The private domestic study (studiolo), first doc-
umented in the fourteenth century, became
the repository for objects of humanist culture,
including elegant desk sets replete with classi-
cal allusions (No. 13).32 Even dining etiquette
changed when the personal dining fork
achieved popularity for the first time in
Renaissance Italy (Nos. 17-19).
The surge in domestic luxury goods began
within the walls of Italian cities.33 In the four-
teenth century, there appeared a burgeoning
class of wealthy merchants flush with greater
disposable income. Ostentatious spending,
once condemned by Church and state on
moral grounds, was now recast as virtuous lib-
erality and magnificence.34 In northern Italy,
ambitious military lords seized control in city-
states such as Mantua, Milan, and Urbino. As
they jockeyed for political power, they also
vied with each other through the splendor of
their courts. Competing with one another,
merchants as well as princes built grandiose
palaces. In Florence, it was not uncommon for
DISEGNO ©* Introduction
some people to tie up one-third to one-half of
their net worth and even exhaust family for-
tunes in the process.35
Large Renaissance palaces had many more
rooms and were more sumptuously decorated
than their sparsely furnished medieval prede-
cessors. Visitors to the Medici Palace such as
Galeazzo Maria Sforza, the fifteen-year old son
of the duke of Milan, and his counsellor were
awed by its luxurious trappings: “chests of
inestimable workmanship and value... designs
[desegni] of infinite kinds as well as of priceless
silver,’ “inlays done in perspective by the most
accomplished and perfect of masters even to
the very benches and floors... tapestries and
household ornaments of gold and silk.’3°
These domestic objects were financial invest-
ments [masserizia] to be tallied up in separate
ledger books. According to the Medici inven-
tory following Lorenzo the Magnificent’s
death in 1492, a tapestry with a hunting scene
and a set of bed hangings were each worth 100
florins. A small gold strongbox [forzerino] was
valued at 500 florins—far more than works
by Pollaiuolo, Uccello, or Donatello, worth
about 20 to $0 florins each. Most precious
were the Medici’s ancient cameos, worth as
much as 10,000 florins for the large Tazza
Farnese, and twenty-seven hardstone vases, val-
ued at almost one-third of all their household
possessions.37 Later, the Medici would found
their own workshops for the creation of new
hardstone vases.
The Renaissance was also a period of rapid
technological innovation. Artists revived
ancient techniques of cameo and hardstone
carving. Rock crystal plaques, to be set into
elegant boxes [cassette] and altar sets (Nos. 10
and 11), were designed by artists such as Perino
del Vaga and engraved by specialists such as
 DISEGNO ° Introduction

Giovanni Bernardi. The Venetians protected boxes, tables, benches, candles, and an inkwell.
their new secret processes for the production They painted woodwork, produced trompe-
of glass, such as the brilliantly clear cristallo. In l'oeil marble and wood surfaces, gilded frames,
the early fifteenth century, Italian ceramicists created food sculpture, designed clothing and
copied Hispano-moresque, tin-glazed earthen- embroidery.32 Court artists like Girolamo
ware called maiolica; they transformed the Genga (No. 14), who were required to meet
medium, introducing new colors and metallic the various demands of their aristocratic
lusters, and, most significantly, narrative patrons, had to be particularly versatile, both as
decoration |istoriato]|. Craftsmen in Venice, artists and designers. The painter Gerardo
Ferrara, and Florence also tried to imitate Costa not only decorated standards, riding
highly prized Chinese ware; the Medici work- whips, pavilions for state visits, playing cards,
shops, with the personal participation of and chests at the Este court of Ferrara from
Grand Duke Francesco 1 himself, succeeded in about 1454 to 1481, he also, designed tapestry
producing a white-and-blue soft-paste porce- and leather hangings, embroidery, boxes, tri-
lain (porcellana)
.3* umphal wagons, silver buckets, silver for the
During this period, the distinction between credenza, and heraldry for woodworkers.4° For
“fine” and “decorative” arts was not sharply nearly half a century until his death in 1506,
drawn. Painters, for example, plied their Andrea Mantegna not only painted histories,
brushes to a variety of objects. Cennino altarpieces, and portraits for his patrons, the
Cennini’s book included instructions not only Gonzaga of Mantua, but also furnished draw-
for fresco painting, but also for decorating fur- ings for purses, silver vessels, tapestries, and
niture, glass, cloth hangings, banners, and tour- sculpture.4!
nament helmets. Andrea del Castagno and Weddings and official visits were often
Leonardo da Vinci painted shields; Antonio occasions for the creation of new decorative
Pollaiuolo, Sandro Botticelli, and Luca arts. Upon the marriage of Ercole d’Este to
Signorelli painted banners. In addition, a num- Eleonora of Aragon in 1473, the painter
ber of artists received their first training in the Cosimo Tura (1429-95) designed silver vessels
workshops of woodcarvers, intarsia workers, and a credenza for the wedding banquet, hang-
and stonemasons. The roster of Florentines ings and covers for the nuptial bed, embroi-
who trained or practiced as goldsmiths dered caparisons for the horses, and
includes the most prominent names in tapestries.4° When Isabella d’Este arrived in
Renaissance painting, sculpture and architec- Mantua in 1490 as a young bride of sixteen,
ture: Lorenzo Ghiberti, Filippo Brunelleschi, she brought along in her retinue the goldsmith
Domenico Ghirlandaio, Antonio Pollaiuolo, Salomone da Sesso (later called Ercole de’
Andrea Verrocchio, Francesco Salviati, and Fedeli) and the Ferrarese court painter Ercole
Benvenuto Cellini. de’ Roberti, who had overseen preparations of
It was not uncommon for an artist to be a the thirteen wedding chests, silver vessels, and
jack-of-all-trades.
The sixteenth-century fam- furnishings for her trousseau, decorated her
ily workshop of Jacopo Bassano (dal Ponte) wedding carriage, and designed her bed.43 In
decorated banners, beds, cradles, chests, strong- 1589, the Florentine architect and engineer
 FIG. I
Battista Franco, Design
for a Maiolica Dish,
c. 1548-50 (Courtesy
of the Board of Trustees
of the Victoria and
Albert Museum,
London)

Bernardo Buontalenti staged spectacular cele- with lands, titles, and other privileges.
brations in honor of the wedding of Ferdinand Mantegna was one of the first artists to build a
de’ Medici and Christine of Lorraine. He palace for himself and to be buried in his own
organized a mock naval battle in the Palazzo magnificent chapel in Mantua. Later, in the
Pitti courtyard, and, for a presentation of a same city, Benvenuto Cellini found Giulio
comedy and intermission performances [inter- Romano likewise “living like a lord.’4°
mezzi], he remodeled the Uffizi theater and To carry out their designs, court artists had
designed elaborate costumes, movable scenery, at their disposal teams of artists and artisans.
and dramatic special effects.44 Some specialists were itinerant foreign crafts-
It is, therefore, not surprising that Vasari men in high demand. Flemish tapestry, for
secure “terme universal” to: describe example, was considered to be without peer,
Buontalenti, Giulio Romano, and Primaticcio, and northern weavers were sought after in the
artistic impressarios for the Medici, the cities and courts of Italy. In 1449, Ludovico
Gonzaga, and Francis 1.45 Giulio Romano Gonzaga, already the owner of a large collec-
designed architecture, painting, and sculpture tion of tapestries, enticed Renaud Boteram of
as well as metalwork, textiles, stucco decora- Brussels to settle and work in Mantua. Later,
tion, and wood furnishings (see Nos. 21-26). in the 1460s, Ludovico had his painter,
In return, court artists enjoyed regular salaries, Mantegna, produce designs for more hang-
the protection of a noble lord, freedom from ings, including drawings of peacocks from the
guild restrictions and local taxation, along palace menagerie “to be included in our
 DISEGNO °* Introduction

tapestry.’47 In 1519, Mantegna’s tapestries for prints by Marcantonio Raimondi after

the Gonzaga were still considered among the Raphael, which were considered useful for
most famous in Italy, worthy of comparison those “poor artists who do not have much
with the Acts of the Apostles designed by design.’”5° In the mid-sixteenth century,
Raphael and woven in Brussels for the Sistine Guidobaldo mu della Rovere, duke of Urbino,
Chapel.48 In 1539, Ludovico’s great-grandson commissioned his court painter Battista
Federico 11 Gonzaga lured the Flemish weaver Franco to create “infiniti disegni” for maiolica
Nicolas Karcher from Ferrara to Mantua, “to (Fig. 1). Guidobaldo sent services as gifts to his
weave tapestries for our court, according to new brother-in-law Cardinal Alessandro
designs which we will make available.’49 Farnese and to Charles v.5' Upon the mar-
Immediately, work was begun on Giulio riage of his daughter Virginia to Federico
Romano’ tapestries of landscapes with putti. Borromeo in 1560, Duke Guidobaldo com-
Design was sometimes an agent for pro- missioned another maioljca:set. Presented to
moting local crafts. In the hill towns of Charles v’s son King Philip 11 of Spain, this so-
Umbria and the Marches, where maiolica was called Spanish service was designed by the
one of the leading industries, ceramic painters painter Taddeo Zuccaro and his younger
such as Francesco Xanto Avelli of Urbino brother Federico.5?
(active 1530s—40s) would sign and even date In Tuscany, meanwhile, the Medici were
their works. These maiolica painters often also active in the establishment of luxury
copied and adapted motifs and scenes from crafts. In 1545, Cosimo 1 de’ Medici invited
Nicholas Karcher and Jan Rost, then in
Mantua and Ferrara, to found a tapestry work-
shop in Florence. They were specifically oblig-
FIG. 2 ated to instruct young Italians in tapestry
Bernardo
Buontalent,
weaving. It was envisioned that such an indus-
Design for a Vase, try, which supposedly provided employment
c. 1§80s (Uffizi,
for 15,000 citizens in Brussels, would greatly
Florence).
Photograph benefit Florence, which could produce tapes-
by Nicolé Orsi
tries at a “cost no more than those of Flanders
Battaglini
but of greater perfection in design.’53 One of
Cosimo’s first commissions was a series depict-
ing the story of Joseph for his ducal residence
at the Palazzo Vecchio, designed by the leading
Florentine painters Bronzino, Pontormo, and
Salviati.
Cosimo also turned his attention to the
revival of the ancient art of carving semi-pre-
cious hardstones [pietre dure]. Tuscan lapidary
specialists such as Bernardino “di Porfirio”
(porphyry) executed tables with stone inlay
 DISEGNO ©* Introduction

[commesso| designed by Vasari.5+ But the most

famous craftsmen were those of Milan like the
Saracchi and Miseroni from whom Cosimo FIG. 3.
commissioned hardstone and rock crystal ves- Venetian?, late
fourteenth century,
sels. In the 1570s, the Medici lured the Design for a Textile
Milanese Giorgio Gaffuri and the Caroni (Louvre, Paris)

brothers to Florence. The ducal workshops in

the Casino of San Marco and, beginning in
1588, at the Uffizi produced hardstone vases
designed by Bernardo Buontalenti (Fig. 2) and
ornamented with mounts by the Flemish
goldsmiths Hans Domes and Jacques Bylivelt.
In 1589, Cosimo 1s son Ferdinand sent an
elaborate inlaid table as a gift to Emperor
Rudolph w in Prague. Rudolph, who immedi-
ately ordered a second table, in turn established
his own imperial hardstone workshop by
importing Ottavio Miseroni of Milan and
Cosimo and Giovanni Castrucci of Florence.55
Design was part of the craft economy. Since
the Middle Ages, the production of tex- century artist Jacopo Bellini bound them into
tiles-woven and embroidered, in wool, silk, his notebook to be coated and reused as draw-
linen, and metallics-was among the most ing surfaces (Fig. 3).57 Similar serpentine
lucrative industries in Europe. In Italy, profes- designs with pomegranate motifs also appear
sional cloth painters contracted to provide as in drawings for textiles by Pisanello, who spent
many as sixty designs a year, with fees varying his early career in Venice. In contrast to the
according to complexity. Their activities were delicate, linear style of the late fourteenth-cen-
seen as a distinct commercial enterprise, to be tury pattern, Pisanello’s design (Fig. 4) 1s more
controlled and protected. In the fourteenth freely executed, with bold and painterly appli-
century, the city of Lucca forbade silk design- cations of washes. Pisanello was court artist for
ers from leaving the city to work elsewhere. the Este of Ferrara and the Gonzaga of
Other steps were taken to prevent the over- Mantua; his drawings for woven and embroi-
marketing of designs. In the fifteenth century, dered textiles have been dated to his tenure as
the Florentine and Genoese silk guilds court artist for Alfonso 1 in Naples, beginning
imposed fines on artists who sold the same in 1448.58
cloth design to more than one weaver and on Embroidery in silk and precious metal
weavers who copied the patterns of others.5° threads was a specialty of Florence. Opus
Few of the textile patterns from this period florentinum was used for altar fittings and litur-
survive. Some late fourteenth-century Venetian gical vestments. According to Cennino
silk designs are preserved because the fifteenth- Cennini, artists designing embroidery would
 DISEGNO ° Introduction

draw directly on the cloth..Traces of Vasari’s words convey a distinction between

chiaroscuro underdrawing have been discov-
ered on the silk taffetta ofan embroidered altar
cloth or antependium designed by Pollaiuolo
and donated by Pope Sixtus Iv to San
Francesco in Assisi in the 1470s.59 When the
powerful Arte di Calimala, the wool guild,
commissioned new liturgical vestments for the
Florentine Baptistry, the city’s civic center, they
also turned to Pollaiuolo, “master of design.”°°
Pollaiuolo’s twenty-seven scenes of the life of
Saint John the Baptist are the most sumptuous
and complex panels of Renaissance embroi-
dery. Their realization in silk and gold required
over ten years of labor by a team of male
embroiderers, lead by Paolo da Verona.“
We are
largely indebted to the one master for his
design as well as to the other for his patience
in embroidering it,’ wrote Vasari, who similarly
described intarsia as a skill that required “more
patience than design.”®!
FIG. 4
Antonio Pisanello,
Textile Design,
1440s? (Musée du
Louvre, Paris)
intellectual invention and manual labor,
between artist and artisan. In 1505, Isabella’s
agent in Venice, noting that the glassmakers
there “lacked invention” [poveri de invencione],
suggested that she send a design of “some great
fantasy” [qualche fantasia cosi di grosso].°?
Sometimes, however, an artisan was reluctant
to reliquish control over design, resisting even
a patron’s desires. Isabella sent drawings to
Venice, which the glassmaker Angioletto
claimed to have lost—more than once. Finally,
a skeptical and exasperated Isabella, suspecting
that he simply did not want to carry out the
designs, allowed Angioletto free rein to manu-
facture the glass as best suited him.°3
The relationship between artist and artisan
in the Renaissance is a subject that needs fur-
ther study. The history of intarsia, however,
provides examples of an. apparent shift in con-
trol from craftsman to designer.°4 The repre-
sentation of scenes and objects in inlaid wood
flourished as a refined art in Renaissance Italy.
The technique had been transformed by the
incorporation of One-point perspective, sup-
posedly taught by its inventor Brunelleschi to
intarsia woodworkers, who were soon called
“masters of perspective” [maestri di prospet-
tiva].°5 With its virtuoso illusionism and chro-
matic effects, intarsia was often compared to
painting. The merchant Giovanni Rucellai
praised the art of Florentine intarsia that
“could not be done better with a brush?’ A
choir of inlaid wood for Siena Cathedral has a
self-portrait of the craftsman dated 1502 with
the inscription: “I Antonio Barili executed this
work with a graver (coelo) not a brush?’67
In the fifteenth century, intarsia workers
maintained control over the overall design of
their panels by hiring artists like Maso
 DISEGNO °* Introduction

Finiguerra, Alesso Baldovinetti, and Sandro sketches by me.’ Giulio Romano, whom
Botticelli for piecemeal drawings of figures Cellini visited in Mantua in 1528, also suppos-
and narrative scenes. In other instances, how- edly deferred to the goldsmith. Asked to
ever, artistic control seems to have shifted away design a reliquary for Cellini to execute,
from the craftsmen. In 1524, the confraternity Giulio replied that “Benvenuto is a man who
of the Misericordia Maggiore in Bergamo does not need other people’s sketches.”7!
commissioned the painter Lorenzo Lotto to In 1530, Pope Clement vn, desiring to have
design the intarsia choir of Santa Maria an extraordinarily large diamond set into a
Maggiore.®* After his move to Venice in 1526, new papal morse (brooch), arranged for a
Lotto sent not only drawings but also instruc- competition among the best goldsmiths in
tions directing the work’s execution. From the Rome. Cellini’s model, which won the com-
beginning, Lotto demanded that the craftsmen mission, was the only design to incorporate
have access to only one design at a time. His gem and relief into a coherent image: the
drawings were to be held in safekeeping by the diamond, in the center of the morse, func-
Misericordia confraternity and, when no tioned as a throne for the figure of God the
longer needed, to be returned immediately to Father. Cellini explained his triumph and the
the artist. Such was their value (“you see the other goldsmiths’ failure: “When a jeweler has
importance,’ he wrote) that Lotto insistently to work with figures, he must of necessity
returned to this issue in his correspondence understand design, else he will not produce
and later listed the drawings in his will. anything good.”7?
The hierarchical difference between artist At the end of the century, in 1594, members
and artisan can be summed up in one word: of the Accademia di San Luca in Rome, led by
disegno. Leonardo, who contrasted the fantasia Federico Zuccaro, discussed ideas for an
of painters to the unimaginative work of cop- emblem of the newly founded art academy.
persmiths, wrote, “To devise is the work of the One suggested a device of three drawing
master; to execute the act of the servant.”’7° implements, symbolizing disegno, from which
The opposition between artistry and mere shone forth a clear, brilliant light to illuminate
craftsmanship was explicitly stated by the gold- the arts. The author of this proposal was
smith-turned-sculptor Benvenuto Cellini, Antonio Gentile “the goldsmith, one of the
who also designed the seal for the Accademia principal silversmiths, and of great ingenu-
del Disegno in Florence. In his autobiography, ity.’73 Gentile’s own drawings (Nos. 11, 18) are
Cellini repeatedly boasted of his skill in drafts- themselves superb examplars of disegno—both
manship and design, which set him apart from as drawings and design—in the decorative arts
other goldsmiths. The sculptor Pietro as well.
Torrigiano judged Cellini’s “method of work- This exhibition and catalogue samples the
ing and designs worthy rather of a sculptor invention, ingenuity, and imaginative original-
than a goldsmith.” Michelangelo, when asked ity of sixteenth-century Italian Renaissance
by Federigo Ginori to design a medal, drawings and prints for decorative arts in
responded: “[Cellini] will serve you admirably, five thematic sections. The first three present
and certainly he does not stand in need of some of the motifs and uses of ornament.
 DISEGNO °* Introduction

“Ornament” introduces the Renaissance 10. Federico Zuccari, Idea de’pittori, scultori et architetti, 1607
in Barocchi 1971, 1973 (1979) 8, pp. 2062-2118. On disegno,
vocabulary of rinceau, candelabrum, grotesque,
see Kemp 1974, pp. 219-40; Barasch 1985, pp. 212-303.
and strapwork, which illustrate Renaissance
11. According to Pevsner, the use of disegnare in this sense 1s
taste for both the classical and the fantastic. found in English documents (devise for drawing) and French
“Framing” presents examples of ornament documents (deviser/deviseur for designer) of 1296 and later;
applied as settings for objects and spaces; in Pevsner 1942, pp. 235-36.

“Object as Ornament,’ ornament takes life as 12. In the contemporary Relatio on the construction at the
Cathedral of Modena (1099-1106), the architect Lanfranco,
three-dimensional, free-standing forms: lamps,
is called “designator”? Modena 1984, p. 757; and see also
altar services, vases, and caskets. A single func- Peroni, ibid., p. 143.
tion—the banquet—is the theme of “Dining 13. For capriccio as an idea or invention (proprio pensiero
Pleasures.” Few occasions were so central to e invenzione), see Baldinucci 1681 (1976), p. 28.
aristocratic life, in which art, design, culture, 14. Pictor in Carmine, attributed to the Cistercian monk
and taste commingled in luxurious display. Adam of Dore, James 1932 (1951), pp. 141-42. See the writ-
ings of Saint Bernard (Migne, Patrologiae Latinae 182, cols.
Finally, the themes of Renaissance versatility
915-16). See Summers 1981, pp. 130-31.
and creativity culminate in a court artist and
15. Cennini 1991, pp. 1-2. Pico della Mirandola 1971, pp.
one of the most talented and prolific designers
30-33. See also Kemp 1977, pp. 347-98; Summers 1981, pp.
of the sixteenth century—Giulio Romano—a 103-43.
universal designer. 16. “A qualche bella foggia... de inventione non pitt facta,’ letter
BETH L. HOLMAN of September 1503, cited in Luzio and Renier 1896, p. 277.

17. “Un ornamento composito mel pitt vario e pitt nuovo modo...
la quale licenzia ha dato grande animo [a quelli] avendo egli rotti
i lacci e le catene delle cose per via d’una strada comune eglino di
continuo operavano,’ Vasari-Milanesi 7, p. 193.

18. “Fare variate le invenzione,’ Bandinelli to Luca Martini,

1552, see Ward 1982, pp. 47, 49.
Notes

1. Vasari-Milanesi 3, p. 290. 19. Sale 1974, pp. 295-99. For other examples of icono-

2. Pope-Hennessy 1985, p. 107. graphic programs dictated by patrons, see Hope 1981, pp.
293-94, 302-304,
308-11, 318-19.
3. Vasari-Milanesi 3, pp. 334-35.
20. Luzio and Renier 1896, pp. 282-83.
4. Heikamp 1986, p. 44.
21. “Variabili pitt che le forme della luna” Vecellio 1598,
5. “Dui bacilli con dui bronzi da mano molto belli de desegno et p. 109. See Luzio and Renier 1896, pp. 447-48; also pp. 264-
fogia antiqua designati p(er) Raphael... voluntieri li gli dariano pin 67, 443-44, 449-69, 666-69.
presto che butare via tanto bella opfejra,’ letter of Capilupo to
Isabella d’Este, 7 July 1516, Archivio Gonzaga b. 2494, 22. Fonte et origine de tucte le belle foggie d'Italia,’ letter of
Archivio di Stato, Mantua. See also Luzio and Renier 1893, Is June 1523 in Luzio and Renier 1896, p. 267.

pp. 230-34; Luzio 1907, pp. 74-75. 23. Ibid., 462.

6. Windsor, 12737 verso; compare Ashmolean Museum, P 11 24. Rucellai 1960, pp. 23-24.
572, n London 1983, pp. 149-50, 232-33, nos. 123, 186.
25. Haines 1983,p. 164; Wright 1992,p. 14s.
7. Scheller (1995), pp. 34, 94-97.
26. Vasari-Milanesi 3, p. 287; Wright 1992, pp. 131-40; Carl
8. On the origins of prints, see Landau and Parshall ro94, 1983, pp. SO8-509, 518-20, $40-41, $46, 550-51; Haines
pp. 1, 287. 1983, pp. 140, 162-65.

g. On pattern books and print series, see Snodin and 27. [Per] lo scultore e’l pittore il disegno é il fondamento e teor-
Howard 1996, pp. 27-44.
ica di queste due arti,’ Ghiberti 1947, p. 3. On the dating of
 DISEGNO °* Introduction

Ghiberti’s Commentarii, see Krautheimer 1970, 1, pp. 11-12,
306-308. In the fourteenth century Petrarch had also com-
mented on the commonality between painting and sculp-
ture, Baxandall 1971, pp. 55-56, 61, 141.
28. “Il disegno, che é... istessa anima che concepe e nutrisce in se
medesima tutti i parti degli intelletti;” “il disegno, padre delle tre
arti nostre, Architettura, Scultura e Pittura, procedendo dall’intel-
letto,’ Vasari-Milanesi 1, pp. 215, 168.
29. “Tite queste professioni ed arti ingegnose si vede che derivano
dal disegno, il quale é capo necessario di tutte; e non l’avendo, non
st ha nulla, ibid., p. 213.
30. See, for example, Lydecker 1988, pp. 2-4, 42-60 and
Goldthwaite 1993, pp. 224-55. On Italian Renaissance fur-
nishings, see Schiaparelli 1983, especially pp. 195-301;
Thornton 1991, pp. 111-260.
31. Barriault 1994, pp. 2-5, 28-30.
32. For the fourteenth-century origins of the studiolo, see
Liebenwein 1977 (1992), pp. 19-40.
33. Goldthwaite 1987, pp. 158-75; Goldthwaite 1993, pp.
150-155.
34. Jenkins 1970, pp. 162-70.
35. Goldthwaite 1972, p. 993.
36. “Cassoni de inextimabile manifactura et valore... desegni di
infiniti modi et d’argento inextimabile,’ according to Galeazzo
Maria Sforza; and “‘tarsiature facte in perspectiva da solennissimi
et perfectissimi maistri fino ale banche et le tere tute de casa; dele
tapazarie et ornamenti de casa d’oro et de setta,’ according to
Niccolo de’ Carissimi, Hatfield 1970, pp. 232-33, 246.
37. Spallanzani and Bertela 1992, pp. 8, 11, 26, 33-36, 54-55,
83. In the mid-fifteenth century, Borso d’Este paid 9,000
ducats for a set of five Flemish embroidered velvet hang-
ings, Woods—Marsden 1988, pp. 30, 113.
38. On porcellana, see Goldthwaite 1989, pp. 28-29; Wilson
1993, PP. 234-37-
39. Marini in Fort Worth 1993, pp. 21-22; Muararo 1992.
46. “Viveva da signore,’ Cellini, Life, 1, x1. On the court artist
in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, see Warnke 1993.
47. Ritrarne due galine de India del naturale... per che le vores-
simo far mettere suxo la tapezzeria nostra.” Lightbown 1986, p.
488. On tapestry weaving in Mantua, see Bertolotti (1888)
1974, p. 216; Braghirolli 1879, pp. 14-21; Forti Grazzini in
Mantua 1989, pp. 474-79; Brown and Delmarcel 1996, pp.
35-37; 43, 72, 86-87, 90-95, 174-83, 206-13.
48. Shearman 1972, p. 38 n. 75; Smit 1993, pp. 49, 50.
49. “Havendo noi condutti in questa terra Nicola Charcher di
Burselles M. ro di tappezzarie perché Vhabbia da tesser per la
Corte nostra tappezzarie secondo gli disegni che gli faremo dare,”
Bertolotti 1888 (1974), pp. 222-23.
50. “Accid i poveri pittori, che non hanno molto disegno, se ne
potessero ne’ loro bisogni servire,’ Vasari-Milanesi 5, p. 417. On
the use of prints as sources by maiolica painters, see Milan
1992, pp. 15-23, 32-71.
51. Vasari-Milanesi 6, p. 581. See Clifford and Mallet 1976,
pp. 387-410, on the drawings and maiolica identified with
this “History of Troy” service.
52. Gere 1963b, pp. 306-15; Clifford 1991, pp. 166-76.
53. “Non chosteranno piu di quelle di fiandra ma sarano di tanta
piu perfezione di disegni,” letter of 1 April 1545 from
Bernardo Saliti to Bongianni Gianfighiazzi, in Adelson 1985,
pp. 4-5. On the founding of the Florentine tapestry work-
shop, see also Adelson 1983, pp. 899-924, and Adelson 1990.
54. Vasari-Milanesi 7, p. 616 (life of Buontalenti).
55. Fock 1988, pp. 51-56; Giusti 1992, pp. 26-28, 31, 35-79,
135-80.
56. Monnas 1987, pp. 419-20.
57. Degenhart and Schmitt 1980, pt. 2, 1, pp. 136-77, nos.
652-63; Eisler 1989, p. 79, pls. 7, 297.
58. On Pisanello’s textile designs, see Todorow 1966, pp. 40,
89-90, 120, 147, NOS. 75-79, 162-64, 235; Paris 1996, pp. 439-
46, nos. 308-313; Monnas 1987, pp. 417-18.

40. Manni 1986, pp. 50, 62-72. 59. Cennini 1960, pp. 105-106; Cennini 1991, pp. 146-47
(cLx1v); Varoli-Piazza 1991, pp. 29-37.
4t. Elam in London 1981, pp. 17; Lightbown 1986, pp.
487-88. 60. On the history of the commission for Pollaiuolo’s bap-
tistry vestments, see Frank 1988, pp. 15-21, 87-99.
42. Manni 1986, pp. 50, 54-58.
61. “Si debbe aver obbligo non mediocre alla virti dell’uno nel dis-
43. Luzio and Renier 1896, p. 305; Manni 1986, pp. 78-82.
egno, ed alla pazienza dell’altro nel ricamare.” Vasari-Milanesi, 3,
On Isabella as patron, see Fletcher in London 1981, pp. s1-
p. 300; On intarsia workers having “pit pacenzia che disegno,
63, and Vienna 1994.
see Vasari-Milanesi 1, p. 203.
44. Saslow 1996, pp. 44-45, 58-64, 84-88, 151-161.
62. Luzio and Renier 1896, pp. 277-78. See Isabella’s 1491
45. Vasari-Milanese 5, pp. 524, 551; 7, pp. 414, 614. On this request for “something new and gallant,” Luzio and Renier
aspect of the court artist, see also Warnke 1993, pp. 176-77. 1896,p. 453.
 DISEGNO °* Introduction

63. Ibid., pp. 277-78.

84.
64. Ferretti 1982, especially 463-

65. Vasari-Milanesi 2, pp. 332-33. On the early history of

perspectival intarsia, see also Haines 1983, pp. 99-109.

66. “Di tanta arte di prospettiva che con pennello non si farebbe
meglio,’ Rucellai (1960), p. 61.

67. “Hoc ego Antonius Barilis opus coelo non penicillo excussi
A.D. Mbit,’ Thornton 1974, p. 236.

68. For the history of the commission, see Berg-noé 1974,

pp- 145-63. Pouncey (196s, pp. 18-21) published two designs
by Lotto for the Bergamo choir.

69. Chiodi 1962, pp. 31, 36-38, 44, 49, 51, 55-57, 62, 65-66;
see also Ferretti 1982, pp. 480-82.

70. MacCurdy 1954, 1, p. 95; Richter 1883 (1970), 1, p. 369.

71. Benvenuto é@ un uomo che non ha bisogno delli disegni d’al-

trut.” Cellini, Life, 1, xii, xix, xl, xli.

72. “Perché éforza a un gioiellier e quando infra le sue gioie inter-

vien figure, ch’egli sappia disegniare, altrimenti non gli vien fatto
cosa buona,’ Cellini, Life, 1, xliv.

73. M. Antonio da Faenza, orefice... e de’ principali argentieri, di

bellissimo ingegno,’ Romano Alberti, Origine et progresso
dell’Academia del Dissegno de’ pittori, scultori et architetti di
Roma (Pavia 1604), reprinted in Barocchi 1979, 8, pp. 2050-ST.
 ORNAMENT

Ottaviano Ridolfi argued that the art of

designing ornament was “much more difficult
than that of making figures...[and] not a mere
trifling enterprise, as others maintain.”3
BM he language of Renaissance design is Four important ornamental motifs of
constructed from ornament.' Even the classi- Renaissance design, illustrated in this section
cal orders of Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian by drawings and prints, include rinceaux, can-
were considered forms of decoration. In the delabra motifs, grotesques, and strapwork.
first architectural treatise since antiquity, On
the Art of Building, Leon Battista Alberti RINCEAUX
described the column as the principal orna- The rinceau is a scrolled, foliated vine (No. 1).
ment of buildings.? And, for the first time, the An ancient motif, it became part of the
newest fashions of ornament and decorative medieval ornamental lexicon and appeared in
design were disseminated almost instantly the earliest model books. Late medieval
through prints that were used as patterns for all rinceaux were frequently fanciful, with spiky
media. Motifs were applied to two-and three- profiles and nodules reminiscent of Gothic
dimensional surfaces, decorating printed books crockets. Renaissance artists revived the more
and painted walls, woven textiles and ceramic naturalistic classical rinceaux, often formed of
vessels, tooled leather boxes and carved acanthus leaves and flowers. Cellini contrasted
wooden furniture (Figs.5,6),to name just a few. the Tuscan and Roman acanthus rinceaux to
The language of Renaissance ornament Lombard versions of briony and ivy, and to
was rich and varied with classical forms pro- “Turkish arabesques...composed of arum
viding the basic vocabulary. Side by side with leaves with a few small sunflowers.’’4
classical candelabra, festoons, bucrania (ox Renaissance rinceaux varied from delicate
skulls), putti, and garlands, however, medieval tendrils to lush vegetation. They were fre-
traditions also remained firmly entrenched, quently combined with candelabra, grotesques,
albeit transformed. In the sixteenth century, and masks (Nos. 2, 3), and sometimes inter-
for example, the heraldic shield or escutcheon spersed with animals, putti, and fantastic crea-
was recast as a cartouche and cloaked in strap- tures among the vines and leaves (Nos. 1, 21).
work, a newly minted motif. Artists and archi- ‘A versatile motif, the rinceau could be ori-
tects treated classical forms with artistic ented horizontally or vertically, with a linear
license, orienting the scrolled volute vertically direction implied across its repeated undula-
(Brunelleschi) and applying it to the broken tions. Rinceaux could also be used to fill pan-
pediment (Michelangelo). Indeed sixteenth- els symmetrically (see No. 21) or to meander
century ornament was increasingly the subject through irregularly shaped surfaces.
of fantastic and complex displays of virtuoso
invention. In the 1603 edition of Giacomo
Barozzi da Vignola’s Orders of Architecture,
 DISEGNO * Ornament

candelabrum motif was considered a compos-

ite form. In his c. 1460 treatise, Francesco di
Giorgio Martini distinguished “baluster
columns” (colonne a balagusti) from “candelabra
columns” (colonne a candeliere); he illustrated the
former as two superimposed balusters (one
dropped), and the latter as a combination of
baluster and vase forms.° The candelabrum
motif became popular in the second half of the
fifteenth century, particularly in northern Italy,
and appears in early sixteenth-century prints
FIG. §
by Lombard artists, such as Giovanni Antonio
Italian, first half of the
sixteenth century, Casket da Brescia and Giovanni Pietro da Birago.
(Cooper-Hewitt, Candelabra forms decorated vertical panels
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution) and frames. They frequently served as central
“stalks” around which putti, swags, grotesques,
and rinceaux were symmetrically arranged
(Nos. 2, 3, 4).

GROTESQUES
FIG. 6
Florentine, Wooden
Grotesques were inspired by decorations on
Cradle for Chigi/Fabbrini the walls and ceilings of the Golden House
della Scala Family, c. 1570
(Domus Aurea), Emperor Nero’s luxurious
(L-Antiquaire & the
Connoisseur) Roman palace built after the fire of A.D. 64.7
By the early second century, parts of Nero’s
Golden House were filled with debris
and buried under the baths built by Emperor
Trajan. In later centuries, its fabulous
structures and interiors were known only
through descriptions. About 1480, however,
Renaissance excavators broke through the
CANDELABRA vaults of the then-subterranean rooms and,
Ancient three-dimensional stone candelabra removing the rubble, discovered the Roman
(see No. 2) and reliefs provided models for fresco and stucco decoration intact on walls
balustrades, a Renaissance invention, and for and vaults. The walls were painted with fanci-
Renaissance decorative motifs also called can- ful and realistic forms—light, airy ornament
delabra.s These ornamental forms were, in floating on monochromatic backgrounds. In
fact, composed of stacked candelabra, vases, imperial Rome, in the first century A.D.,
trophies, and other objects (Nos. 2, 4, 5). By Vitruvius had censured these “monstrosities”
the second half of the fifteenth century, the as evidence of declining art and bad taste:
 DISEGNO * Ornament

reeds in place of columns, fluted appendages a free and farcical category of painting
with curly leaves and volutes instead of pedi- invented in antiquity...[with] forms suspended
ments, candelabra supporting shrines, and on in the air. Artists seized upon it to represent
top of their pediments numerous tender stalks monstrous deformities produced by natural
and volutes growing up from the roots and caprice or their own extravagant fantasy: they
having human figures senselessly seated upon invented these forms in violation of every
them; sometimes stalks having only half-length rule, suspending from tiny threads weights
figures, some with human heads, others with they could not possibly sustain, transforming
at 3 )

the heads of animals.® horses hooves into foliage and human legs into
cranes’ feet, painting in this way countless
pranks and extravagances. !!
As parties of Renaissance sightseers began
to descend into the labyrinthine spaces by
torchlight, the term grotesques or grottesche was STRAPWORK
coined to describe the fantastic forms and irra- Strapwork, a sixteenth-century invention, 1s
tional, antinaturalistic decoration found in composed of forms that imitate a pliable, flat
these grotto-like spaces. Already in about 1500, material like leather that was notched, cut into
the term grottesche was used by the architect strips and curled or rolled (Nos. 5, 7, 8).
Bramante, and by 1502 patrons like Cardinal Strapwork appears in Rome by the mid-1520s
Piccolomini were requesting paintings in the in Polidoro da Caravaggio and Perino del
-protesque style: Por othe first .time, Vaga’s fresco decoration of palace interiors and
Renaissance artists no longer had to rely on chapel walls and in the 1530s in Peruzzi’s
descriptions but were able to actually see, on a Palazzo Massimo delle Colonne. It was
large scale, important examples of Roman brought to France by the Florentine artist Il
domestic decoration. They eagerly copied the Rosso, who had expanded its ornamental pos-
forms in sketchbooks, from individual motifs sibilities in his decoration of the Gallery of
to entire vaults, which they then imitated in Francis 1 at Fontainebleau (1530s). By the mid-
their own decorations, for example Raphael’s dle of the century, the curled, sometimes
Vatican logge. This new and immensely popular pierced, straps were often threaded with fes-
style of grotesque decoration (Nos. 2, 3, 4) was toons, drapes, and other forms to create com-
disseminated throughout Europe by means of plex interlaced patterns. BETH L. HOLMAN
prints (No. 3).?°
Grotesques, one of the most popular forms
of Renaissance decoration, elevated fanciful
invention, previously relegated to the margins
of medieval manuscripts, to a demonstration of
artistic ingenuity imbued with a sanctioned
classical legacy. Despite Vitruvius’s criticism,
the rediscovered grotesques were seen as an
ancient affirmation of Renaissance notions of
artistic license. In the introduction to his Lives
of the Artists, Vasari described grotesques as:
2

17
 DISEGNO °* Ornament

Notes

1. For studies on Renaissance ornament, see Providence

1980, Irmscher 1984, Gruber 1994, and Snodin and Howard
1QQ6.

bo . Alberti, On Art ofBuilding v1, xm.

3. Azzi-Visentini in Gruber 1994, pp. 363-64.

4. Cellini, Life, 1, xxx1.

5. On Renaissance balusters, see Davies and Hemsoll 1983,

pp. 1-23.

6. Martini 1967,p. 62, and pl. 25 (fol. 15r).

7. On the rediscovery of Nero’s house and Renaissance

grotesques, see Dacos 1969.

8. Vitruvius, VU, v.

9. Gruber 1994, pp. 196-203.

10. See Providence 1980, p. 94, no. 84; New York 1981b,
p. 60, no. $9.

11. Vasari (Milanesi ed. 1906), p. 246.

 DISEGNO * Ornament

~ Ornamental Foliage with a Mask and a Bowl of Fruit

(Autre, offrant au milieu d'en bas un mascaron...)

Ornamental Foliage with an Old Man and Two Children

(Autre, offrant la figure d’un vieillard...)

from a series of twelve ornamental friezes, VI, c. 1545

ENEA VIGO (¢.2523-—2567)

ENEA VICO was among the most successful

and prolific engravers of mid-sixteenth-century Rome. Like Marcantonio Raimondi, Agostino
Veneziano, and others, Vico engraved compositions by contemporary artists as well as classical
ornament and themes. His engravings of grotesques, trophies, and vases (see No. 12) were pub-
lished in series, demonstrating commercial acumen as well as artistic inventiveness, versatility,
and variety.
This print with two rinceaux designs is number vi in a series of rinceaux engraved by Vico
about 1545, not long after his arrival in Rome about 1541.! Nine sheets feature twelve rinceaux
numbered 1 to xu; three of the folios, including this one, bear two ornamental designs with a
single Roman numeral.” Series of rinceaux engravings were not new; northern engravers, such as
the greatly admired Martin Schongauer and Israhel van Meckenem, had executed virtuoso prints
of rinceaux 1n the second half of the fifteenth century.3
Vico’ series included two compositional types: the symmetrical, static rinceau and the asym-
metrical, “running” one. Within these categories, his designs show great variation, each distinct
from the others. The grape-leaf rinceaux of these prints, for example, are anchored by different
grotesque motifs in the center of the compositions. In the more symmetrical upper design is a
mask with leafy hair, beard, and scrolling moustache. In the lower, “running” rinceau is an active
male figure who turns as he grasps the vines; he is girdled at the waist in leaves from which his
lower limbs issue, transformed into vines. Both motifs—the mask and half-human/half-vegetable
figures—were popular in antiquity and the Renaissance (see No. 2), and are featured in other Vico
prints (see No. 12).4 The mask supporting a grape-filled vase from which spring the two large
scrolling vines recalls a well-rehearsed tale. According to Vitruvius, Alberti, and others, an acanthus
plant growing up through a basket or vase in antiquity provided the inspiration for the Corinthian
capital.5
Vico’s rinceaux prints are notable for his experimentation with fictive relief, that is the illusion
of three-dimensional sculpture. In these two examples, Vico left a light border around the engrav-
ing plate as a frame for the ornamental panel. Vines, leaves, and figures emerge from the dark back-
ground into bright relief, while their protruding and overhanging forms cast shadows over other
 DISEGNO * Ornament

Ornamental Foliage
with a Mask and a
Bowl of Fruit

Engraving
4'16 X 9%6 In.
(102 xX 242 mm)

Inscribed:
vr in lower
center right

Ornamental Foliage
with an Old Man
and Two Children

Engraving
4/16 X 9% In.
(102 x 250 mm)

Inscribed:
V1 at lower center

Sheet:
10% x 15% in.
(260 x 392 mm)

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartsch xv, p. 35 9,
no. 459, 460; Na gler 2
p. 527; Berlin 1939, p. 81.

Cooper-Hewitt
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Ins titution
Museum purchase from
eift of E. F Caldwell
& Co., 1989-112-3

surfaces, including the light framing area. In the upper engraving, the lower left tendril intrudes
slightly into the framing space and the outer scrolls are “tied” to the inner edge of the “frame,”
intensifying the effect of three dimensionality.
Although these prints are not signed, Enea Vico was among the first artists to sign his prints
with sculpsit (sculpted) rather than fecit/faciebat (made). He did this perhaps as early as 1541, shortly
before or about the time of his rinceaux prints.°
The intense, dramatic contrast of light and dark is typical of Vico’s prints. His tendency to
omit internal definition of form allows the white of the paper to be visible. The somewhat dis-
connected dispersal of sharp highlights and the clumped leaf forms are reminiscent of the more
Gothic, northern European ornamental prints by Schongauer and especially Meckenem, who also
left blank plate borders (for inscriptions) around his rinceaux.7 BLH
 DISEGNO * Ornament

Notes

1. See Berliner and Egger 1981, p. $3, nos. 365, 366. The sec- (Bartsch 244, 245), wrote Vico in 1549 about prints he
ond state of examples from the series (for example, owned by Schongauer, Diirer, and Lucas van Leyden.
Ornamental Foliage with the Skull ofa Bull, x1; Bartsch xv, p. ~ Landau and Parshall 1994, paZogn
360, no. 465) is dated slightly later, about 1550; see
4. Toynbee and Ward-Perkins 1950, pp. 1-43. See Vico
Providence 1980, p. 93, no. 82.
rinceaux prints ll, Vv, x, see Bartsch xv, p. 359, nos. 456,
2. Bartsch xv, pp. 358-60, nos. 455-66. The numbering of 458, and p. 360, no, 364.
the rinceaux prints begins with 1v;1 through mt have not
5. Vitruvius tv, 1; Alberti, On Art of Building, vu, v1. See
been identified. Bartsch suggested that the double rinceaux
Onians 1988, pp. 19, 35.
panels of 1m, v, and vi were intended to count as two each.
Vico’s engraving Frieze with Rinceaux and Tivo Chimerical 6. Vico signed his prints with sculpsit in the 1550s; Landau
Animals on a single sheet with Frieze with Rinceaux, a Siren and Parshall suggest that he may have first referred to this
and Four Children, however, was published both without and term by signing S after his name in 1541 (Landau and
with the roman numeral 1 (see Berliner and Egger 1981, Parshall 1994, pp. 288, 306, 405). On the introduction of
no. 364, and Bartsch xv, p. 356, no. 452 and p. 357, no. 453; illusionistic frames into Italian Renaissance prints, see
Illus. Bartsch 30, p. 291, no. 354).Vico may have started num- Landau and Parshall 1994, p. 289.
bering after publishing the first two rinceaux designs, per-
7. For Schongauer’s rinceaux engravings, see Bartsch v1, pp.
haps before he decided to publish a numbered series. The
162-66, nos. 108-16. For Meckenem, see Bartsch v1, p. 278,
number ml seems to have been added as an afterthought to
no. 198, p. 279, no. 199, pp. 280-84, nos. 201-209 (nos. 198
the framing area around the rinceaux panels; in the other
and 199 are copies after Schongauer). Vico’s Ornamental
rinceaux prints, the numbers are in the ornamental panel itself.
Foliage with the Skull of a Bull, no. x1 from the same series
3. Vico may have been influenced by northern prints. (Bartsch xv, p. 360, no. 465), seems to reflect the influence
Anton Francesco Doni, whose portrait Vico had engraved of filigree work.

Design for Candelabrum and Panel of Grotesques

Northern Italian, early sixteenth century

THIS DRAWING by an unknown northern

Italian artist presents two types of ornament~a classical candelabrum on the left and a decorative
panel with rinceaux and grotesques on the right. Each ornamental theme 1s translated into a lin-
ear pattern, without shading, and as a half design to be completed through mirror-image repetition.
The candelabrum design doubles the baluster form of one of the two distinct ancient cande-
labra, which were once in the church of Sant’Agnese fuori le mura in Rome (Figs. 7, 30). The
pedestal for the Sant’Agnese candelabrum is also rendered accurately, if schematically. Used in
antiquity as large, formal lights and later preserved as ecclesiastic furnishings, the six well-known
sculpted marble candelabra from Sant’Agnese were often imitated in the Renaissance." Copies
and adaptations have been identified in Italian manuscript illuminations and drawings beginning
in the last third of the fifteenth century. Separate elements, for example, the rams’ heads on the
base corners, the rinceau motif on the base panel, and the leaf-clad baluster form on some of the
 DISEGNO * Ornament

candelabra (Fig. 7) were also incorporated into the language of Renaissance ornament.* This
drawing reflects early sixteenth-century interest in these candelabra, which were restored about
1520, possibly by a sculptor associated with Raphael’s studio.3 The candelabra of Sant’ Agnese were
popular models for artists in Raphael’s circle in Rome, including Giulio Romano who repeated
their images in several works.
The grotesque design with candelabrum motif (seen at the panel’s left edge) was inspired by
the wall decorations of Nero’s Golden House (Domus Aurea). In this drawing, sphinxes, harpies,
roosters, and satyrs are stacked and interconnected by a meandering rinceau with vine tendrils that
The combination of candelabra motifs
ends in grotesque masks or rams’ heads instead of flowers.
with grotesques was common in Renaissance design, especially in the late fifteenth and early six-
teenth century when the combined form was disseminated through prints, such as those of
Nicoletto da Modena.
This design was attributed to Nicoletto da Modena by Richard Wunder.+ Although it shares
some motifs with Nicoletto’s prints, for example the small-figured frieze panels (see No. 3) and
leafy profile masks, the drawing is more sparsely organized and executed in a different graphic
style from other drawings attributed to him.’ Based on the drawing’s playful imagery and motifs,
Alain Gruber has suggested an attribution to Giovanni Antonio da Brescia, an imitative northern
Italian engraver active in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth century. The winged creatures and
the horse-centaur turned slightly from the center line can be compared to motifs in prints by
Giovanni Antonio, whose grotesques included copies of Nicoletto’s Ornamental Panel Inscribed
Victoria Augusta.© Without an establishea graphic oeuvre for comparison, however, the attribution
to him remains undemonstrable. Since grotesques were also popular motifs among Italian paint-
ers from about the late fifteenth century, it is possible that whoever did this drawing was not
a printmaker. GWK

Notes

1. Arnold Nesselrath in Vatican 1984, pp. 97-99. Two cande- Ward-Jackson 1979, pp. 96-99, nos. 204-209, and Licht 1970,
labra were removed to Santa Costanza in Rome; later, in the p. 381, fig. 2; see also examples in the British Museum
1770s, all six were placed in the Vatican Museum. One can- (Popham and Pouncey 1950, pp. 111-12, nos. 181, 182) and
delabrum was subsequently returned to Sant'Agnese, where Phillips’s sale catalogue, London 1996, no. 85.
it remains today.
6. Hind v, p. 50, no. 45; Bartsch xm, p. 330, no. 22;
2. Northampton 1978, no. 117; Davies and Hemsoll 1983, Ilustrated Bartsch, no. 22 (commentary) p. 230, no. 2508.093
pp- I-23. CI, p. 367, no. 2511.044, pp. 369-71, nos. 2511.046-.047. For
a recent analysis of Giovanni Antonio da Brescia and for the
3. Arnold Nesselrath in Vatican 1984, pp. 97-98. / AE ats X
identification of the supposed engraver “Zoan Andrea” as
4. New York 1959, p. 6, no. 2,and Richard P Wunder’s attri- Giovanni Antonio, see Suzanne Boorsch in New York and
bution annotated on Cooper-Hewitt, National Design London 1992, pp. 56-66; see also Washington 1973, Pp. 235-
Museum card. 37; Providence 1980, p. §7; and Zucker in Illustrated Bartsch,
s : ? , XXV (commentary), pp. 315-18.
5. To compare to drawings by Nicoletto, Designs for a Panel \ ¥)» PP. 315-11
with Grotesque Ornaments (Victoria and Albert Museum), see

tw iw)
 DISEGNO * Ornament

Design for Candelabrum

and Panel of Grotesques
Northern Italian,
early sixteenth century

Pen and brown ink,

sheet irregularly
trimmed and lined
10%6 x 7% in.
(262 x 194 mm)

Watermark:
siren within a circle
(cf. Briquet no. 13833;
Rome, 1490-98,
Udine, 1493)

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Museum purchase in
memory of Walter Leo
Hildburgh, 1956-41-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY
New York 1959, p. 6,
no. 2; Gruber 1994, p. 252

i)

FIG. 7
Roman, Marble
Candelabrum
(Vatican Museum)
 DISEGNO °* Ornament

Ornamental Panel with Slaves and a Bird Cage

c. 15 10; m1 state, published by Antonio Salamanca, 1530s?

3B Ornamental Panel Inscribed Victoria Augusta

c. 1510; m1 state, published by Antonio Salamanca, 15308?

NICOLETTO DA MODENA (UNicoletto Rosex, active 1500-1522)

AMONG THE ARTISTS to visit Nero’s Golden

House in Rome was Nicoletto da Modena, who left his grafitto signature “Nicholetto da
Modena/Ferrara 1507” on one ofits walls. The fanciful Roman wall decorations there became the
inspiration for grotesque ornament. Ornamental Panel with Slaves and a Bird Cage and Ornamental
Panel Inscribed Victoria Augusta, with Nicoletto da Modena’s monogram (NO), are two of the artist's
seventy-eight signed engravings. Their delicate hatching and modeling demonstrate Nicoletto’s
expertise with the burin. Forty additional engravings have been attributed to him.
Nicoletto’s designs are remarkable for their inventiveness; even bilateral pairs of figural and
ornamental motifs are presented as variations rather than mirror-image repetition of forms. The
compositions—crowded with figures and classical ornament—are unified with interconnecting rib-
bons, rinceaux, and threads.
The vertical panels of delicately constructed grotesque decoration are
symmetrically arranged around stacked candelabra forms. Although Nicoletto favored vertical
compositions in his prints, some of the grotesque drawings attributed to him are horizontal, a for-
mat which translated easily into frieze decoration as well as ornamental borders. !
These two engravings belong to a series of four grotesque prints by Nicoletto that have been
interpreted as an emblematic summary of the history of Rome.* The first panel, The Judgment of
Paris, recalls the prelude to the Trojan War, an event which precipitated Aeneas’s flight and the
founding of Rome. Ornamental Panel: Mars, God of Battle and Ornamental Panel with Slaves and a
Bird Cage may allude to the consolidation through conquest of the Roman empire under
Augustus. Ornamental Panel with Slaves and a Bird Cage depicts the immediate aftermath of war
through images of victory and defeat. In the center of the panel, a winged figure supporting a
birdcage holds trumpets and palm leaves, symbols of victory. At the top, two seated figures write
on tablets inscribed D/ivi] M[arti] and S/enatus] Pfopulus] Q[ue] R/omanus] Dfiis] I[mmortalibus],
referring to Mars the god of war and to the Roman Senate and people. Two bound captives sit
beneath a military trophy and above a small, ornamental battle scene.
Ornamental Panel Inscribed Victoria Augusta, the last panel in the series, refers to the period under
Emperor Augustus, when peace prevailed and the arts flourished.} The upper part of the print
depicts the musical competition between Apollo, playing the lyre, and the satyr Marsyas, playing
the bagpipes. In a narrow relief below them is represented the contest’s outcome-the flaying of
Marsyas. Seated on the base at the bottom of the print, a young and an old satyr (or Pan) play
musical pipes. In the relief above them, a satyr plays the pipes to a stag (on the right), while Apollo
 DISEGNO * Ornament

3A
Ornamental Panel Watermark: cross? Ornamental Panel BIBLIOGRAPHY

with Slaves and a Inscribed Victoria Augusta Bartsch xii,p.285,

Cooper-Hewitt,
Bird Cage G L5DOMstate, no. 56, p. 286, no. $7;
National Design Museum, published by Antonio
C. I§ 10; III state, Hind vy,p. 136, nos.
Smithsonian Institution “105,106; Washington
published by Antonio Salamanca, 1530s?
Museum purchase
Salamanca, 1530s? 1973, pp- 482-85, nos.
in memory of Eleanor Engraving
174,175; Hayward 1976,
Engraving and Sarah Hewitt, 10% x § % in.
p. 338, pl. 7; Northampton
10% x § % in. 1946-29-3 (264 x 130 mm)
1978, no. 122; Providence
(261 x 129 mm)
Inscribed: 1980, pp. 79-80, nos. 70a,

Inscribed: NO lower center; 70b; Berliner and Egger

N.O. on hanging tablets VICTORIA and AUGUSTA 1981,p. 43, NOS. 222, 223;
in upper right and left; on tablets upper left Illustrated Bartsch,
S.PO.R./D.1LAL and and right; Ant. Sa. exc. nos. §6, $7 and com-
.D.M./A./N. on tablets at bottom mentary by Zucker, pp.
held by winged figures 229-30, nos. .092, .093;
Cooper-Hewitt,
top left and right; Paris 1987, pp. 98-99,
National Design Museum,
An. Sa. exc. at bottom nos. 142, 143.
Smithsonian Institution
Museum purchase
in memory of Eleanor
and Sarah Hewitt,
1946-29-4
 DISEGNO * Ornament

chases Daphne (on the left). The images of music and Apollo, associated with the arts and the
muses, and the inscription Victoria Augusta may have been references to the revival of the Golden
Age in Rome under the papacy in the sixteenth century.
These two prints are known in several states. The National Design Museum engravings are
examples of the third state, probably published in the 1530s by Antonio Salamanca
(c. 1500-1562), a print-and book seller in Rome whose name appears in abbreviated form at the
bottom of the prints (Ant. Sa.).4 Nicoletto’s popular engravings, republished and copied (for
example, by Giovanni Antonio da Brescia in 1516, Lambert Hopfer, and Jacques Androuet du
Cerceau), helped disseminate the grotesque style.5 Motifs from these prints reappear in sixteenth-
century reliefs from Augsburg in Germany to Salamanca in Spain.® GWK

Notes
s

1. Licht 1970, p. 379. 4. Hind, v(2), p. 136, nos. 10s, 106; Sheehan in Washington
: 1973, p. 478; Providence 1980, p.80.
2. Sheehan in Washington 1973, pp. 478-84. F139 P OT eas
. : 5. Illustrated Bartsch, XxXv, p.195,n0.22; commentary, pp. 230-
3. For the interpretation of the print as a reference to Pax Z ee: goss
: : 2, nos. 2508.093 CI, C2, C3; pp. 367-68,
no. 2511.044 CI, C2;
Augusta, see Washington 1973, p. 484; Providence 1980, p. 3 : 93 PP
and Providence 1980, p.8o.
80; and Zucker 1984, p. 230. ads
6. Providence 1980, p. 80.

Study for Candelabrum Motif and Strapwork Escutcheon

Italian, c. 1560s?

IT IS NOT UNUSUAL to find unrelated decora-

tive motifs sketched together on a single sheet. They can be records of existing ornaments or ideas
for new ones. The artist of this drawing seems to have first sketched a candelabrum motif, com-
posed of stacked classical vases and a flaming urn, decorated with festoons, fantastic masks, bosses,
and acanthus leaves. The incomplete escutcheon (one side of a presumably symmetrical composi-
tion) was added to the right, where its forms end abruptly at the edge of the candelabrum.
Encased by densely interwoven scrolls and strapwork, anchored by the grotesque, winged animal
head above and the mask below, the escutcheon may have been a design for a painted decoration
or carved frame. The background shading and modeling of forms are suggestive of relief and plas-
ticity. The candelabrum motif, however, with its drapery swags seems to have been intended for a
two-dimensional decoration.
 DISEGNO °* Ornament

The National Design Museum drawing has been variously dated about 1560 (in a note on
the mat) and about 1520 (by Gruber).
The ancient motifs of candelabra embellished with drapery
and the base with sphinxes were revived in the Renaissance. By the early sixteenth century they
were disseminated through prints.! The strapwork seen in the drawing, however, indicates a later
sixteenth-century date. The escutcheon resembles frames in Enea Vico’s Imagini delle donne auguste,
published in Venice, about 1550, while the “muscular” strapwork and sculptural forms are rem-
iniscent of Italian designs, like those of Giacomo Barozzi da Vignola (1507-1573) of the 1560s.
ERA

4
Study for Candelabrum Cooper-Hewitt,
Motif and Strapwork National Design Museum,
Escutcheon Smithsonian Institution
Italian, c. 1560s? Museum Purchase,
; General Purchase
Pen and brown ink,
Funds and Eleanor
black chalk, violet
G. Hewitt Funds,
watercolor
1938-88-292
10% x 4% in. ae oe
(263 X 125 mm) BIBLIOGRAPHY
New York 1959,
PROVENANCE
p. 6, no. 2;
Giovanni Piancastelli,
Gruber 1994, p. 201
Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward D. Brandegee,
Brookline, Mass.

Notes

1.See for example, Tivo Sphinxes and Two Children

(c.1505—15) by Giovanni Pietro da Birago in Bartsch xm,
p. 310, no. 3 2.

2. Raggio 1960, ills. pp. 216, 228, 230.

 DISEGNO °* Ornament

Designs for Grotesque Decoration

Italian, mid- to late sixteenth century

THESE THREE SKETCHES illustrate the whim-

sical motifs and delicate forms that characterize many sixteenth-century grotesque designs. In each
drawing, the edges of the sheet are framed by candelabra (rendered in half form) composed of a
fantastic variety of stacked vases, pedestals, platforms, and cartouches.
The airy central fields, strewn
with fringed drapery, garlands, trophies, and jeweled pendants, feature droll satyrs holding (inter
alia) a spindle, cornucopia, and trumpet. Images from the natural world are rendered in unnatural
relative scale, with dragonflies as large as rabbits and oak trees no bigger than a clump of flowers.
Apparently by the same hand and belonging together, these three sketches offer an inventive
range of choices for an ornamental field of grotesques. The sketches could have been part of a
unified decorative scheme for a two-dimensional decoration, such as a panel painting or fresco,
even an embroidery or tapestry.

SA 5B
 DISEGNO * Ornament

A note on the mount compares the sketches with the works of Nicoletto da Modena (see
Nos. 3A and 38) and Giovanni Antonio da Brescia, both active around 1500 and known for their
widely circulated engravings of grotesque ornament. While these two artists favored such motifs as
long-necked monsters and half-formed candelabra, which are present in the National Design
Museum sketches, their compositions were dense yet carefully arranged in static, horizontally
tiered constructions.' The National Design Museum grotesques are looser and more dynamic in
design, with elements casually arranged in diagonals rather than horizontals. In addition, the oval
strapwork frame has multiple piercings, a decorative detail found in the work of northern
European and Italian artists around the middle of the sixteenth century. This motif is distinguished
from the earlier form of strapwork with unbroken bands popularized by the school of
Fontainebleau in the 1530s. Finally, the uppermost festoons of No. 5B, formed of bunched masses
of vegetal material strung through with a narrow ribbon, are related to a form of garland found in
decorative works of the second half of the sixteenth century.3 These details suggest a similar, mid-
to late-sixteenth-century date for the grotesque sketches.

PROVENANCE

Cassiano dal Pozzo,

Rome; Cardinal
Alessandro Albani,
SA Rome; George 11,
Design for Grotesque England, after 1758;
Decoration Richard Dalton, auction

Italian, mid-late 1791; John McGowan;

sixteenth century Charles Townley; John
Townley; William
Pen and brown Stirling Maxwell; sale
ink over traces Phillips, London,
of black chalk 12 December 1990;
5% X 3%o in. [C. G. Boerner, Diisseldort
(135 x 80 mm) and New York].
SB Cooper-Hewitt, National
Design for Grotesque Design Museum,
Decoration ‘Smithsonian Institution,
Museum Purchase
Pen and brown ink
with Smithsonian
Tike pee li
Institution Collections
(179 X 92 mm)
Acquisition Program
sc Funds and the Gifts of
Design for Grotesque the Misses Leupp and
Decoration Mary Turlay Robinson,

Pen and brown ink over

1994-64-T,
2, 3
traces of black chalk BIBLIOGRAPHY
6% x 4% in. London 1990,
(173 X 110 mm) lot 286, p. 120

Three drawings
mounted on one
sheet
 DISEGNO * Ornament

These three sketches belonged to the renowned seventeenth-century collection of drawings

and prints assembled in Rome by Cassiano dal Pozzo (c. 1588-1657), and enlarged by his brother
Carlo Antonio (1606-1689). Dal Pozzo’s Paper Museum, or Museo Cartaceo as the collection was
called, comprised images from natural history and drawings after the antique by fifteenth-and six-
teenth-century artists and by artists working in dal Pozzo’s employ.4 Many of Cassiano dal Pozzo’s
volumes are preserved at the Royal Library at Windsor Castle in thirteen albums. The National
Design Museum drawings belonged to the two Stirling Maxwell volumes that were broken up
and sold at auction in 1990. These volumes included copies after the antique and ornamental
designs attributed to sixteenth-century artists active in Rome, including Perino del Vaga, Pirro
Ligorio, and Cherubino Alberti. The prints and drawings of ornamental motifs served as an
instructive reference source for dal Pozzo’s stable of painters, sculptors, and printmakers.* SHV

Notes

1, Bartsch xi, p. 286, no. §7 (Nicoletto da Modena); and
Illustrated Bartsch, XXV, commentary, p. 370, NO. 2511.047
(Giovanni Antonio da Brescia).
2. See examples of pierced strapwork in etching of a car-
touche byJean Mignon, 1544 (ill. Gruber 1994,p.393) and a
drawing attributed to Francesco Salviati in the Uffizi (972 &
recto, ill. in Mortari 1992, p. r80 no. 62).
Santa Maria dell’Anima, Rome (Mortari 1992, ill. pp. so-51;
compare to p. 118, no. 27) and in Battini 1553, pl. 8.
: yt:
4. Haskell in London 1993, pp. 1-10.A catalogue raisonné of
extant images from the Paper Museum, the majority of
which are now in the Royal Library at Windsor, is in
progress, and will result in a multivolume series, edited by
Francis Haskell and Jennifer Montagu.

3. See the festoons in the grotesque fresco decoration by 5. Amanda Claridge and Ian Jenkins in London 1993, pp.
Francesco Salviati in the Cappella della Pieta (1549-50), 20-26; Francesco Solinas in London 1993, pp. 227-28.

30
 FRAMES

rames surround and set off works ofart

and objects, from paintings to mirrors and
gems. This subsidiary role, however, does not
capture the importance and inventiveness
of framing devices in the Renaissance. In the The relationship between frame and pri-
late 1440s, the goldsmith and sculptor Lorenzo Hiary “object evolved in) the Renaissance.
Ghiberti described with pride his mounts for A wood frame, once fashioned together as
Cosimo de’ Medici’s ancient intaglio.! a single piece with a panel painting, was carved
Benvenuto Cellini, according to his sixteenth- as an independent object, sometimes designed
century autobiography, garnered the admira- by an artist or architect.3 The borders of tapes-
tion of—and commission from—a young noble tries were enriched with historical and allegor-
woman with his quick sketch for resetting ical themes. Raphael’s Sistine Chapel
some diamonds in a brooch.? Rosso’s frames tapestries, Acts of the Apostles, included scenes
for the Gallery of Francis 1 at Fontainebleau im fictive relich trom the lite of the patron
were among the most influential decorative Leo x that were woven into the frieze below.
designs of the sixteenth century; their forms Similarly, the pedestal, an ornamented platform
were disseminated through prints, which were for raising up sculpture, also became a site for
even issued without the frescoed scenes historia or narration, considered the noblest
within. The elaborate framing devices found. subject of art (No. 6).4
on title pages and the cartouches for portraits Frames around architectural openings were
in books and other printed series were imi- the locus for stone ornamentation. The archi-
tated as sources for other arts. tect Sebastiano Serlio was the first to publish
Renaissance framing devices were recast 1n illustrations devoted to the design of doors,
new forms and styles of ornament. Through- windows, and fireplaces (see Serlio 1537). His
out the fifteenth century, the escutcheon, definition of these decorations according to
derived from the medieval heraldic shield as a the classical orders were very influential
field for family arms, retained its geometric among northern architects and designers like
form with a closed, sometimes scalloped edge. Wendel Dietterlin.s In Italy, brackets, low
In the sixteenth century, however, the relief rinceaux, and candelabra on early
escutcheon evolved into the cartouche (a field Renaissance mantelpieces were replaced by
for nonheraldic imagery), and both were sub- such sculptural forms as columns, volutes, cary-
jected to fanciful variations and increasingly atids, and statues. Experimentation with archi-
complex ornament, encased by festoons, gar- tectural forms frequently found the most
lands, rinceaux, and, most particularly, strap-' fanciful expression in these surrounds. Serlio’s
work (Nos. 5, 7). mantelpiece with an ionic capital that
expanded into an attenuated frieze is derived
from an actual fireplace in the Villa Madama in
Rome, attributed to Giulio Romano (early
1§20s).° In a design by an unknown artist of
 DISEGNO °* Frames

the later sixteenth century (No. 8), the small

scrolled consoles typical of earlier mantel-
pieces are stretched into long, thin, standing
volutes with coiled springs at the head and
foot. Thus, the fireplace, a relatively recent
import to Italy from the North, evolved from a
simple structural frame to the ornamental focus
of a room. Giovanni Bertoldo’s well-known
bronze battle relief, now in the Bargello in
Florence, was originally set into a mantelpiece
in the Medici Palace. Giulio Romano turned a
fireplace in the Palazzo del Te into an erupting
Mount Aetna, highlighting the illusionistic
chaos and destruction in the Room of the
Giants. Elsewhere, at the Villa della Torre near
Verona and the Palazzo Zuccari in Rome,
fireplaces and doorways were transformed
into the gaping mouths of huge monstrous
masks.
BETH L.HOLMAN

Notes

1. Ghiberti-Morisani 1947, pp. 43-44.

i) > @ellimm) Life; 1) xx

3. New York 1990.

4. Shearman 1972, pp. 32, 37, 84-89. On historiated

pedestals, see Weil-Garris 1983, pp. 378-415.

5. Serlio’s division of architectural surrounds according to

the classical orders expands upon the discussion of
portal ornament in Vitruvius, Iv, vi, and Alberti,
On the Art of Building, vu, xii. See Dietterlin 1598.

6. See Serlio 1569, ill. p. 303. On the attribution of the Villa

Madama fireplace to Guilio Romano, see Frommel in
Mantua 1989, pp. 101-103.
 DISEGNO * Frames

6 Design for the Base of the Monument to Andrea Doria

mid-15 30s

After? BACCIO BANDINELLI (1493-1560)

THIS DESIGN by Baccio Bandinelli is for the

statuary base of a monument celebrating the Genoese naval hero and imperial admiral Andrea
Donia (1466-1560). In 1528, Doria freed his native Genoa from French control when he allied
himself with the Holy Roman Emperor Charles v. Installed by the emperor as de facto ruler of
Genoa, Doria supported the creation of anew constitution and fostered the city’s return to former
glory. In gratitude, a 7 October 1528 decree of the Republic of Genoa named Doria Pater Patriae
of the city and ordered that a bronze portrait statue be commissioned in his honor, to be placed in
the salone of the Palazzo della Republica.
In June of 1529, Bandinelli, then in Rome, received his first payment for the monument on
behalf of Cardinal Girolamo Doria. According to the contract with the artist, signed in Genoa two
months later, the material of the intended sculpture changed from bronze to marble. Then the
project seems to have stalled and the Doria, impatient with the delays, threatened the sculptor.
Bandinelli signed a new contract in 1536, by which time the subject and site of the commission
had also changed—to an allegorical portrayal of Doria in the guise of Neptune for display in
Genoa’s public square. In 1538, Bandinelli, who later complained he was not paid, abandoned the
project, then underway in Carrara, and left for Rome. The base was never executed and the
Genoese never received their statue of Doria as Neptune, which was set up above a sarcopha-
cus/fountain next to the duomo in Carrara.!
This drawing is one of three known designs by Bandinelli for the base of the Doria monu-
ment; the others are in the Louvre (Fig. 8) and the Ashmolean Museum.? All feature a large relief
flanked by caryatids or herms on the front of the pedestal. The central reliefs in the National
Design Museum and Louvre versions depict naval assaults on seaside fortifications, reminiscent of
scenes on the column of Trajan of Rome, and emphasize Doria’s maritime prowess. The scenes
may refer to Doria’s conquest of Korone in Greece (1532) or of La Goulette (Halq al Wadi) in
Tunisia (1535).3 The relief in the Ashmolean Museum design depicts the Doria family venerating
the relic of the head of Saint John the Baptist.4
Bandinelli’s designs for the Doria monument represent important early examples of the deco-
ration of statuary bases with narrative scenes or historiae. In the Renaissance, historia, more com-
monly associated with painting and literature, was considered to be the most noble subject for art.
By incorporating narrative scenes on the base of a statue, Bandinelli was among the first
Renaissance sculptors to give the pedestal this more significant role. As Weil-Garris noted,
Bandinelli’s designs for the base of the Doria monument “marked the apogee of his ambitions for
the pedestal form. It boasts an historical and allegorical program that rivals those of far larger
painted and sculptural complexes.”5 The historical pedestal later flourished in the hands of Cellini
and Giambologna.

313
 DISEGNO © Frames

Bandinelli’s pedestal designs with their rich variety of sculptural motifs, which in the National
Design Museum’s sheet encompasses turtles, sphinxes, a satyr mask, and cloaked herms, exemplify
the artist’s translation of antique motifs into sumptuous decoration. Bandinelli’s use of herms as
framing devices reflects the popularity ofthese classical architectural elements in the sixteenth cen-
tury. Male atlantes and female caryatids, used as supports in antiquity, often functioned in the
Renaissance as architectural bracing elements and as ornaments for furniture, caskets, fireplaces,
tombs, and sculpture.° In the three versions of the Doria pedestal, Bandinelli provided alternative
framing devices—caryatids in the Louvre drawing and trophies in the Ashmolean design—illustrat-
ing his versatility as a designer. The production of three very different designs demonstrated
Bandinelli’s inventiveness, of which he himself boasted: “so far as the drawings and models of any
invenzione are concerned, I have always made rather more of them than...requested from me.’’7
Typical of Bandinelli’s drawings, only one concept is depicted on a single sheet.’ The precise
execution and fine cross-hatching of the National Design Museum drawing suggest the finished
quality of a presentation design.? While the attribution of the National Design Museum drawing
to Bandinelli has been generally accepted, several scholars, including Roger Ward and Peter
Dreyer, have suggested that it might be a workshop copy after Bandinelli.!° The drawing seems
damaged, especially at the top (as noted in Draper 1988), perhaps from an early cleaning; this
impedes the final judgment on authorship. GWK

6
Design for the Base
of the Monument
to Andvea Doria
mid-1s5 30s

Pen and brown ink, Cooper-Hewitt,

black chalk ruled National Design Museum,
with straight edge Smithsonian Institution
13 5/6 x 107/16 in. Museum purchase,
(339 X 266 mm) ; Friends of the Museum
Fund and Eleanor G.
PROVENANCE
Hewitt Fund,
Giovanni Piancastelli,
1938-88-1741
Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward Brandegee, BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brookline, Mass. New York 1981b,
ill. 7; Cambridge 1982,
Pp. 323-24, no. 256;
Providence 1973, p.19,
no. 7; Weil-Garris 1982,
p. 400, fig. 23; Draper
1988, p. 138
 DISEGNO °* Frames

ce ieee

ele ac
 DISEGNO * Frames

FIG. 8
Baccio Bandinelli, Design
for Pedestal of the Andrea
Doria Monument, c. 1530s
(Musée du Louvre, Paris)

Notes

1. On the Doria commission, see Ward in Cambridge 8. Ward 1982, pp. 47-49.
1988, pp. 54-56, and Boccardo 1989, pp. 112-18; compare
g. Even though the drawing style contrasts with the strong,
to Vasari (Milanesi ed. 1906) 6, p. 157.
even heavy lines and cross-hatching characteristic of
2. Weil-Garris 1983, 405-408, figs. 24, 25; Cambridge Bandinelli’s drawings, other drawings attributed to him
1988, pp. 55-56. reveal a similar treatment, for example Standing Female Nude
(Biblioteca Reale, Turin); Hercules with the Apples of the
3. Boccardo 1989, p. 114.
Hesperides and Standing Male Nude (Musée du Louvre,
4. Weil-Garris 1983, p. 405 n. 148; Cambridge 1988, p. 56. Paris), ill. Cambridge 1988, figs. 6, 15, 30.

5. Weil-Garris 1983, pp. 407-408. 10. The attribution to Bandinelli has been accepted by
Colin Eisler and lan Wardropper in New York 1981b,
6. Herms appear as supports and frames on Bandinelli’s base
appendix, no. 7; Weil-Garris 1983, p. 396 n 83, p. 400, fig.
for Hercules and Cacus in Florence as well as pedestal designs
23; and Draper 1988, p. 138. Roger Ward, in Cambridge
by Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. Weil-Garris 1983,
1988, p. 56, and Peter Dreyer (verbal communication
p. 396. Vitruvius 1, 1 and vi, vii, discusses caryatids and
February 1996) consider it a copy or workshop drawing.
atlantes or telamones.

7. Cambridge 1988, p. 56.

 DISEGNO °* Frames

_ Tondo Design with Escutcheon

IC. 1566-78

|
INIG@ COL ONTROMETTA Yacdvers6s—-1-05)
(Niccolé Martinelli, also called Niccold da Pesaro)

THIS TONDO is centered with the armorial

device of an oak tree on a heart-shaped shield framed by a strapwork escutcheon. The allegorical
figures seated on each side of the heraldic arms represent two bastions of the Counter-
Reformation: Faith, on the left, holds the cross as her standard, while Religion, on the right, dis-
plays tablets representing the New and Old Testaments.! The tablet in Faith’s right hand with the
Latin inscription LIBER GENERATIONES IESU CHRISTI [The book of the generation of Jesus Christ]
quotes the opening words of the Saint Matthew Gospel, while the letters of pseudo-Hebrew script
to her left represent the Old Testament?
John Gere attributed this drawing to Niccolé Martinelli, called il Trometta, a painter associa-
ted with Taddeo Zuccaro, and active in Rome in the second half of the sixteenth century. In this
drawing the massive figural types with round faces, pointed chins, and small mouths are character-
istic of painters from Taddeo Zuccaro’s circle. Trometta’s signature trait, however, is his choice of
medium: thirty-five of the more than forty drawings attributed to him are executed on blue paper
in brown ink and wash with white heightening.3
The cardinal’s hat and arms presented in the escutcheon below identify (with near certainty)
the patron of Trometta’s design as Cardinal Giulio della Rovere (1535-78), second son of Duke
Francesco Maria 1 della Rovere and Eleanora Gonzaga, and brother of Guidobaldo 14 The oak
tree was the symbol of the powerful della Rovere family which had produced two popes, Sixtus Iv
(1471-84) and Julius 11 (1503-13), and, through papal connections, gained secular jurisdiction over
the duchy of Urbino. Cardinal Giulio owed his career advancements to family influence and polit-
ical skill. Elevated to the purple at age thirteen, he was a staunch supporter of the Counter-
Reformation measures that followed the close of the Council of Trent in 1563. He initiated
reforms in his own diocese as well as at the Cistercian abbey Fonte Avellana near Gubbio and the
convent of the Poor Clares of Ravenna.5
The notched and curling strapwork escutcheon framing the armorial shield reflects a taste cur-
rent in the second half of the sixteenth century.° The wreath encircling the perimeter of the tondo
was a common decorative device adaptable to a variety of purposes and scale, ranging from medals
or glazed ceramic armorials such as those produced by the della Robbia family, to Trometta’s own
 DISEGNO °* Frames

I
Tondo Design with PROVENANCE
Escutcheon Giovanni Piancastelli,
c. 1566-78 Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward D. Brandegee,
Pen and brown ink, :
Brookline, Mass.
brush and brown wash,
discolored white gouache Cooper-Hewitt,
over traces of black chalk National Design Museum,
on blue laid paper Smithsonian Institution
10% in. diam. (267 mm) Museum purchase, Friends
of the Museum Fund and
Eleanor G. Hewitt Fund,
1938-88-6895

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gere 119634; mors 0p) 17

 DISEGNO °* Frames

design for the ceiling fresco in the Roman church of Santa Maria in Aracoeli. The addition of
allegorical figures introduces a pictorial element to the circular design that, if not destined for
fresco or stucco, could have been intended as decoration for an object such as a maiolica plate.7
The design’s thematic organization is typical of presentation bowls, which were sometimes com-
. 5 . . . . . 4 e 5 .

missioned in commemoration of a special event and given as gifts.’ Maiolica was a vital industry of
;
Cardinal geen:
Rovere’s native duchy of Urbino, which encompassed at least four major ceramic centers
(Urbino, Gubbio, Castel Durante, and Pesaro), and was the site of several of his ecclesiastic
appointments and benefices.? SHV

Notes

1. The allegorical figures are identified in Gere 1963, p. 17, ill. Wilson 1987, p. 1or, no. 153), a Deruta dish and a
no. 30. Gubbio dish (c. 1525-30) in the Lehman Collection,
Metropolitan Museum ie ANE (1975.1.1038 and
2.1 am grateful to Dr. Mayer Rabinowitz, librarian of the
1975.1.1096; Rasmussen 1989, pp. 66-67, no. 38 and p. 202,
Jewish Theological Seminary, and to Susan Braunstein of
no. 122).
the Judaica Department of the Jewish Museum, who exam-
ined the “Hebrew” inscription. 8. See the presentation bowl for Pope Julius 1 made in the
workshop of Giovanni Maria Vasaro, Castel Durante, 1508
3. Gere 1963a, p. 10.
(Robert Lehman Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
4. This identification was first made by Grace Kaynor. The 1975.1.1015; ill. Rasmussen 1989, p. 101, no. 62) and the
other della Rovere cardinal in the second half of the six- presentation plate with seated allegorical figures beneath the
teenth century, Hieronymus (d. 1592), bishop of Turin, arms and inscribed name of Pope Clement vu, from
ambassador to France for the kingdom of Savoy, was not Cafaggiolo, c. 1523-7 (Kunstgewerbemuseum, Berlin; ill.
elevated to the purple until 1587. Hierarchia Catholica 1923, Cora and Fanfani 1982, p. 101, no. 86).
3, Pp. 51, 79, 309; Stumpo 1989, pp. 350-53. 9. Giulio della Rovere was legate of Perugia and Umbria,
5. Closely allied with Pius rv, Cardinal Giulio della Rovere archbishop of Ravenna (1566), and commendatory abbot of
served as bishop of Vicenza (1560-66), until he was named the monastery of Castel Durante (1569). Trometta may have
archbishop of Ravenna. Sanfilippo 1989, 37, pp. 356-57; participated in another della Rovere ceramic commission
Pastor 1924, 17, pp. 212-13 n 3, 218 n I, 244, 260-61 n 6; through his teacher Taddeo Zuccaro. From 1560 to 1562,
Pastor 1930, 19, p. 82. Taddeo and his workshop furnished historical scenes for the
important Urbino maiolica service given to Philip m of
6. See Frames and Nos. 4, 5.
Spain by Cardinal della Rovere’s brother Guidobaldo 1.
7. Wreaths frequently framed maiolica designs, see a Deruta Gere 1963b, p. 306-15; Milwaukee 1989, pp. 118-20, no. 29.
dish (c. 1500-20) in the British Museum (MLA 1855, 12-1, 50;

39
 DISEGNO °* Frames

Design for a Mantelpiece

Italian or northern European, second half of the sixteenth century

THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE AGES in Italy,

houses were warmed by open fires in the middle of a room. The use of wall fireplaces first devel-
oped in northern Europe and crossed the Alps into northern Italy, probably in the thirteenth cen-
tury and spread during the fourteenth century. Francesco da Carrara, having become accustomed
to their comfort in Padua, is credited with building the first two fireplaces in Rome during his visit
there in 1368.1 At first, the “pavilion” style fireplace, built out into the room with a substantial
hood (padiglione), predominated. Some fireplaces were set into the wall in Florence as early as the
beginning of the fourteenth century. In his treatise On the Art of Building (c. 1450), Leon Battista
Alberti wrote, “The hearth...should be prominent, it should be capable of warming several people
at one time, and it should have sufficient light but no draft.... The hearth, therefore, must not be
confined to some corner or recessed deep within the wall; at the same time, it should not occupy
the most important position in the room, where the guests’ table should be...the mouth at the bot-
tom should not stand out much from the wall.”’? By the sixteenth century, recessed fireplaces with
architrave mantles had become widely fashionable. Sebastiano Serlio (1475—1554), who noted that
the fireplace was unknown in antiquity, considered the new reduced style, which he distinguished
as French, to be suitable for small rooms.3 In contrast Vincenzo Scamozzi. (1552-1616) called the
projecting mantelpiece French in his 1615 treatise L’Idea della Architettura, noting that the thick walls
of rooms in Rome allowed fireplaces to be inset.4
The proliferation of small fireplaces meant that more rooms of the house could be heated.
Besides its original location in the kitchen and living hall, the fireplace became common in the
bedroom as well. Toward the end of the fifteenth century, mantelpieces for the salone, designed by
architects like Giuliano da Sangallo, became grander and more ornate.
Serlio, the first to publish a series of mantelpiece patterns (1537), discussed their types accord-
ing to the architectural orders. He defined the undecorated pavilion style as rustic, those with sim-
ple c-scrolls and convex consoles as Doric, and examples with Ionic scrolls or elaborated c-scrolls
as Ionic.5 The National Design Museum drawing of a rectangular mantelpiece set into a wall can
be interpreted as an example of the “Ionic” type. Its strapwork curves in Ionic scrolls, and one of
the central masks has scrolls in the place of ears, while the other has knots of fabric over the ears.
At the sides, strapwork consoles scroll forward to flank dropped finials.
It is difficult to attribute the present mantelpiece design, although its watermark with two
crossed arrows is an Italian type, possibly dating to the mid-sixteenth century. Other evidence sup-
ports a date no earlier than the 1550s or 1560s. Michelangelo’s Ionic capitals on the portico of the
Palazzo dei Conservatori, Rome, 1537-64, were surmounted by central masks with volute ears.
Masks similar to those in the drawing, with floral baskets and paterae, appear on the gallery of the
Palazzo Marino in Milan, designed by Galeazzo Alessi in 1558. The almost flat style of horizontal
strapwork in the lintel, alternately curved and angular, banded and plain, resembles strapwork car-
 DISEGNO °* Frames

8
Design for a Mantelpiece
Italian or northern
European, second half
of sixteenth century

Pen and brown ink,

brush and black wash,
over black chalk
9% x 8% in.
(245 x 208 mm)

Watermark:
two crossed arrows
ending in small knobs,
traces of a star? above
(similar to Briquet 6282;
1567, and Heawood 38,
40; Rome 1553-61)

PROVENANCE

Giovanni Piancastelli,
Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward D. Brandegee,
Brookline, Mass.

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
a oS : Smithsonian Institution
oro aa; Museum purchase from
Friends of the Museum
Fund and Eleanor G.
Hewitt Fund,
1938-88-6412
 DISEGNO °* Frames

touches by the Italian artist Benedetto Battini, published in Antwerp by Hieronymus Cock
(1553).° The strapwork, however, also reflects the international taste of the mid- to late sixteenth
century. The popularity of this ornamental device in northern Europe is demonstrated in prints by
Jacques Androuet du Cerceau (before 1520-d. 1585 or 1586) and Wendel Dietterlin (1550-1599).
Dietterlin’s mantelpieces also combine strapwork with leafy scrolls and dropped finials.7
If not by an Italian artist, this drawing certainly reflects the influence of Italianate sources in the
incorporation of the classical orders, treated with considerable license, and in the strapwork
ornamentation of the mantelpiece. The long fine parallel lines of shading in the hearth are sugges-
tive of engraving lines, indicating that this drawing may have been a model for, or copy after, an
unknown print. BOE:

Notes

1. For the evolution of the fireplace in Italy, see Schiaparelli 5. For “Ionic” mantelpieces, see Serlio 1537, pp. xlv
1983, 1, pp. 88-113, esp. 89, and Thornton 1991, pp. 20-27. (verso)—xlvui (recto).

2. Alberti, v, xvii. 6. Battini 1553; his cartouches were copied by Giovanni

Battista Pittoni for Lodovico Dolce’s Imprese Nobili (1566);
3. Serlio 1537, book tv, p. lix (verso): “Anzi in ogni picciola
Berlin 1939, 1, p. 82; Berliner and Egger 1981, p. 53. See
stanza si costuma fargli ilfuoco, dove in tal luoghi angusti, si usano
also Brussels 1970, p. 78; de Jong and de Groot 1988, p. 260,
questi camini tutti nel muro, detti camini Franceschi...” [It is cus-
no. 584.
tomary to build a fire even in every small room, where, in
such narrow places, these chimneypieces [set] entirely into 7. See Dietterlin 1598.
the wall are used, called French chimney pieces].

4. Scamozzi 1615, part 2, book v1, chapter xxxv, pp. 164-67.

 OBJECTAS ORNAMENT

gram and its materials—silver gilt, rock crystal,

and lapis lazuli-can be compared to the lavish
crucifix and candlesticks by Antonio Gentile
for the high altar of Saint Peter’s. The casket
and the altar service were both commissioned
ein each period, objects of daily use by the powerful and sophisticated Maecenas of
have been transformed into works of art art in cinquecento Rome, Cardinal Alessandro
reflecting the taste of the time. In the Farnese. Gentile’s altar service, the Farnese cas-
Renaissance, for example, desk sets (No. 13) of ket, and other ecclesiastic and secular furnish-
sophisticated imagery as well as classical forms ings (Nos. 10, 13) were miniature ensembles
and materials, such as cast bronze, were of architecture and sculpture. In Gentile’s
designed for the elite humanist culture of the crucifix design (No. 11), the two “slave
study or studiolo. Documented in palaces since figures,” realized as almost independent sculp-
the fourteenth century, studioli were rooms tures, may well have been drawn after three-
that also functioned as domestic treasuries for dimensional models, which the artist
precious books, artwork, and other rarities.! In harmonized with the architectural and orna-
1430, Guarino Guarini of Verona (1374- mental framework.
1460), scholar and, at the time, tutor to Display often took precedence over function.
Leonello d’Este, was given a “beautiful and Antique-style vases (a term that included
elegant” inkstand, decorated with putti, leaves, ewers and urns) were created in bronze, silver,
and branches.? By the end of the fifteenth hardstone, and other semiprecious materials
century, the university town of Padua had for the studiolo or guardaroba, while large dis-
become a center for the production of small play vases (vasi di pompa) ornamented creden-
bronze inkwells, candlesticks, and sand con- zas at banquets and occasions of state. These
tainers in the form of animals and figures; best vessels were sometimes designed by leading
known are the lively satyrs with shells and cor- artists like Bernardo Buontalenti for the
nucopias by the sculptor Andrea Riccio. Medici grand dukes in Florence (Fig. 2) and
Such accouterments were prized as objets de Francesco Salviati for the Farnese (Fig. 9).
vertu, works of artistic virtuosity. In 1505, Raphael’s pupil GianFrancesco Penni designed
Isabella d’Este was tempted to buy an inkstand a pair of large silver ewers “for ornament, to be
from the goldsmith and sculptor Cristoforo placed on the sideboards” in the palace of the
Foppa Caradosso, despite its exorbitant price bishop of Salamanca, to be brought out for
of 1,000 ducats; her agent urged her to pur- ostentatious show for visitors.5
chase it “even if it were 10,000 ducats...
because it is unique.’3 Among the most extrav-
agant, however, was the Farnese casket, of
which the actual function is unknown.4+ The
complexity of the casket’s iconographic pro-

43
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

Caravaggio. Polidoro’s vases on the facade of

the Casa Milesi in Rome became among the
FIG. 9
most often copied decorative arts designs from
Francesco Salviati, Design the early sixteenth century (Fig. 10). The
fora Vase, second third
of sixteenth century (The delight in fantastic forms (bizzarrie), also evi-
Metropolitan Museum of dent in the metalwork designs of Giulio
Art, New York, The Elisha
Whittelsey Collection, The
Romano, Francesco Salviati (Fig. 9), and Luzio
Elisha Whittelsey Fund, Romano (No. 15), was imitated in precious
1950)
metal and hardstone vessels throughout Italy
and beyond.
According to Benvenuto Cellini, some
goldsmiths specialized in the production of
large candlesticks, basins, ewers, and vases,
called grosseria, while others produced minute-
ria, such as gold mounts for vessels, jewelry, and
silverware.° Significantly, among those to excel
at both were two excellent draftsmen: Cellini
and Antonio Gentile. Cellini fashioned large
FIG. IO
After Polidoro da
silver vases for Francis t and Cardinal Cibo as
Caravaggio, Copy of Vase well as jewelry for Agostino Chigi’s wife.
from Palazzo Milesi Facade
Besides the monumental altar service for Saint
of the mid 1520s (Cooper-
Hewitt, National Design Peter’s, Antonio Gentili executed a “cupola-
Museum, Smithsonian
shaped” casket for the Medici, large silver
Institution)
vases, lamps, and bedwarmers, as well as gold
pens and an exquisite set of silverware (No. 18).7
BLH
Notes

1. Liebenwein 1988, pp. 19-135.

iN) . Baxandall 1971,

pp. 91, 157-58.

3. Luzio and Renier 1896, p. 307 (E veramente se VS. si

trovasse dieci milia ducati in cassa, io vi exortaria a non lo lassare
sorsanes on
perche l’e cosa unica). .

4. It has been suggested that the Farnese casket, which 1s

not listed in the 1588 inventory of the Farnese Palace
studiolo, was designed to hold a valuable book or manu-
In the sixteenth century, series of prints for script. Robertson 1992, pp. 43, 50, and Parma 1995, p. 150.

vases engraved by Enea Vico (No. 12) and oth- 5. (“Un vaso grande da acqua... che per V’uso delle credenze che in
ers reflect not only the taste for antiquity but SUN esse St tengono per ornamento” and “Monstrando... per
boria”). Cellini, Life, 1, xxii-xxv, and on vasi di pompa, see I,
also the popularity of such vasi di pompa.
Be cy.
Among the most influential designs were the
6. Cellini, Treatise, x1r, xvi; Cellini, Life, 1, xiix-xxi. See
vases and trophies frescoed in the 1520s on the also Baldinucci 1681 (1976), p.214 S.v. “‘orefice”’
facades of Roman palaces by Polidoro da
7. Chadour 1980, pp. 199-205.

44
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

9 Design for a Tripod Candlestick Base

{

| Italian, c. 15202-1543

THE LION ’S-PAW TRIPOD base was prevalent

on antique objects such as tables, candlesticks, and incense burners, and its form continued to be
used in medieval times on candlesticks. The tripod candlestick in this highly finished drawing,
squared for transfer, derives from a type of ancient bronze candelabrum that rose in a tall column
from a low base of three deeply bent knees. Tripod candlesticks were particularly popular through-
out the sixteenth century, especially those with naturalistic lon’s paws scrolling into acanthus
leaves, another classical motif favored by Renaissance designers.!
Although the sheet is cut down, the presence of a splash dish suggests that the object repre-
sented is a candlestick.
This is confirmed by a 1543 etching ofa short, probably domestic, candle-
stick by Augustin Hirschvogel (1503-1553; Fig. 11).2 Hirschvogel was a German painter of glass
and ceramics, a mathematician, cartographer, and printmaker, active in Nuremberg until 1536, then
in Ljubljana and Vienna.3 The print-the only one Hirschvogel made of a candlestick—reproduces
with great accuracy the same object as the drawing, including the ankle creases and lateral scrolls
of acanthus tips. The National Design Museum drawing, however, is not by Hirschvogel because
the graphic style and subtly modeled washes differ radically from his work, which is characterized
by fine lines, hatching, and cross-hatching, usually in black or gray-black ink.4 It remains unclear
whether Hirschvogel’s etching depended directly on this drawing or on an intermediary model;
for there are slight but notable differences between the two. In the print, Hirschvogel used a mask
instead of the leaf motif. Directly beneath the mask, he also has a white void or hole surrounded
by a raised lip, an apparent misunderstanding of the curled leaf tip on the back of the central
tripod leg. .
The classicizing, sculptural treatment of forms suggest an Italian origin for the drawing. The
possibility that Hirschvogel relied on an Italian source for his etching is not surprising; for the imi-
tation of Italian Renaissance motifs was common in early sixteenth-century German metalwork
designs.5 The influence of Italian Renaissance forms is so prominent in other Hirschvogel works
that it was once thought that he had traveled to Venice. An eighteenth-century annotation
Ligozzi is a mistaken identification of Jacopo Ligozzi (1547-1625) as the artist of the National
Design Museum drawing. Ligozzi, official court painter and superintendent of the Uffizi galleries
for the Medici Grand Duke Ferdinand 1, was not born until after the design had been published in
Hirschvogel’s print. ESE

45
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

0)
Design for a Tripod
Candlestick Base
Italian, c. 15207-1543

Pen and brown ink,

brush and brown wash
over traces of black
chalk, squared in black
chalk
5% x 5% in.
(132 X 132 mm)

Watermark:
H within a shield
(not in Briquet or
Heawood)

Annotated:
Ligozzi in graphite,
upper left of recto;
Di mano del Ligozzi
in pen and brown ink,
on verso; 8.138 in red
crayon, ON Verso

PROVENANCE
Giovanni Piancastelli,
Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward D. Brandegee,
Brookline, Mass.

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design
Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Museum purchase,
Friends of the Museum
fund and Eleanor
G. Hewitt Fund,
1938-88-8IT1

FIG. II
Augustin Hirschvogel,
Tripod, etching, 1543
(Kungliga Bibliotek,
Stockholm)

46
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

Notes

1.Richter 1926, pp. 86-87, 139; Braun 1932 (1973), pp. 507- 4. Compare Hirschvogel’s early drawings in Peters 1979, pp.
d
10, $14-16, 519-21, pls. 94-95, 99-102, 107-109; Bauer 1977, 359-92. On the use of black ink in Germany, see Lambert
Pp. 19-23, pls. 2-5, 8, 9, II, 13, 23, 24, 26-30; Pettorelli 1926, 1981,p. 12, and Meder 1978, p. 45.
pl. cx1, fig. 206. In addition to Verrocchio’s tomb for Piero
5. For the influence of classical Italian Renaissance style on
and Giovanni de’ Medici (1470-72), see Giulio Romano’s
Parade. : ie early-sixteenth-century German design, compare the acan-
repeated use oflion’s feet with acanthus leaves and similarly 7 S P
dara , ; yal thus finial in designs by Diirer
(also from Nuremberg), and
curled tips in his decorative arts designs; Bukovinska et al. ogee ( 8)
the waisted stem of acanthus leaves with beaded ring in
1984, p. 87, no. 13/17, and p. 160, no. 108/189. ; i .
prints of covered cup designs (¢.1520-25) by Albrecht
2. Collijn 1933, pp. 59-60, no. 70; see Hollstein (German) Altdorfer in Bartsch vi, p. 71, no. 87, and Hollstein
XIIIA, p. 213, no, 105; Bartsch rx, p. 200, no. 109. (German) 1, p. 231, no. 110; Kohlhaussen 1968, figs. 519, 523.
. F See also New York andN b 1986, p. =/laeey, ahayel
3. On Hirschvogel, see Thieme-Becker 17, pp. 138-40; / ae pee ee a
: Berlin 1988, pp. 256-260, nos. 162-167.
Hollstein (German) xia, pp. 141-242.
6. Thieme-Becker 17, pp. 138-40.

10 Design for a Candlestick

C. 1539-47

Attributed to PERINO DEL VAGA (Pietro Buonaccorsi, 1501-1547)

CHRISTIAN IMAGERY and classical profane

elements combine in this candlestick design attributed to Perino del Vaga. Rampant sirens that
metamorphose into scrolled acanthus leaves in the base derive from the classical grotesque tradi-
tion. The figures of haloed saints at the top and a roundel depicting an Ecce Homo scene at the base
indicate an ecclesiastical function. The tondo was inspired by roundel reliefs in the Arch of
Constantine. The arrangement of the figures, however, in which a large crowd dominates the fore-
ground and the central figure of Christ is shifted to the background, is unusual and was first intro-
duced by Lucas van Leyden in 1510.! |
Acquired by the Metropolitan Museum in 1950 with an attribution to Virgil Solis, the draw-
ing was reassigned to Perino del Vaga by Philip Pouncey in 1965. The candlestick was probably
intended for execution in metal, with the Ece Homo roundel.to be engraved in rock crystal.
Unlike the strong, highly finished draftsmanship of the rest of the candlestick, the tondo is lightly
sketched. The rapid impression of the scene is not precise enough to have served as an artisan’s
model, and a separate drawing may have been intended or executed, similar to the finished designs
by Perino for other rock crystal inserts. Perino designed a rock crystal platter with Noah’s ark and
crystal tondi with scenes of Christ’s miracles carved by Giovanni Bernardi da Castel Bolognese
(d. 1553) beginning in 1539. These tondi were eventually incorporated into Antonio Gentile’s altar

47
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

10
Design for a Candlestick
C.1539~47
Pen and brown ink,
brush and gray and
brown wash, over traces
Metropolitan Museum
of Art, The Elisha
Whittelsey Collection,
The Elisha Whittelsey
Fund, 1950,50.605.30
BIBLIOGRAPHY

of black chalk or char- South Bend 1980, p. 107,

coal on two joined no. 104; Chadour 1980,
pieces of paper pp. 207-208; Bean 1982,
16/6 x 87/6 in. p. 181, no. 173
(414 x 222 mm)

PROVENANCE

Litta; Dr. Max A.

Goldstein, Saint Louis;
Janos Scholz, New York .

10

FIG. 12
Perino del Vaga,
Design for a Candlestick,
c. 1§39-47 (Christ
Church, Oxford)
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

service for Saint Peter’s in Rome (see No. 11) and a casket now in Copenhagen. Perino also pro-
vided drawings for the crystals with classical scenes executed by Bernardi and set into the Farnese
casket (1543-44).3
A second Perino drawing of a candlestick, also with a scene of the Ecce Homo, now in Christ
Church, Oxford (Fig. 12), may be for the same project.4 The candlestick in that drawing has a very
similar profile and construction, with the exception of the semi-pyramidal base on paw feet
scrolling into acanthus.The different arrangement of figures in the Ecce Homo as well as its variant
format—trapezoidal in the Christ Church drawing and round in the Metropolitan Museum’s-sug-
gest that Perino did not have a preexisting intaglio image in mind and may have been modifying
this element of the design. The Christ Church drawing contains an upper section of the candle-
stick, which is cut off in the Metropolitan Museum’s version. Accordingly, Jacob Bean suggested
that the two joined leaves of the Metropolitan Museum version were probably originally joined to
a third leaf at the top, now missing.5 ESE

Notes

1. Washington 1983, pp. 96-97, no. 30 (Lucas van Leyden’s Perino del Vaga in Monaco, Prague, Paris (Musée du
Ecce Homo). For Renaissance copies after the Arch of Louvre), Chatsworth, and New York (Pierpont Morgan
Constantine, see Bober and Rubinstein 1986, pp. 214-16 Library) as well as two drawings sold at auction (Milan,
no. 182. 1964); also for the actual crystal plaquettes in the Farnese
sn casket (Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples), the
2.The attributions are noted on the mat. Comparable long-
ae é Saint Peter’s altar service (Treasury, Saint Peter’s), the octag-
necked sirens appear in the artist’s spalliera for
onal silver casket (National Museum, Copenhagen), and a
Michelangelo’s Last Judgment (now in the Galleria
rock crystal platter with a scene of Noah’s ark designed by
Nazionale di Palazzo Spada, Rome); see Armani 1986, pp.
Perino and executed by Bernardi (Museo degli Argenti,
188-89, fig. 228.
Florence).
3. See Armani 1986, pp. 188, 195-203, 326-28, figs. 220-27,
4.See Byam Shaw 1976, p. 141, no. 480.
236-43, 332-35, 349-SI, 356; and Robertson 1992, pp. 36-38,
45, for designs for the rock crystal inserts by and after 5. Bean 1982,p. 181.

49
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

Il Design for the Base of the Silver Crucifix

for the High Altar of Saint Peter’s, Rome
Gilsvosoe

ANTONIO GENTILE (Gentili, c. 1519-1609)

THISIS THE ONLY KNOWN preparatory draw-

ing for the sixteenth-century crucifix for the high altar in Saint Peter’s, Rome, one of the most
important examples of the Renaissance goldsmith’s art. The silver gilt crucifix (Fig. 13), orna-
mented with rock crystal and lapis lazuli, as well as two accompanying candlesticks were designed
and executed by Antonio Gentile, who inscribed ANTONIO GENTILI FAENTINO F. on the tenon joint
of the crucifix.! The patron of this lavish altar service was Cardinal Alessandro Farnese
(1520-1589), whose armorial device of six fleurs-de-lis appears in the National Design Museum
drawing and on the actual crucifix.2 Cardinal Farnese may have intended the cross as a replace-
ment for the famous silver cross of Charlemagne, which was melted down in 1550 and whose
material, purchased by the cardinal the following year, was incorporated into the new crucifix and
candlesticks, according to Angelo Rocca in 1609.3
It is generally believed that the altar set was begun by the Florentine goldsmith Manno Sbarri,
who was working on a crucifix and candlesticks for Cardinal Farnese in i561. In Farnese’s will of
1574, Sbarri is cited as the artist of an iacomplete altar set.4 The goldsmith died in 1576, and in
1578 the commission for the altar service was given to Gentile. In 1582, the three-piece altar set
was ceremoniously donated by the cardinal to Saint Peter’s and installed in the basilica. According
to an avviso of that year, the crucifix and candlesticks cost 18,000 scudi, with 6,500 scudi charged
for workmanship alone.5
The altar set for Saint Peter’s is Gentile’s famous masterpiece.° Thus, the drawing in the
National Design Museum is an important and rare example of this artist’s works on paper; for it
shows his design process.
The large scale of this detail study enabled him to envision the completed
front elevation of the crucifix base (Fig. 14). Gentile first lightly sketched the base design in black
chalk, then fixed the structural and ornamental details of the top and left side of the drawing in
brown ink. Almost all the finalized elements evident from the drawing were incorporated into the
finished crucifix. The drawing also illuminates the changes that took place in the project. In the
executed object, Gentile eliminated the garlands suspended from the mask at the top of the sheet,
lowered the mask so that the drapery overlaps the fluted frieze, and broadened the plinth.
Gentile reserved a central oval in the design to indicate the space for a rock crystal panel. The
crystal already existed, one of a series designed by Perino del Vaga and carved by Giovanni
Bernardi (d. 1553) beginning in 1539, with at least one (signed) and possibly two other (unsigned)
crystals added by Bernardi’s pupil and assistant Muzio da Zagaroli (c. 1525-1596). Also commis-
sioned by Cardinal Farnese, the rock crystals depict scenes of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection.7
The crystal on the crucifix base, representing the Last Supper, is framed by two slave figures, which

50
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

NS AR
oe ))
9
cf

II
a a Design for the Base
i of the Silver Crucifix
for the High Altar
of Saint Peter’s, Rome
c. 1578-82

Pen and brown

ink, brush and brown
wash, black chalk
193/sX 13 in.
(492 x 330 mm)
Verso:
Sketch in pen and
brown ink for tondo
with pieta

PROVENANCE

Giovanni Piancastelli,
Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward D. Brandegee,
Brookline, Mass.

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Museum purchase,
Friends of the Museum
Fund and Eleanor
G. Hewitt Fund,
1938-88-6982

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berliner 1951,
pp. §1-52;Cooper Union
Chronicle, 1952, p. 973
New York 1959, p. 88,
no 10; Gramberg 1981,
pp. 106-107, fig. 15;
? 2 es Chadour 1980, pp.70-
‘<2 - : j _ ee 73; Chadour 1982,p.
IGS ere se : 153, fig. 29; Lynes 1987,
p. 63; Dillon 1989, p. 48

II
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

FIG. 13
Antonio Gentile (Gentili),
Crucifixfor High Altar of
Saint Peter’s, Rome, 1582 ‘
(Property of the Capitolo
di San Pietro in Vaticano,
Rome)

FIG. 14
Antonio Gentile (Gentili)
Detail of Base of Crucifix:
for
High Altar of Saint Peter's,
Rome (Property of the
Capitolo di San Pietro in
Vaticano, Rome)
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

were common on the bases of ecclesiastic candlesticks and crosses. The slaves in Gentile’s crucifix,
accommodated within the concave sides of the base, bend as if weighed down and echo the curves
of the volutes supporting the upper section of the crucifix.
The slaves and scene of the Last Supper
initiate a series of images—the four Evangelists, putti with the instruments of the Passion, and four
victories—that climax in the crowning rock crystal panel of the triumphant Resurrection.
It has been suggested that Gentile based his altar service on a design by Michelangelo.'° The
slaves’ poses and muscular bodies, modeled with dramatic chiaroscuro washes in the crucifix draw-
ing, demonstrate the influence of the renowned sculptor. Indeed, Gentile himself said that he kept
in his studio many casts after works by Michelangelo.'! The design of the altar service also reflects
influences of other artists employed by the Farnese, such as Salviati, and especially Guglielmo della
Porta, who executed the tomb of Farnese Pope Paul mm in Saint Peter’s.!?
Although a cross and two candlesticks are mentioned as altar furnishings in the writings of
Pope Innocent mi (1198-1216), altar services are not given a prescribed place in the liturgy until the
Counter-Reformation and the publication of the 1570 Roman missal by Pope Pius v.13 During
the Renaissance, matching ensembles of crucifix and candlesticks appear to have been popular,
often featuring triangular bases resting on volutes or lion’s paw feet and with baluster-shaped
stems.!4
Following the construction of Bernini’s Baldacchino (1624-33) over the high altar in Saint
Peter’s, Gentile’s work seemed out of scale with the towering structure.
To increase the visibility of the
candlesticks and crucifix, Cardinal Francesco Barberini commissioned Carlo Spagna to create four
more candlesticks and to raise the crucifix, which is now nearly two meters tall.To accomplish this,
Spagna inserted two ornamental bands featuring the Barberini bees above the figures of victories on
the shaft of the crucifix (1670—72).15 GWK
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

Notes

1. Gentile is named as the artist of the altar service in the on the bases of Annibale Fontana’s 1580 altar service in the
2 June 1582 document of its donation by Farnese to Saint Certosa of Pavia; anonymous sixteenth-century design for
Peter’s. Chadour 1980, pp. 23-24 and fig. 3; Chadour 1982,p. candlestick in Berlin; and Salviati’s design in Turin. Pope-
140 and fig. 2. Gentile’s authorship is confirmed in an Hennessy 1971, fig. 152; Baur 1977, fig. 70; Chadour 1980,
inscription on an engraving of the crucifix which dates fig. 123; Dillon 1989, fig. 1.
after the death of Cardinal Farnese in 1589 and before the
g. In the arms of the crucifix are rock crystal ovals of the
changes to the altar set in the 1670s. Gramberg 1981, p. 107;
Passion, and on the back of the crucifix are reliefs of the
Chadour 1982, p. 142. For the history of the commission,
four church fathers and a central relief identified as the
see Lotz 1951, pp. 260-62; Chadour 1980, pp. 23-45;
Assumption of the Virgin (Chadour 1980, p. 62) and as an
Gramberg 1981, pp. 105-107; Chadour 1982, pp. 133-43.
allegory of Christian virtue (Gramberg 1981, p. 105).
2. The back of the crucifix base“is inscribed: ALEXANDER
to. Chadour 1982, p. 140; compare New York 1959, p. 8;
FARNESIUS CARD. VICECAN. HUIUS BASILICAE ARCHIPRESB.
Hayward 1976, p. 367; Lynes 1987,p. 63.
Pp. D., referring to Cardinal Farnese’s titles of papal vice chan
cellor and archpriest of Saint Peter’s. The altar service is fur- 11. Hayward 1962,p.415 n. 3; Chadour 1982,p. 156. In addi-
ther ornamented with the personal devices, including lily tion, Gentile’s figures of prophets and sibyls are reminiscent
blossoms and the ship of Argo, of both Cardinal Alessandro of Michelangelo’s sculptures sin San Pietro in Vincoli
Farnese and of his grandfather Pope Paul 1 (1534-49). in Rome and San Lorenzo in Florence. Chadour 1982,
Chadour 1980, pp. 23, 110-16; Chadour 1982, pp. 140, 144-46. PP. 154-57.

3. Lotz 1951, p. 261; Chadour 1980, pp. 30-31; Gramberg
1981,p. 105.
4. Lotz 1951, pp. 260-62; Chadour 1980, pp.
Gramberg 1981, p. 105. Gramberg has argued that Sbarri
executed the top portion of the actual crucifix, and Gentile
was responsible for the base. Chadour has questioned the
association of Sbarri with the altar set executed by Gentile.
Sbarri worked on the Farnese casket with its rock crystals
engraved by Giovanni Bernardi as well as other commis-
sions for the Farnese family. Robertson 1992, pp. 40-48.
5. Chadour 1980, pp. 23-26, 31-32; Chadour 1982, pp. 140-42.
6. Berliner first identified this drawing in 1951.
7. Kris 1929, pp. 62-72; Chadour 1980, pp. 160-68; Chadour
1982, pp. 142-43. On the friendship between Bernardi and
Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, see Robertson 1992, p. 36.
8. Compare bound satyrs similarly placed on
Paschal Candlestick in San Antonio in Padua; the slave figures
12. Chadour 1982, pp. 156-65; Dillon 1989, p. 46-48, fig. 1.
Dillon and other scholars have suggested that Salviati’s
drawing in Turin represents an early design for the Saint
30-33;
Peter’s altar set begun by Sbarri. Similar to Gentile’s
crucifix, Salviati’s design incorporates lion’s paws and heroic
nude slave figures with volutes below and console above;
but the horizontal orientation of the oval reserve in
Salviati’s design contrasts to the vertical format in Gentile’,
suggesting that the two artists may have been working with
different rock crystal intaglios.
13. Braun 1932 (1973), pp. 468-71, 494-97; Chadour 1980,
pp. 46-50.
14. Hernmarck 1977, p. 336; see also Chadour 1980, figs.
126-29.
15. New York 1983, pp. 67-68; Chadour 1980, pp. 30-34. The
height of the actual crucifix is 1.93 meters or 6 feet,
Riccio’s 4 inches.

$4
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

2A. “Ewer with aBas-Relief

1543
i

2B Vase Decorated with Figures, Rinceaux, and Festoons

1543 ;

2C: Ewer with a Satyr Holding a Large Conch

1543

ENEA VICO (1523-1567)

THESE PRINTS BELONG to a set of fourteen

engravings of vases and ewers, inscribed Romae ab antiquo repertum [At Rome, discovered from the
antique], by one of the leading printmakers of mid-sixteenth-century Rome, Enea Vico (see
No. 1).1 The demand for classical models was such that Enea Vico’s series of 1543 was just one of
three sets of engravings of antique Roman vases to be published within a brief time span. In 1530
and 1531, Agostino dei Musi (Veneziano) engraved twelve plates entitled Sic Roma Antiqui Scultores
ex Aere et Marmore faciebant, and, between 1542 and 1544, Leonardo da Udine printed a group of
ten vases inscribed Ex Romanis Antiquitabus.2 These artists used the fashionable cachet of the
antique to market a range of traditional classical motifs. Vico’s three prints, for example, feature
rinceaux, swags, shells, bucrania, herms, and masks. The prototypes for these prints included mar-
ble vases and urns found in the antique sculpture gardens of Renaissance popes and cardinals.3
Despite their inscriptions claiming antique authenticity, vases and ewers by Vico and others
were combinations of ancient motifs and newly invented ones—producing creative amalgams that
distort the proportion and form of the antique models. One Agostino Veneziano vase of 1531
(Bartsch 547), reissued with Vico’s set in 1543 (Bartsch 420), is even ornamented with the
Renaissance Medici emblem. While individual designs on the bodies of the vessels were usually
copied faithfully from classical originals, the missing handles, spouts, lids, and finials were
“restored” by the printmaker with fantastic forms.+ Actual ancient works were similarly “restored”
in this period; for example, the well-documented, ancient candelabra from Sant’Agnese and now
in the Vatican were altered in the early sixteenth century.‘
Vico’s prints were widely disseminated and copied, for example by the French designer and
printmaker Jacques Androuet du Cerceau the Elder (before 1520-1585 or 1586), transmitting an
accumulation of ornamental elements to artists throughout Europe. Not only were they popular
sources of inspiration for craftsmen wishing to produce works in the antique style, but they also
provided a varied catalogue of motifs upon which to draw. Their influence can be seen in a range
of media from metal to ceramic and glass.A Saint-Porchaire pottery ewer from France (Fig. 15), for
example, has a scallop shell mouth and a double serpent handle that is similar to Vico’s Ewer with a
Bas-Relief (No. 12).° TLR

33)
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

Notes

1. Bartsch xv, pp. 350-53, nos. 420-33.

The first and four- 5. Nesselrath inVatican 1984, p. 98; see also No. 3. Compare
teenth plates of the series issued by Antonio Lafrery (see the replacement of missing arms on the ancient sculpture of
Bartsch xv, p. 350, no. 420, and p. 352, no. 428) are reversed Laocoon and his sons by Bandinelli and others. Bober and
copies of Agostino Veneziano’ earlier series of vases (Sic Rubinstein 1986,p. 153.
Romae Antiqui Sculptores ex Aere et Marmore faciebant; Bartsch
6. Wilson 1993, pp. 243, 248 n.6. Also compare the Genoese
XIV, p. 388, no. 546, and p. 389, no. 547. This suggests that
metalwork ewer for the Lomellini family, dated 1619
Vico’s original set may have consisted of twelve plates. I
(Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) with a scallop shell mouth
would like to thank Elizabeth Miller at the Victoria and
and bands of decoration on the body. An Italian rock crystal
Albert Museum for clarifying this.
ewer (Rajksmuseum, Amsterdam) also has bands of incised
2. Bartsch xtv, pp. 387-90, nos. 541-52 (Veneziano). decoration over the body of the vessel reminiscent of the
rinceaux and gadrooning in Vico’s Ewer with a Satyr Holding
3. New York 198 1a, p. 99.
a Large Conch-xil. Hayward 1976, p. 371 and pl. 356; Gruber
4. Hayward 1962, p. 160; Hayward 1972, p. 378; Gruber 1994, pp. 31, 156.
1994, p. 122.

56
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

I2A
Ewer with
a Bas-Relief
1§43

Engraving:
10% x 7% in.
(271 x 197 mm)

Watermark: Inscribed:
crown (?) ROMAE AB ANTIQUO
in a shield (cf. REPERTUM M.D.
Heawood 1127? XXXXIU; AB. V.; XI
Florence, ¢. 1647)
Cooper-Hewitt,
Sheet: National Design
15% x 10% in. Museum, Smithsonian
(391 x 263 mm) Institution
Gift ofE.FE
Inscribed:
Caldwell & Co.
ROMAE AB ANTIQUO
1963-9-250
REPERTUM M.D.

XXXAIII;
AE. V,; IT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartsch xv, p. 352,
Cooper-Hewitt,
no. 429 New York
National Design
IO8TA,p. 99, nO. 123;
Museum, Smithsonian
Institution
WAC
Gift of E. FE
I2C
Ewer with a Satyr
Caldwell & Co.,
Holding a Large
1963-9-243 Conch
BIBLIOGRAPHY 1$43
Bartsch xv, p. 352,
Engraving:
no. 430 10°16 X 7% in.
(263 x 186 mm)
12B
Vase Decorated with Sheet:
Figures, Rinceaux, 15% X 10% in.
and Festoons (391 xX 260 mm)
1543
Inscribed:
Engraving: ROMAE AB ANTIQUO
10% x 7% in. REPERTUM M.D.
(265 X 197 mm) XXXXII; AE. V.; XIII

Sheet: Cooper-Hewitt,
15 % X 10% in. National Design
(391 x 263 mm) Museum, Smithsonian
Institution
Gift of E. FE
Caldwell & Co.,
1963-9-252

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bartsch Xv, p.353,

no. 433; Hayward
FIG. 15 1976, p. 339,pl. 14.
French, mid-sixteenth
century, Saint-Porchaire
Ewer (Musée du Louvre,
Paris)

wh i
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

Design for an Inkstand

second half of the sixteenth century

After FRANCESCO SALVIATI (1510-1563)?

THIS HIGHLY FINISHED DRAWING was part

of the Perman collection of twenty-four sheets of decorative arts designs that have been consid-
ered copies after Francesco Salviati (see No. 17).! The three-tiered object depicted in this drawing
is decorated with reclining female nude allegorical figures. The winged, laurel-crowned figure at
the top, leaning on a pile of books and writing on a tablet with a stylus, probably represents
History or Fame.? In a framed oval on the second tier, an unidentified figure holds an object in
her right hand and extends her left to offer a wreath.3 In the bottom tier, the figure at the left is
also yet to be deciphered. The figure on the right holding a cross and pointing to an open book
represents Faith or some aspect of theology.4 In light of the repeated book motifs and references
to learning, it seems likely that the casket was intended to be an inkstand (calamaio) or box for
writing implements.’ Renaissance inkstands were multilevel containers with stacked trays and a
base divided into compartments of various sizes and shapes. Cylindrical compartments served as
inkwells and possibly as receptacles for sand. In some extant maiolica inkstands, paintings at the
bottom of each compartment illustrate their intended contents, which included quills, rings, scis-
sors, knives, a graver, and a polisher.®
Inkstands of this period are closely linked to caskets in style and form. Cassette (boxes),
forzierini (strong boxes), and cofanetti (caskets) were used for valuable and personal items like gems,
coins, playing cards, and toiletries. Highly ornamental caskets were often executed in bronze,
sometimes decorated with precious and semiprecious materials like rock crystal, and probably
placed prominently on a table or shelf.7 In function, design, and decoration, Italian Renaissance
caskets were smaller versions of the cassone or large wooden chest.8 The motifs found on caskets
may reflect those on the larger cassone, commonly decorated with representations of the four car-
dinal virtues, the liberal arts, even a reclining female nude found inside some cassoni lids.9
Inkstands shaped similarly to the Metropolitan Museum design survive in both metal and
maiolica, often topped by figural groups (Fig. 16).'? Winged female figures with laurel branches on
their heads and in their hands form a sculptural group atop another similarly shaped casket design
attributed to Perino del Vaga (Fig. 17). These inkstand designs also may have been influenced by
the tomb of Pope Sixtus 1v (d.1484), completed in 1493 by Antonio Pollaiuolo, with its chamfered
sides and panels of female allegorical figures of the Arts and Sciences.!! ERA
 DISEGNO °* Object as Ornament

13
Design for PROVENANCE

an Inkstand Einar Perman,

second half of Stockholm
sixteenth century
Metropolitan Museum
After Francesco
FIG. 16 of Art, Rogers Fund,
Salviati (15 10-1563)?
Italian, Bronze Casket, 1966,66.618.8

second half of sixteenth Pen and brown ink

BIBLIOGRAPHY
over black chalk with
century (Courtesy of New York 198 ta,
ruled lines
the Board of Trustees of p. 98, no. 120
(10/6 x 16 3/0 in.)
the Victoria and Albert
276 X 427 mm
Museum, London)
Annotated:
19 in pen and brown
ink and D27404 1n
lower right corner

13
 DISEGNO * Object as Ornament

FIG. 17
Attributed to Perino del
Vaga, Design for a Casket,
C. 1530s or 15408 (to 1547)
(Uffizi, Florence).
Photograph by Nicolo
Orsi Battaglini

Notes .

rt. Other casket designs also attributed to Salviat? (Uffizi 7. On caskets, see Thornton 1991, p. 204. Examples of cas-
15775, 16125), although different in shape (box-like), share kets with rock crystal plaques include Valerio Belli’s Casket
motifs with those in the Metropolitan Museum drawing, (Museo degli Argenti, Florence), the Farnese Casket (Museo
for example the application of female grotesque creatures Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples), and a French six-
and rams’ heads at the corners, framed ovals and rectangles teenth-century casket in the Victoria and Albert Museum.
around the sides, and chamfered lids with reclining figures. Hayward 1963, p. 12, fig. 10, and Hayward 1976, pls. 244,
Robertson 1992, p. 41, figs. 24, 25. 321. For the placement of the casket in a room, see
Stradanus’s drawing Vanitas, 1594, in the Teyler Museum,
2. Hall 1979,p. 119, 154.
Haarlem. Thornton 1991, fig. 266.
3. Janet Byrne identified the objects in the figure’s hand as
8. Leningrad 1983,p. 18; Thornton 1991, p. 204.
rushes and the top figure as a muse. See New York 1981a, p.98.
g. Leningrad 1983, pp. 9-10.
4. Hall 1979, pp. 118-19.
10. Compare to the maiolica inkstand from Urbino (possi-
5. See Hans (the Elder) and Elias Lenker’s gilt and enam-
bly the Patanazzi workshop), c. 1580-90, in the Wallace
eled, multitiered writing casket with a partially draped,
Collection, London (inv. c112). Although missing its lid, this
seated female figure (Rheforic) on top teaching a putto to
inkstand also has a lower rectangular box similarly raised up
read as well as putti with attributes of Grammar,
on lion’s-paw feet, with a chamfered upper (originally mid)
Mathematics, Astronomy, and Music (c.1§85, Schatzkammer,
section. Other late sixteenth- or early seventeenth-century
Residenz, Munich). Hayward 1976, p. 385, 491. Luzio
examples of maiolica inkstands, generally raised up on hon’s
Romano's Study fora Casket (Uffizi 1610 £) is topped with a
paws and topped with sculptural groups, are in the Museo
female figure leaning on a pile of books, which led Bernice
Internazionale delle Ceramiche, Faenza; Spitzer Collection,
Davidson to suggest that the casket may have been intended
Paris; Museo Civico, Bologna; and Walters Art Gallery,
to hold precious books or manuscripts. Florence 1966, p. 70,
Baltimore. De Libero 1950, pp. 99-101; Ballardini 1950, pls.
no. 73, fig. 72.
XXVI-XxviIll; Norman 1976, pp. 229-31, 233-34.
6. Norman 1976, p. 230.
11. Ettlinger 1953, pp. 239-74.

60
 DINING
PLEASURES
s& ew events were designed to please as|
many senses through such a variety of arts as
the banquet. Feasts for the palate, accompanied
by entertainment such as music, dance, and
recitation, banquets were also visual and tactile
orchestrations of food and luxurious appoint-
ments. Vessels of silver and gold, maiolica and
porcelain, glass and crystal were ornamented
with colored enamels and hardstones, as well as.
ivory, coral, and even seashells. Walls and ceil-
ings were hung with tapestries, silks, or tooled
leather. White linens, sometimes embroidered
with gold and silver threads, covered the tables,
which were often laden with fragrant flowers
and leaves. Scented waters were used to wash
the diners’ hands. Napkins were intricately
folded into the shapes of arches and columns,
animals and figures.' Sometimes a single
theme was ingeniously incorporated into the
decorations. A marine fantasy was created for
the 1565 wedding feast in Ferrara of Alfonso 11
and Barbara of Austria, with tableaux of “grot-
tos” and “reefs” decorating the table. Cloths
and dishes were formed into marine animals,
gold “fish scales” applied to the napkins and
even to the clothes of the servants who were
transformed into “‘sea creatures.”
Elaborate feasts, often celebrating impor-
tant events like weddings, state visits, or reli-
gious holidays, provided the occasion for the
ostentatious display of material wealth.
Precious plate was set out on a credenza (Fig.
18). Food and decorations were produced in
conspicuous plenitude and variety and at great
Cost, Injisa3,. Pope” Léo- xs brother and
nephew Giuliano and Lorenzo de’ Medici
were richly féted upon their award of Roman
citizenship. A banquet was given in a tempo-
rary theater built on the Campidoglio before a
large audience. Contemporary accounts detail
the “abundance and diversity” of the nearly
one hundred dishes—‘‘enough to feed almost
all the population of Rome.” Gold and silver
vessels, praised for their “multitude, variety,
size, workmanship,’ were set out on twelve
levels of a credenza—a mountain of wealth val-
ued at 16,000 ducats by one observer and as
high as 100,000 ducats by another. Such a
spectacle of magnificenza was a demonstration
of the patron’s liberality and often ended with
a general distribution of food to the populace.3
More private but equally legendary were
the Renaissance banquets given by the Sienese
papal banker Agostino Chigi. He was so
wealthy that he could serve an entire banquet
on precious plate without washing and reusing
a single one. After each course of one dinner,
his servants tossed the used gold and silver ves-
sels into the Tiber River. Although the vessels
were recovered from nets (hidden in the river
beforehand), this dramatic gesture was still
recounted a hundred years later by Fabio
Chigi (Pope Alexander vi).4
FIG. 18 Since antiquity, banquets combined culi- the Kettle” (del Paiuolo), artists vied with each
Apollonio di other to create inventive and witty tableaux of
nary and nonculinary arts with scenographic
Giovanni, Dido’s
Feast, ms. Rucc. flair to impress and astonish guests.5 Cooked food.The painter Andrea del Sarto constructed
492, fol. 751, animals were brought to the table with skin an edible architectural model with a gelatin
c. 1450 (Biblioteca
Riccardiana, and feathers intact and posed as if alive, some- mosaic floor, sausage “porphyry” columns with
Florence). times in landscaped settings; live animals were parmigiano cheese bases and capitals, and sugar
Photograph by
Nicolo Orsi secreted in cooked pastries. Food was not only cornices. Inside, a “choir” of cooked, open-
Battaglini heavily spiced and sauced, but also colored and beaked songbirds surrounded a cold veal
gilded with silver or gold leaf and sculpted lectern and music sheets of lasagne marked
into the shapes of animals, figures, and archi- with pepper grain notes.7
tecture. For medieval food sculptures or In the Renaissance, sugar sculptures evol-
entremets (a term also used for entertainments), ved into an elaborate art form, which became
knights, castles, and fountains of love were a specialty of Venice. Venetians honored the
constructed of pastry dough and other edibles, visit of Henry 1 in 1574 with sugar animals,
along with wood, sheets of metal, parchment, popes, princes, ships with sails and artillery, as
and cloth—reminiscent of the tableaux and well as copies of sculptures by Jacopo
ephemera created for royal entries, tourna- Sansovino and Danese Cattaneo. Even the
ments, and religious pageants.° In the tablecloth, napkins, and place settings were
Renaissance, these architectural and chivalric confections that crumbled in the French king’s
themes were supplemented with ones that hands. Sugar sculptures by Giambologna were
were classical, often mythological. cast, like bronze sculptures, by his assistant
Typical of sixteenth-century taste, elabo- Pietro di Tacca for the Florentine celebration
rately conceived trompe l’oeil effects under- of Marie de’ Médicis’s marriage to King
scored ambiguities between reality and artifice. Henry Iv (1600), and, afterwards, accompanied
At banquets of the Florentine “Company of the young bride to France.®

62
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

Another common feature of banquets was professional stewards, such as Cristoforo

the theatrically staged surprise, such as live Messisbugo (1549) of the d’Este court in
birds emerging from folded napkins or baked Ferrara, Bartolomeo Scappi (1570), scalco to
pies. In 1518, Agostino Chigi hosted a dinner Pope Pius v, and Giovan Battista Rossetti
for the pope and his cardinals in sumptuous (1584), who served Lucrezia d’Este, duchess of
surroundings of silk rugs and gold embroi- Urbino. Vincenzo Cervio, trinciante to Cardinal
dered wall hangings. These were raised at the Farnese, wrote a book on carving published in
end of the meal to reveal the coarse walls and 1581 and 1593 with a supplement by Fusoritto
stalls of his newly completed stables designed da Narni.'4 Carving was a demanding perfor-
by Raphael.? For the marriage feast of Marie mance, not, as Cervio noted, for the faint of
de Médicis, Bernardo Buontalenti devised hid- heart.15 Meats, fruits, even artichokes were
den mechanisms that caused tables to raised up on a fork and sliced “in the air” in
move sideways and to rise from and descend front of the banqueting guests, with portions
into the floor.!° falling onto the plate. These complex prepara-
Banquets were carefully choreographed. tions and rituals required specialized carving
Processions of food, preceded by the steward, forks and knives as well as a growing battery of
were heralded by fife and trumpet.At the wed- kitchen implements, many of which were
ding feast of Annibale Bentivoglio and illustrated by Scappi and Cervio. The publica-
Lucrezia d’Este in Bologna (1487), the dishes tion of Cervio’s Tiinciante may have provided
of food were paraded before the populace in the impetus for Cherubino Alberti’s engrav-
the piazza outside the castle.'' The menu was ings after Francesco Salviati’s elaborate carving
typically divided into hot (from the kitchen) knife designs (1583), with the appropriate if
and cold (from the credenza) courses, each gruesome image of the flaying of Marsyas (No. 20).
consisting of many different dishes. Guests Hierarchy among diners was marked by
usually sat against a wall, along one side of a gestures and objects. Rank determined place-
long table covered by several tablecloths ment at the table and the status of the server.
(sometimes with thin leather sheets between The pope or ruler sat alone at the end of the
each layer to keep the lower cloths clean). At rooms under a baldachin on a raised dais.
intervals, the soiled cloth was removed to Luxurious eating vessels and elaborate serving
reveal a clean white one; the table was relaid platters, use of a coaster or sottocoppa, better
with salt cellars, fresh bread, clean napkins, cuts of meat, covers for foods then sampled by
plates, and silverware; the guests were offered tasters (fear of poisoning being extremely
perfumed water to wash their hands. high) were all signs of distinction. In the six-
Toothpicks of fragrant sticks such as rosemary teenth century, when manuals on etiquette
were also set out on the tables." were among the most popular books, dining
The director of these intricate affairs was rituals became increasingly elaborate (such as
the professional scalco or steward who, along kneeling when the pope washed his hands
with the trinciante or carver enjoyed a high, Or drarik)"°
well-paid status, sometimes ennobled with Changing rules of dining etiquette created
titles.13 Treatises on banquets were authored by a demand for new vessels and implements like

63

the fork, to be used instead of fingers (see
below). Also symptomatic of more fastidious
habits was the decline of the ancient and
medieval custom of tossing bones and other
dining refuse onto the floor, to be swept up by
servants afterwards. Although the custom was
still practiced in Urbino at the Sforza~Aragon
wedding of 1475, approximately twenty years
later (1497), a “vase for bones” was inventoried
among the possessions of Guidobaldo
Montefeltro.!7 In the 1520s, Pope Clement vir
tossed his dinner refuse into a large, elaborate
silver vase, which, however, Cellini judged “‘an
object of ostentation rather than necessity.’'§
By the second half of the sixteenth century,
etiquette manuals criticized diners
dropped leftovers onto the floor.!9
In the Middle Ages, a few utensils such as
trenchers, beakers, and spoons were set out on
the table to be shared by diners.
Renaissance, this type of physical commensali-
ty was gradually replaced, with each diner
receiving individual napkins, bread, goblets,
plates, knives, spoons, and sometimes
The Renaissance dining table was
appointed, with more specialized types of ves-
sels and platters, in more varied and costly
materials. The Florentine humanist Niccolo
Niccoli (1364-1437) “ate on beautiful antique
plate, and his table was full of porcelain and
other very ornate vessels. He drank from a
goblet of crystal or other fine stone.’?° Listed
among the silver plate of fifteenth- and six-
teenth-century Italian inventories are candle-
sticks and dinner bells; platters, basins, bowls,
flasks, and ewers of different sizes; goblets and
cups with coasters and covers; tazze (elegant
broad and shallow vessels raised on stems);
knives, forks, spoons, small shovels, and spears
(pironi, imbroccatoi); saltcellars and nefs (navi);
DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures
dishes for sweetmeats (confettiere), bread (panet-
tiere), and eggs (ovarole; see No. 17); vessels to
heat food (scalda vivande); and tubs to keep
drinking flasks cool (rinfrescatoi). Everything,
from water buckets (No. 14) to sauceboats and
silverware (Nos. 15, 18, and 19), was subject to
transformation into an object of elegance,
grace,.and sophistication. |BETH L. HOLMAN
da
Notes
1. Messisbugo 1992, pp. 14, 31, 43-44, 57; Fusoritto da
Narni in Cervio 1980, pp. 89, 94-95, 104, 119, 124; Zorzi
1985, pp. 77-83. ue
2. Baraldi in Ferrara 1988, p. 322.
3. Paolo Palliolo praised the credenza and enumerated each
who
dish in twenty-four courses “sufficient to satisfy almost all
the people of Rome” (sofficienti a pascere quasi el populo tutto
di Roma). Marcantonio Altieri, who listed nearly one hun-
dred dishes, praised not only the “abundance and diversity”
(Vabondanza, la diversita di robbe), but also the “unusual and
In the infinite forms of representations of animals” (strane et infinite
foggie di rappresentationi d’animali). Cruciani 1968, pp. 12-14,
37-44. For the presence of spectators at banquets and the
general distribution of leftover food to the populace, see
Cugnoni 1879, p. 67; Calvi and Bertelli 1983, pp. 199-200;
forks. and Grottanelli 198s, pp. 44-45.
richly 4. Fabio Chigi, “Chigiae Familiae Commentarij,” 1618, in
Cugnoni 1879, p. 67. On magnificenza, see Jenkins 1962.
5. See Petronius.
6. Manselli 1982, pp. 238-41; Lafortune-Martel 1992, pp.
121-29; compare to Barber and Barker 1989, pp. 1, 46, 54,
88-95, 98-100, 112-24. Recipes for entremets are included in
the fourteeth-century French Viandier. Taillevent 1988, pp.
250, 266-72.
7. Vasari-Milanesi, 6, pp. 609-11 (life of Rustici); Lotteringhi
della Stufa 1965, pp. 46-47.
8. Lotteringhi della Stufa 1965, pp. 29, 117, 138, 143-45;
Watson 1978, pp. 20-26. See also Messisbugo 1992, pp. 32,
44, 49, 51; Fusoritto da Narni in Cervio 1980, p. 89.
9. Cugnoni 1879, pp. 66-67.
10. Lotteringhi della Stufa 1965, pp. 137-38, 142-43.
11. Montanari 1994, pp. 92-93.
12. Messisbugo 1992; Scappi 1570 (1981); Fussorito da
64
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

Narni in Cervio 1980, p. 88; Zorzi 1985, pp. 72-74. See also
accounts of the wedding feasts in 1473 for Ercole 1 d’Este
and Eleonora of Aragon in Falletti 1982, pp. 269-89.

13. In 1533, Messisbugo was granted the title of Palatine

count by Emperor Charles v; Mantovana in Ferrara 1988, p.
56; Chiappini in Ferrara 1988, p. 268. According to
Vincenzio Cervio, a former trinciante was elevated to the
cardinalate by Pope Julius m1. Cervio 1980, pp. 1-2.

14. Mantovana and Chiappini in Ferrara 1988, pp. 47-68;

217-220, 256-67.

15. Cervio 1980, pp. 3-6.

16. For etiquette manuals and for the social and ceremonial
structure of banquets in the Renaissance, see Elias 1978, pp.
53-129; Calvi and Bertelli 1983, pp. 197-218; Calvi and
Bertelli 1985, pp. 11-27; Grottanelli 1985, pp. 31-50. On
medieval etiquette and dining, see Laurioux 1992, pp. 90-102.

17. “Vaso in 2 pezi da ossi,” Cugnoni 1880, p. 302.

18. Cellini, Life, 1, xx.

19. Elias 1978, pp. 64, 91, 93; Grottanelli 1985,p.44.

20. Vespasiano da Bisticci 1951, pp. 442-43 (“...mangiava in

vasi antichi bellissimi, et cosi tutta la sua tavola era piena di vasi di
porcellana, o d’altri ornatissimi vasi. Quello con che egli beveva
erano coppe di cristallo, o d’altro pietra fine”). On the increased
variety and specialization of tableware in Renaissance Italy,
see also Goldthwaite 1989, pp. 21-27.
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

remained idiosyncratic during the quattrocen-

DINING ETIQUETTE
to. In 1431 Paolo Guinigi, the tyrant of Lucca,
AND RENAISSANCE owned more than seventy-one silver forks
with gilded, rock crystal, or ivory handles; yet
SILVERWARE
sixty years later, Lorenzo de’ Medici possessed
merely eighteen silver forks (matched by an
The refined use of dining utensils was a revo- equal number of spoons).5 Luxurious examples
lutionary innovation of the Renaissance inti- for wealthy patrons were also fashioned from
mately connected to changes in etiquette.! other precious and natural materials, including
Since antiquity food had been eaten with the shell, coral, and hardstone. Handles were lav-
fingers, accompanied by elaborate cleansing ishly decorated, with cast and chased figures
rituals involving water, basins, ewers, and nap- and classical ornament. Treasured as rarities,
kins. Spoons, forks, and knives were used more these objects may have been kept under lock
often for preparing and serving food than for and key for private use, since detailed accounts
eating. Traditionally, meat was cut with a fork of fifteenth-century banquets make little or no
and knife by a carver (trinciante), who then mention of forks.
served a portion to each diner. Pieces were The use of the personal fork for dining in
either eaten with the fingers or speared with public was not widely established in Italy until
the sharp point of a knife and lifted to the the latter half of the sixteenth century. The
mouth. The introduction of small straight- custom gained even slower acceptance in the
tined forks (see Nos. 17 and 18), scaled-down rest of Europe. In his 1611 travel memoirs, the
versions of the carver’s instrument, enabled Englishman Thomas Coryat was struck by the
diners to steady their meat portions while cut- Italians’ strange dining habits:
ting bite-sized pieces.
I observed a-custome in all those Italian Cities
The Western European practice of using
and Townes through which I passed, that is not
small dining forks was probably introduced
used in any other country that I saw in my
through Italy after the first millenium a.p. In
travels, neither doe I thinke that any other
the city of Venice, the custom was allegedly nation of Christendome doth use it, but only
brought from Byzantium by the foreign-born Italy...[where they]...use a little forke when
wife of the eleventh-century doge Domenico they cut the meate; for while with their knife,
Silvo.? Forks gained favor among Venetian which they hold in one hand, they cut the
courtesans for eating foods such as mulberries meate out of the dish, they fasten their forke
or sticky sweetmeats that stained the fingers. which they hold in their other hande, upon
the same dish...the Italian cannot by any
The practical benefits of the dining fork were
means endure to have his dish touched with
at first obscured by vague associations with
fingers, seeing all men’s fingers are not alike
courtesans and licentious living, probably
cleane... ©
inspiring a Church ban that slowed the adop-
tion of the new fashion.3 By the late four- The use of forks did not remain the exclu-
teenth century, however, forks were listed in sive province of the afuent and sophisticated.
Tuscan inventories.4 The ownership of forks As evidenced by contemporary description as

66
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

well as a range of materials and ornament, this Notes

new fashion penetrated multiple economic 1. For further information on Renaissance silverware, see
and social levels. Poorer Italians used simple Gourarier 1994, pp. 109-18. See also Marchese 1989; Gruber
1982, pp. 192-213; Brunner 1971, pp. 36-39; Boggiali, pp.
and functional forks, formed from base metals
27-53.
or even wood.7 .
wv . Gruber 1982, p. 211. See also London 1979, pp. X-x1.
Hosts rarely provided each guest with an
3. Gruber 1982, p. 213.
individual couvert, or personal set of silverware,
although dining utensils, especially knives, 4. The communes of both Florence and Siena owned sil-
verware for the use of the city priors in the mid-fourteenth
were occasionally furnished at banquet tables. century, and the wife of wealthy merchant Francesco Marco
Usually men were already equipped with Datini of Prato was another early owner of forks. Marchese
1989, pp. 64-65.
knives, which they kept close at hand, sus-
pended from their belts in leather cases.As the 5. Ibid., pp. 80-81, 84.

number of eating utensils expanded, male and
female diners brought their personal utensils
with them to the table, enclosed in specially
designed carrying cases.
Spoons, less of anovelty at the dining table,
were also subject to Renaissance modifi-
6. Coryat’s Crudities Hastily gobbled up in Five Months Travells
in France, Savoy, Italy... (London 1611), cited in Bailey 1927,
p. 6.
7. “This forme of feeding... is generally used in all places of
Italy, their forks being for the most part made of yron or
steele, and some ofsilver, but those are used only by gentle-
men,’ ibid.

cations. In contrast to antique and medieval 8. Gruber 1982, pp. 201, 203.
prototypes with shallow bowls and straight or
crooked handles, spoons became more sculp-
tural and varied in form, with deeper bowls
and serpentine handles (see Nos. 18 and 19).
The length of handles varied, possibly
influenced by clothing styles, such as the lace
ruffs worn about the wrists in the late six-
teenth-century.* Spoons also evolved to
accommodate specialized new usages, such as
the consumption of fruit sherbets, popular in
Italy at this time. Dining knives changed shape
as well, growing rounder at the tips. Once they
were decisively replaced by: forks, knives no
longer served for spearing chunks of food.
SUSAN H. VICINELLI

67
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

Design for a Swing-handle Bucket

c.1§30

Attributed to GIROLAMO GENGA (c. 1476-1551)

THIS DESIGN for a squat swing-handle buck-

et, called a secchietta or secchiolina, is depicted from an unusual angle and with a slightly inconsistent
perspective. The manipulated rendering displays the vessel’s many disparate features, such as the
high arching handle formed of graceful female herms and the stepped rim, sheathed in the rear by
an outer layer that rolls back in an s-scroll.
The bucket’s boldly sculptural decorations—including a
bulging satyr’s mask and protuberant spout in front, and, in the rear, a band of gadrooned molding
and heavy swag of leaves and fruit—are all suggestive of high relief. These ornaments would almost
certainly have been cast in metal and applied to the bucket surface. Elements such as the delicate
band with bucrania and meandering rinceaux along the upper rim of the vessel, constitute a sub-
tler form oflinear decoration, finely incised or repoussé if executed in silver or gold.
The vessel’s shape is based upon simple metal cauldrons traditionally suspended over cooking
fires. Already objects of decoration in antiquity, buckets were adopted during the Middle Ages for
ecclesiastical use as vessels for holy water, which, along with secchiette, were often wrought in stone
or precious materials.' Some sixteenth-century Tuscan inventories include a variety of religious
and secular secchiette.* The pagan nature of ornament in this drawing indicates that the vessel was
probably intended for secular use. A handsome contribution to the credenza display, the bucket,
with its swing handle and pouring spout, also could have served a functional role in the dining rit-
ual as a container of water for drinking or washing hands.3
This highly finished drawing is one of four related designs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art
for secchiette.t Apparently by the same hand, all four studies were first drawn in black chalk and
then finely penned in brown ink, leaving pentimenti visible in the underdrawing.5 The designs
also share classical figural and ornamental motifs—garlands, bucrania, rinceaux, and (on 49.19.66
and 49.19.67) river gods. The drawings were first attributed by Philip Pouncey to the circle of
Girolamo Genga.®° The two most highly finished drawings (49.19.66 and 49.19.68) are modeled
with fine diagonal pen and ink hatching characteristic of other drawings attributed to Genga.7
The attribution of these drawings to Genga may link the designs to the artist/architect’s prin-
cipal patrons, Francesco Maria della Rovere, duke of Urbino, and his wife Eleanora Gonzaga.*
According to Giorgio Vasari, Genga designed vessels destined for display on the duke’s banquet
credenza.? A highly finished drawing in the British Museum of a figure kneeling in a shell-shaped
vessel, probably for metalwork, has been attributed to Genga.!° The bucket designs in the
Metropolitan Museum may have been part of Genga’s larger project for the Villa Imperiale, where,
beginning in the 1520s, he supervised the extensive modifications and decorations ofthe fifteenth-
century structure.

68
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

Elements of the swing-handle bucket designs recall several motifs found in the upper story
reception rooms surrounding the central courtyard, frescoed in c. 1530 by a group of painters
assembled by Genga.'' The clothed female herm emerging from reeds in this particular drawing
recalls the decorative theme of the Room of the Caryatids, where draped nymphs sprout from
leafy bases to support a ceiling of trellised vegetation (Fig. 19).!* The handle of another bucket
design (49.19.67) is similarly constructed, with two nudes (male and female) springing from leaves
to join hands and form an arch. The recumbant river god with military trophies on another design
(49.19.66; Fig. 20) is reminiscent of the river gods with military trophies painted around the
Room of the Rivers, which may have functioned as a banqueting room.'3 The bucrania motifs
found in the ornamental friezes of two of the bucket designs (49.19.66, 49.19.68) also appear in
the painted ceiling of this room, where they alternate with the personal emblems and initials of
the duke and duchess.'4 These coincidences of ornamental vocabulary and figural themes with the
decorative schemes of the Villa Imperiale support an attribution of the bucket designs to Genga.
SHV

14
Design for a Metropolitan
Swing-handle Bucket Museum ofArt,
ETA The Elisha Whittelsey
Collection,
The Elisha
Pen and brown ink
Whittelsey Fund,
over traces of black
1949, 49.19.68
chalk or charcoal,
paper irregularly BIBLIOGRAPHY

trimmed on the right South Bend 1980,

184 x 146 mm p. 108, no. 106, ill. p. 94
(7% X 5% in.) (misnumbered as no.
maximum sheet 107 and attributed to a
Ferrarese artist, c. 1520)
Annotated:
Maturin in pen and
brown ink at lower left

PROVENANCE

Giovanni Piancastelli,
Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward D. Brandegee,
Brookline, Mass.; Janos
Scholz, New York

14

69

Notes
1. For antique examples, see Stefanelli 1991, p. 119, figs. 164-
66, 202, 258-59. See also antique silver Roman swing-han-
dle bucket (situla) with a rinceau border (c. 100-200 A.D.) in
the British Museum, ill. in London 1970, silver no. 148.
2. For secular or nonspecific examples, see index and refer-
ences in Guidotti 1994, I, p. 287, s.v. secchietta. Compare to
sixteenth-century bronze bucket, possibly Venetian (Museo
Poldi-Pezzoli, 782), ill. in Milan 1981, no. 259, pl. 283.
Surviving ornamental buckets are overwhelmingly com-
prised of religious examples, partly because they have been
preserved in church treasuries. For sixteenth-century reli-
gious examples, see Hernmarck 1977, 2, p. 367, figs. 955-57.
3. Four secchielli “for drinking water” (per ber aqua) are listed
in the index of decorative object designs assembled by
Ottavio Strada in the late sixteenth century (Codex
Fitzwilliam, inv. ppD6-1948, Fitzwiliam Museum,
Cambridge). Hayward 1970, p. 13.
4. Metropolitan Museum of Art 49.19.65, 49.19.66,
49.19.67, 49.19.68.
All four drawings were formerly part of
the Piancastelli collection in Rome, the source also of many
decorative arts drawings in the National Design Museum.
5. Metropolitan Museum ofArt 49.19.65 and 49.19.67 con-
tain fewer pen and ink refinements than the other two
drawings, with some areas of pale gray wash and more of
the design left in black chalk or charcoal.
6. The annotation on 49.19.68 reflects an old attribution to
Maturino da Firenze (1490-1527/28). According to Vasari,
Maturino worked closely with Polidoro da Caravaggio
(1490-1534). Vasari-Milanesi, 5, pp. 142-50. The other
three bucket drawings have old annotated attributions to
Polidoro. According to a note on the mat of 49.19.68, this
drawing and 49.19.66 were reassigned to the circle of
Girolamo Genga by Philip Pouncey in 1965 on the basis of
drawing style. A. Hyatt Mayor confirmed this identification
with reservations. By 1981 all four drawings were attributed
to Genga (New York 1981a, p. 102, no. 127). In a letter of
1983, Nicholas Turner suggested the young Raphael as the
designer of 49.19.68, based on a comparison to a drawing in
the Ashmolean Museum (Parker 1956, 2, p. 20, no. 30).
DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures
7. Compare to Louvre 10614, 10686 (attributed by Pouncey
according to record in artist files, Metropolitan Museum of
Art), 3117 (attribution advanced by Pouncey and Gere
1962, I, p. 160, no. 270); British Museum, 1866-7-14-7
(ibid., 2, pl. 254); Coll. FE Lugt, Institut Néerlandais, Paris,
4940 (Byam Shaw 1983, I, p. 100, no. 92; 3, pl. 111).
8. Eleanora Gonzaga took an active role in directing
Genga’s commissions, perhaps necessitated by her husband’s
frequent absences as well as in emulation of her mother,
Isabella d’Este. It was Eleanora who gave permission for the
“loan” of Genga to the bishop of Senigallia in 1529. Pinelli
and Rossi 1971, pp. 191 n. 41 (with further references to
documents), 311.
g. Vasari mentions a wax-model process of design, which
may have been preceeded by sketches. “He [Genga] made
some bizarre wax models of drinking vessels for the Bishop
of Senigallia, to be executed in silver; and with more dili-
gence he made others for the duke, for his credenza, some
other beautiful objects.” [Fece al vescovo di Sinigaglia alcune
bizarrie di vasi di cera da bere, per fargli poi d’argento; e con piu
diligenza nefece al duca, per la sua credenza, alcuni altri bellisimi],
Vasari-Milanesi, §, p. 320.
10. Wilson 1991,p. 158, fig. I.
11. On the fresco decoration, see Pinelli and Rossi 1971, pp.
125-34, 187-90 notes 35-40, 311-313 (documents); Poggetto
1983, pp. 381-94. The team ofpainters under Genga’s direc-
tion included Battista and Dosso Dossi, Raffaellino del
Colle, Bronzino, Francesco Menzocchi, and Camillo
Mantovano. Vasari-Milanesi $5, pp. 318-19.
12. See Pinelli and Rossi 1971, pp. 187-190, and notes 37-
38, where it is suggested that the Room of the Caryatids
reflects the style of the Dossi brothers. According to Vasari, a
room originally painted by the Dossi brothers had to be
redone according to Genga’s design upon the order of the
duke, who was displeased with the first results. Vasari-
Milanesi 5, pp. 99-100.
13. Dal Poggetto 1983, pp. 392-94, figs. Lil 9, 10. Another
one of the bucket designs (49.19.67) also features river gods.
14. Pinelli and Rossi 1971, fig. 23.
70
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

FIG. 20

Attributed to Girolamo
Genga, Design for a
Bucket, c. 1530 (The
Metropolitan Museum
of Art, New York,
The Elisha Whittelsey
Collection,
The Elisha
Whittelsey Fund, 1949)

FIG. 19
Italian (Dosso and Battista
Dossi?), Caryatid, detail
of fresco in Room of the
Caryatids, c. 1530 (Villa
Imperiale, Pesaro)

at
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

Design for a Vessel (Sauceboat?)

mid-sixteenth century

Attributed to LUZIO ROMANO (active 1528-1575)

ELABORATE BOAT-SHAPED vessels were found

on banquet tables since the Middle Ages and into the seventeenth century. The nef (nave), some-
times mounted on wheels, often furnished with miniature sails, rigging, and even figures, was a
mark of distinction and used to hold spices or the personal napkin and dining utensils for a prince
or lord.! The object in this drawing, with its handle, spout, and baluster-shaped foot 1s more rem-
iniscent of sixteenth-century designs for low, footed pouring vessels, some of which have been
identified as sauceboats.? Since the Middle Ages, silver vessels were used to hold sauces and other
liquids.3 In the Renaissance, food was usually served already sauced; however, there is evidence for
sauces brought separately to the table as well. In his banqueting menus, Bartolomeo Scappi desig-
nates certain sauces and gravies to be served in their own dishes.4 Although the Italian term salsiera
(sauce server) is not listed by Messisbugo or Scappi among the kitchen equipment nor the cre-
denza vessels,s the English term sauceboat seems particularly appropriate for a vessel whose
marine shape alludes to the liquid substance contained within.
The vessel in this design could have been executed in a variety of semiprecious or precious
materials.° There are extant examples of similar objects in hardstone and other prized materials,
such as agate, rock crystal, and seychelles nut, with metal mounts.7 Aspects of this drawing are sug-
gestive of hardstone or, more specifically, rock crystal with applied metal mounts forming the ship
frame, spout, handle, and pedestal.’ The body of the vessel is decorated with a sea thiasos rendered
with the softer effects of brush and wash, perhaps in order to indicate a different medium for the
realized object. In a similar manner Perino del Vaga and other artists used different graphic styles
to distinguish such materials as metal and engraved rock crystal.9 Bulging below the twisted rope
molding at the lower edge of the figural frieze 1s a line that describes the bottom of the sauceboat
container.
This drawing as well as the National Design Museum Design for Tivo Ewers and a Swing-handled
Bowl (No. 16) are part of a group of stylistically similar and numbered designs, some of which for-
merly belonged to Lord Amherst of Hackney (1835—1909).'° These drawings, now dispersed
among the British Museum, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Cleveland Museum ofArt (see
Fig. 22), and elsewhere, bear the distinctively spelled name Pierino [Perino del Vaga] written at the
bottom.'° One of the British Museum sheets, Five Designs
for Vases and Tivo Designs
for Vases (recto
and verso), has the same watermark (similar to Briquet 481) as the National Design Museum
Design for a Vessel. This group of drawings and an additional design for a sauceboat in Windsor
Castle (without the “Pierino” annotation, but once attributed to Perino or his school) share a
common drawing style and similar ornamental forms.'! Long-necked harpies, here applied directly
beneath the spout or prow and curved outward to form a handle at the stern, are often affixed to
a curved profile as a common feature in these drawings.'? Additionally, the two nudes on
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

Is
Design for a Vessel Annotated:
(Sauceboat?) Pierino in brown ink
mid-sixteenth century at lower center; 58
in the same ink in the
Pen and brown ink,
upper right corner
brush and brown and gray
of the mounting paper
wash, over black chalk
56 X 7 ‘ho in. Watermark:
(152 x 179 mm) anchor in a circle? at edge
of sheet, cut in half
(cf. Briquet 481; 1510-14)
Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Museum purchase in
memory of Mrs. John
Innes Kane, 1942-36-6
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hayward 1976,
PP. 343-44, pl. 54

PROVENANCE
Lord Amherst of Hackney;
sale Sotheby’s, London, 14
December 1921 [P. and D.
Colnaghi, London, 1921]
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

the baluster pedestal can be compared to the figures seated on a knop in the British Museum's
Tivo Designs for a Mace.
The “Pierino” drawings in London and Cleveland have been reattributed to Luzio Romano,
Perino del Vaga’s studio assistant.'3 Based on its similarities to this group of drawings, the National
Design Museum drawing can also be attributed to Luzio Romano.'4 Luzio, who worked with
Perino on stuccowork and frescos in Genoa and Rome, is known to have remained active as a dec-
orator in Rome after Perino’s death in 1547 and through the rs6os. If the attribution of the
“Pierino” drawings is correct, Luzio would seem to have been an important designer of decorative
objects as well. ERA

Notes

1. For medieval and Renaissance nefs, see Bunt 1943, pp. 90- Vienna, 6872); agate Drinking Bowl with silver mounts by
95; Hayward 1976, pp. 361, 391, pls. 252-53, 548; Hernmarck Johannes Lencker, c. 1625-30 (Schatzkammer, Residenz,
1977, I, pp. 170-733 2,figs. 390-94; Lightbown 1978, pp. 3, 11, Munich), in Hayward 1976, pp, 386, 394, PSs 50250579):
30-31, pls. xtv, Lxxtx; New York, Nuremberg, Munich Compare to medieval rock crystal vessel (Saltcellar) with
1986, pp. 224-27, no. 81; for nefs including the gold mounts, c. 1250, Metropolitan Museum of Art,
Schliisselfelder Nef, which served as a drinking vessel (c. 1983.434.
1500, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg); Pierre
8. See Hayward 1976, pp. 343-44.
le Flamand’s “Burghley Nef,’ 1482-83 (Victoria and Albert
Museum); two French nefs, 1528—29 (Victoria and Albert g. In addition to Perino del Vaga’s Design for a Candlestick
Museum) and c. 1530-40 (British Museum); nef (St. Ursula (No. 10), see Salviati’s Design for a Casket, Uffizi, 16128, ill. in
reliquary) in Reims Cathedral Treasury; and early seven- Robertson 1992, p. 40, pl. 25.
teenth-century ship-form ewer (private collection). The
to. See under No. 16 (Fig. 22) for the Design for Tivo Vases and
school of Fontainebleau engraving by Rene Boyvin or
an Ornament (Cleveland Museum of Art, 25.1190). See also
Pierre Milan, probably after a design by Rosso, shows a nef
Five Designs
for Vases, Tivo Designs
for Vases,and Tivo Designs for
with a folded cloth inside; Hayward 1976, p. 348, pl. 102.
a Mace (British Museum, 1949-4-11-5283, 1957-9-II-1), in
2. See Virgil Solis’s engraving (mid-sixteenth century), Pouncey and Gere 1962, p. 112, nos. 187, 188, pls. 157, 158;
Erasmus Hornick’s etching (1565) and drawings (Victoria Design for a Table or Bracket (Victoria and Albert Museum,
and Albert Museum; Oéesterreichisches Museum fiir E.621-1922), in Ward-Jackson 1979, pp. 178-79, no. 387.
Angewandte Kunst, Vienna), and Cornelis Floris’s engravy-
11. Design for a Sauceboat (Royal Library, Windsor Castle,
ings (1548), in Hayward 1976, pp. 350, 352, 353, 356, pls. 122,
11326), ill. in Rome 1981, pp. 42-43, no. 23.
149, 150, 155, 196, 197, 199.
12. Similar winged-harpies are often found applied to six-
3. Hernmarck 1977, I, p. 196.
teenth-century objects; see, for example, a maiolica Salt
4. For example, Scappi notes: salza verde per sapore {green Cellar signed by the Urbino painter F.G.€., c. 1580-1600
sauce] brought to the tables on five serving dishes, salza reale (Victoria and Albert Museum, 4407-1857) in Rackham
in piatti [17 dishes of royal sauce] and sapor bianco d’amandole 1977, 1, pp. 296-97, no. 888; 2, pl. 142. See also winged terms
[white almond sauce] in seventeen dishes. Scappi 1570 of enameled gold affixed as handles to a Milanese Rock-crys-
(1981), book m1, pp. 93-95; book ty, pp. 206, 210. tal Cup, second half of the sixteenth century (Museo degli
Argenti, Florence), in Massinelli 1992, p. 98.
5. Messisbugo 1992, pp. 13-24; Scappi 1570 (1981), book 1,
pp. 12-14; book tv, pp. 327-30. 13. Pouncey and Gere 1962, pp. 110-12; Olszewski 1981, pp.
96-97; Schilling and Blunt 1973, pp. 92-95. See Study for a
6. See, for example, an early seventeenth-century ewer by
Casket (Uffizi, Florence, 1610 §£) also attributed to Luzio
Christoph Lencker, Germanisches Nationalmuseum,
Romano by Bernice Davidson, see Davidson 1966, p. 70, no.
Nuremberg loan, in Hayward 1976, p. 386, pl. sot.
73, tie. 72s
7. See, for example, two rock crystal Table Basins with gold,
14. Although Hayward attributed the National Design
enamel, and jeweled mounts, by the Saracchi workshop,
Museum drawing to Perino del Vaga (c. 1535-45), he did
before 1589 (Museo degli Argenti, Florence), ill. ‘in
suggest the possibility that it might be assigned to Luzio
Massinelli 1992, pp. 94, 102; Anton Schweinberger’s sey-
Romano, based on the attributions of similar drawings in
chelles nut ewer, c. 1603 (Kunsthistorisches Museum,
the British Museum. Hayward 1976, pp. 135-56.

74
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures
ii
t
;

eee

Designs for Two Ewers and aSwing-handle

Bowl
mid-sixteenth century

Attributed toLUZIO ROMANO (active 1528-1575)

IN AGNOLO FIRENZUOLA’S Dialogue on the

Beauties ofWomen [Dialogo delle bellezze delle donne, written in 1541/42 and published in 1548], the
author compared the form of a flawless female body to that of an antique vase, illustrating his text
with contrasting examples of beautiful and inelegant vases.! The two ewers in this drawing are
conceived as assemblages of female forms and graceful ornamental motifs. On the right, a female
torso forms the neck of a larger ewer. The rest of the vessel below is relatively plain, except for
bands of gadrooning. In the central ewer, an armless elongated female term forms the body of the
vessel, tapering down to a simple circular foot. Each figure carries a shell spout on her head and
has elaborately curved handles, one almost ribbon-like.
As revealed by the pentimenti, these original designs for ewers evolved from the conceit of the
body/vase analogy. The more conventionally shaped ewer with the female torso/neck was
sketched first, with variants of the large vessel lightly indicated on the lower right and bottom cen-
ter of the sheet. In the inked version, adjustments were made, for instance, in the angle of the shell
spout, which was originally carried lower as in the small sketch on the right. Over the sketch in
the center was drawn a second type of vessel in which the entire body of the ewer is transformed
into the female form; the handle is simple and scrolled forward.
The female figure reappears as an ornamental motif in the bowl design on the left, in which
attenuated female terms are applied to the swing handle. The vessel is delicately ornamented and
draped with festoons and acanthus leaves. The handle is intricately constructed with a double arch
handle connected in the middle by a ring and hooked into the rim between the horns of goats’
heads. The elegant bowl and fantastic ewers were probably intended for the banqueting table or
credenza. Similar sixteenth-century vessels survive in glass, carved hardstone, rock crystal with
metal mounts, and precious metals (Fig. 21).?
This sheet of drawings is clearly by the same hand as a group of vessel designs similarly
inscribed Pierino and reattributed to Luzio Romano (see No. 15).3 The ribbon-like handle of the
large ewer and intricately constructed bowl handle, for example, are very similar to those in a
drawing at the Cleveland Museum (Fig. 22).4 In several of these related drawings, the designs are
organized and spaced apart on the sheet in a similar fashion, with the objects lit from the left and
shadows cast along the “ground” toward the right. The presentation of variants for single objects,
whether ewers, maces, or vases on a single sheet illustrates the artist’s inventiveness. ERA

WS
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

16

Designs for Two

Ewers and a
Swing-handle Bowl
mid-sixteenth century

Pen and brown ink,

brush and brown
wash and black chalk
11% x 75/6 in.
(294 x 203 mm)

Annotated:
Pierino in brown ink at
bottom center; 43 in the
same ink in the upper
right corner of mount-
ing paper

PROVENANCE

Lord Amherst of
Hackney; sale Sotheby’s,
London, 14 December
1921 [P. and D. Colnaghi,
London, 1921]

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Museum purchase in
memory of Mrs. John
Innes Kane, 1942-36-5

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hayward 1962, p. 164,
fig. 11; Hayward 1976,
pp- 344, pl. ss

Notes

1. Cropper 1976, pp. 374-77, fig. 4. 4. Design for Tivo Vases and an Ornament (Cleveland Museum
of Art, 25.1190), in Olszewski 1981, pp. 96-97, no. 71. The
2. Hayward suggested that the large ewer and body of the
central finial with ring of the swing-handle bowl is also
bow] in this drawing were intended to be executed in hard-
similar to that of a ewer design in Five Designs for Vases
stone. See also lapis lazuli ewer, c. 1580, designed by
(British Museum, 1949-4-11-5283 recto), in Pouncey and
Bernardo Buontalenti (1531-1608), enamel and gilt mounts
Gere 1962, p. 112, no. 187, pl. 156. For similarly constructed
by Jacques Bylivelt (1550-1603) with a similarly construct-
swing handles on actual buckets, see two German holy
ed swing handle (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna), in
water buckets of c. 1600 and c. 1560-90 (Schatzkammer,
Hayward 1976, p. 369, pl. 334. On the Flemish silver gilt and
Residenz, Munich, and Trefaldighetskrykan, Gavle), ill. in
enamel ewer, 1558-59 (Louvre, Paris), see ibid., p. 396.
Hernmark 1977, 2, figs. 955, 956.
3. See note on drawing mat: “Others from Lord Amherst of
Hackney (sold auction ca. 1920 as by Pierino but not by
him.) Others in B. M. [British Museum].J.G. [John Gere].”

76
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

FIG: 22
Studio of Perino del Vaga iS
(Luzio Romano?), Design
for Tivo Vases and an
Ornament, mid-sixteenth
century (Cleveland ; a
Museum of Art)

FIG. 21
Flemish (Antwerp)
Silver Ewer for Charles V
1558-59 (Musée du
Louvre, Paris)

Tit
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

Design for Saltcellar and Egg Dish with Fork and Spoon
second half of the sixteenth century

Copy after FRANCESCO SALVIATI (1510-1563)?

AMONG THE INTERESTING and sometimes

difficult challenges in the study of Renaissance decorative arts designs is understanding the func-
tion and cultural context of the objects depicted. The six-sided serving piece in this drawing and
in another version in the Victoria and Albert Museum (Fig. 23) was previously identified as a salt-
cellar.! In fact, the true nature of the vessel, as Hayward noted in 1965, is revealed in a sixteenth-
century Italian description written on the National Design Museum sheet (absent on the London
version): “This is the form and the shape which must go on the saltcellar (saliera) and egg dish
(ovarola).’* The words are inscribed on the plan at the bottom of the sheet, within the framing rec-
tangle for the raised plinth and between the places for the salt (in the seashells projecting front and
back) and those for the eggs (in the lateral wells).3 The function of the piece explains the imagery
of Leda and the swan chosen for the top of the vessel. From the union of the mortal maiden Leda
and Jupiter, disguised as a swan, were conceived two eggs that later hatched Castor and Pollux and,
in some versions of the myth, Helen and Clytemnestra.4 It seems that this same theme decorated
other sixteenth-century Italian egg dishes as well. In a drawing by Francesco Salviati, two heroic
nude figures, representing the adult Castor and Pollux, embraced by a swan, support a large
seashell, around the edge of which are half and broken egg shells (Fig. 24).5
Eggs were a staple of the Italian Renaissance diet, from the simple repasts of artisans to aristo-
cratic banquets.® In their sixteenth-century books on banqueting, Cristoforo da Messisbugo and
Bartolomeo Scappi included many types of egg dishes—fried, roasted, poached, boiled, “French
style,’ omelettes—seasoned with a variety of spices, including cinnamon and sugar, salt and rose-
mary, and with sauces of citrus fruits, cheese, or garlic.7 Different egg dishes might be served at a
single course or provide the culinary theme for an entire meal.®
As Hayward first noted, the ovarola in the National Design Museum drawing was intended to
hold boiled eggs—not, however, hard-boiled eggs, which were served as components in other dish-
es or split and seasoned, sauced, or filled. Rather, this serving dish was designed for the presenta-
tion of freshly laid, barely cooked “drinking eggs” or uova da bere.9 Uova da bere (also called ove
Jfresche da bevere) are frequently found on Scappi’s banquet menus and were served at the beginning
of the first hot course from the kitchen.'° Cooking uova da bere was so difficult that Scappi offered
several different ways to time and test the eggs.'' The final preparation of uova da bere for con-
sumption was an equally delicate process.To prepare and present a drinking egg “for your lord,”
Vincenzo Cervio (1581) recommended that the trinciante or carver hold the egg in a specially
devised three-pronged instrument (Fig. 25) and carefully cut around the top of the shell with a
small fruit knife. Then the carver was to lift the top off and spill off some of the white, keeping the
yolk intact, and finally, having seasoned it with salt, sugar, or cinnamon, to place the egg “in the
ovarolo,’12

78
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

17
Design for Saltcellar
and Egg Dish with
Fork and Spoon
second half of the
sixteenth century

Pen and brown ink,

brush and brown
wash, over traces
of charcoal or black
chalk, ruled lines
16% x It in.
(429 x 279 mm)
Inscribed:
questo e la forma e il garbo
che si ha/adare alla saliera
e ovarola in brown ink
at bottom

Annotated:
-6- in brown ink
in upper right

Watermark:
cross bow with loop,
encircled (Briquet 759,
Rome c. 1562—63)

PROVENANCE

Einar Perman, Stockholm;

Stichting Collectie P. en
N. de Boer, Amsterdam;
sale, Christie’s, London
4 July 199s, lot 187;
[Colnaghi, London and
New York, 1995, no. 3]

Cooper-Hewitt, National
Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Museum purchase,
Smithsonian Institution
Collections Acquisition
Program and General
Acquisition Endowment
Funds, 1996-20-1

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hayward 196s, pp. 145-
46, fig. 4; London and
questo «fu je
Chae ole ih New York 1995, no. 3

17

7
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

Although silver egg cups and plates survive from Roman antiquity,'3 actual Renaissance
examples have yet to be identified. Silver ovarole are documented at sophisticated Italian courts,
such as the Montefeltro of Urbino and Gonzaga of Mantua.'4 In these instances, only one ovarola
is listed, in contrast to the multiple examples of silver flasks, ewers, platters, candlesticks, and salt-
cellars. Probably the ovarola was reserved for display or the formal presentation of a few eggs to the
host and/or guest of honor. (By contrast, the serving platters brought out for general service each
held many cooked eggs, including uova da bere).!5 The elaborate and ornate ovarola depicted in the
National Design Museum drawing would have been a special presentation vessel, appropriate for
the credenza or high table. Its sculptural group of the popular mythological theme would have
echoed the free-standing food sculptures of classical gods and goddesses that frequently graced the
tables at important banquets. The theme of Leda and the swan is an example of the “loves of
Jupiter,’ reinforced by the presence of Venus below.!°
The design of the ovarola is ingeniously conceived so that two cooked eggs in their shells
would be integral to the imagery of Leda and the swan.A miniature, fictive egg appears on the top
plinth, under Leda’s left foot. Also featured prominently on the egg-and-salt dish are marine
motifs, such as seashells and dolphins, appropriate to the watery consistency of uova da bere and the
source of salt (see No. 24). The image of Venus on the sea, reclining with her elbow on one dol-
phin and holding reins of two others, refers to the goddess’s birth from sea foam. Even the orna-
mental curtain and braided guilloche mimic, respectively, scalloped shells and waves on the sea.
The designs at the top of the sheet for fork and spoon ornamented with satyrs and a female
bust typify taste in the second half of the sixteenth-century.
The transformation of the satyr’s legs
into two fork tines would have delighted the sophisticated diner (see Nos. 18 and 19).!7 These sil-
verware designs probably do not bear any functional relationship to the ovarola below. Rather, they
formed part of acompendium of elegant dining accouterments and tabletop objects.
The National Design Museum drawing formerly belonged to an album of twenty-four num-
bered drawings, which included saltcellars, candlesticks, tazze, basins, caskets, forks, spoons, a swing-
handled vessel, inkstand, and detail studies of stems and handles.
The album, purchased in Bologna
between World War 1 and World War 1 by Einar Perman of Stockholm (see No. 13), was subse-
quently broken up and dispersed.!* The pen and wash drawings from the album are of similar size,
style, and ornamentation. Several of them show unrelated objects arranged carefully on the same
page, occasionally with a sixteenth-century Italian inscription identifying the featured vessel, gen-
erally emphasizing its boat-like form (a guisa di barcha). Thirteen of these designs, including the
National Design Museum’, are repeated among the drawings in another album in the Victoria and
Albert Museum.!9
Many of the precisely executed drawings from the Perman collection, the Victoria and Albert
Museum, and elsewhere seem to be copies after a stylistically similar and coherent group of deco-
rative arts designs. With their compact and relatively unbroken profiles, amorous themes, marine
imagery, and panels or cartouches with reclining nudes (often interchangeable, with slight
modifications in gesture or attribute), the designs clearly reflect Italian Renaissance sources of the
mid-sixteenth century and earlier. The concave profile, applied dolphin supports, and trapezoidal

80
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

FIG. 24
Attributed to Francesco
Salviati, Design for an Ege
Dish, mid-sixteenth cen-
tury (location unknown)

FIG. 23
After Francesco
Salviati(?), Design for a Salt
Cellar and Egg Dish, sec-
ond half of the sixteenth
century (Courtesy of
the Board ofTrustees of
the Victoria and Albert
Museum, London)

8I
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

panels with reclining female figures of the ovarola, as well as other designs from the group (see No.
13), are reminiscent of Pollaiuolo’s Tomb of Pope Sixtus 1v (Saint Peter’s, Rome). The pose of Leda
seated atop the egg dish is very close to a 1542 print by Enea Vico, which is perhaps based on a
design by Salviati.2° In addition, the application of tondi that curve in profile against the sides of
the base is also seen in Salviati’s design for a ciborium or chalice in Christ Church, Oxford.*!

Hayward identified the group of decorative arts designs as copies after Francesco Salviati
(1510-1563), who trained as a goldsmith, or after an artist from his circle.?? This attribution was
generally accepted until recently, when Peter Fuhring hesitated to identify the original designer
solely on the basis of copies, some of which exist in almost identical multiples.?3 Fuhring has fur-
ther proposed that these copies were produced in the workshop of Ottavio Strada (1550-1612),
court antiquarian to Emperor Rudolf 1. Several albums of copies after sixteenth-century Italian
artists, such as Giulio Romano, came out of the Strada workshop as exempla for a wide range of
metalwork for the table and credenza.*4 The watermark of the National Design Museum drawing,
however, supports an attribution to an artist in Rome about 1562 or slightly later. If the copies are
to be connected with the Strada workshop, then, in some regards, Ottavio’s father Jacopo Strada is
the most likely candidate—the Mantuan goldsmith, art dealer, imperial antiquarian, and collector of
Italian drawings was in Rome about 1566.75 On trips to Venice, he apparently preferred the com-
pany of goldsmiths. Further study needs to be done on this group of designs attributed to Salviati
and the relationship among the various copies.?° BLH

gD A roi
ANNAN 6%)HUT p
OM a STme “1 We,
LESS) £25 CUREASL LIBSIEIRIBVERDISATH
RYLSDIVALOPAVDA BEYERGL BONA
ESPIRYOREA LFEARS(794 1 Wan

Fero per trine tar loud

FIG. 25
Vincenzo Cervio,
Egg Holder from I/
Trinciante..., published in
Rome, 1593. Photograph
courtesy of Special
Collections, The New
York Public Library

Notes
1. The vessel is identified as a saltcellar in the 1995 cata-
logues of Christie’s and Colnaghi (see Provenance). The
same vessel represented in the Victoria and Albert Museum,
5164, now identified as saltcellar/egg dish in the museum’s
files, was described as a saltcellar in Ward-Jackson 1979, p.
141, no. 302; Mortari 1992, p. 229, no. 340.
2. Hayward 1965, p. 145, fig. 4. Not all sixteenth-century
descriptions are accurate and therefore must be treated with
caution. According to Hayward, the scribe of sixteenth-cen-
tury index to an album of table vessel designs (Fitzwilliam
Museum, Cambridge) misinterpreted objects, such as a
tureen and pepper pot (listed as saltcellars). Hayward 1970, p. 13.
3. A maiolica saltcellar (Walters Art Gallery), which
Hayward has associated with another design from the
Perman collection, has a similar arrangement oftwo seashell
projections on the front and back of the vessel. Hayward
1976, pp. 145, 408, pl. 718.
4. Depending on the account, Leda’s offspring numbered
two to four, all of them sired by Jupiter or half by Jupiter
and half by Leda’s mortal husband, Tyndareos. See Roscher
1894-97, 2, cols. 1922-32, S.v. “Leda.” The Italian pictorial
and literary tradition of two eggs can be traced, inter alia, in
Boccaccio’s Geneaologia Deorum Xi, p.7 (1951, 2, pp. 546-50),
Francesco Colonna’s Hypnerotomachia Poliphili (1964,1, pp.
155, 158), and Leonardo da Vinci’ drawings of Leda and the
swan in the Museum Boymans-van Beunigen, Rotterdam,
and the Chatsworth Collection (Popham 1946 [1972], p.
141, no. 208).
5. Christie’s, London, 4 July 1995, no. 9 (as a saltcellar). See
Giulio Romano’s sketch of a vessel decorated with
young hatchlings Castor and Pollux. Strahov album (and its
copies in Strahov, Cambridge, Florence, and Vienna).
Bukovinska et al. 1984, p. 147, no. 87/158; ill. p. 148; also p.
118, no. 55/83; Hayward 1976,p.25,pl.73. Hayward 1970,p.
14, cites Giulio’s design, indexed in the Fitzwilliam album as
a “large salt cellar for the credenza,” as an example of the
artist’s “rejection of function.” Egg dish designs by Erasmus
Hornick (d.1563) in the Victoria and Albert Museum (5242,
$293, 5294, 5295), as well as the Metropolitan Museum of
Art (58.525.8) do not adopt the theme ofLeda and the swan
or Castor and Pollux.
6. See Vasari’s account of Donatello who, surprised by
Brunelleschi’s wooden crucifix, “dropped an apron-full of
eggs and other things for their meal”; Vasari-Milanesi, 2, p.
334. Eggs were also a staple of the artist’s workshop, where
they were used in preparing tempera, varnishes, and binders
for gilding. See Theophilus 1963, pp. 23, 31 and Cennini
1960, pp. 7, 51, 55, 58, 79-80, 100-102, 104, 106-107,
121-22.
DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures
7. Messisbugo 1992, pp. 32, 39, 71, 72, 89; Scappi 1570
(1981), book m1, pp. 158-162, book tv, pp. 176, 177, 188, 189,
202-204, 212, 213, 223, 224, 235, 245-49, 301, book v1, pp.
421-23.
8. See menus for lunch and dinner “made with eggs and
butter only”; Scappi 1570 (1981), book rv, pp. 212-13, 301-
302.
9. Ovaiuolo/ovarola is defined as an egg cup for “warmed
eggs for drinking” (uova riscaldate per beversi) in Vocabulario...
della crusca 1927, p. 777. Drinking eggs (to be “sucked”’) were
also a delicacy of ancient Rome, see Petronius, pp. 22-23.
The phrase uove da bere is still used for slightly cooked or
warmed eggs.
10. Scappi 1570 (1981), book tv, pp. 176 (170), 188, 202, 212
(112),223),.235,
301.
11. For the cooking and timing of“drinking eggs” (as long
as it takes to say a credo, when the white of the egg leaks out
a pinhole and hardens, tested by tapping with a knife or
holding in the hand, etc.), see Scappi 1570 (1981), book m,
pp. 158-59.
12. Instructions on “How one carves and prepares the
drinking egg [ovo da bevere] for your lord” ends “then put it
in the egg dish [ovarolo| if you have one and if there is not
one put it immediately on the saltcellar [saliera] which you
present before your lord or to whomever needs it and thus
you will make the drinking egg...’ Cervio 1591, p. 41; 1980,
p. 75. Scappi noted the care needed to cut around the top of
the uova da bere with a knife and to lift off the top, but he
advised letting the white remain and serving the egg with a
the
little sugar and salt. Scappi 1570 (1981), book m1, p. 159.
13. See Stefanelli 1991, pp. 114, 265, 269, 273, 265, nos. 60,
82-83, 100, figs. 152, 174, 274, 275.
14. A double or two-piece ovarola was among the silver
plate consigned by Guidobaldo da Montefeltro, duke of
Urbino, to Agostino Chigi to raise money for his ransom in
1497, Cugnoni 1880, p. 302.A triangular egg dish (uno ovaro-
lo a triangulo con pausa con trej vasetti per mettere ovi e sei fiorini
a torno el pede) is documented in the 1542 inventory of
Gonzaga silver (to be published); Archivio di Stato, Mantua,
Archivio Notarile Estensione, vol. kK. 10, fol. r11v. For
French egg cups (ovier), first documented in the fourteenth
century (owned in 1363 by the duke of Normandy, later
Charles v; and in 1391 by the duchess of Orleans), see
Lightbown 1978, p. 19.
15. For the presentation of many uove da bere on platters for
guests, (60 on five plates, 126 on seven plates, and 132 on
II5,
eleven plates),
seeScappi 1570 (1981), book Iv, pp. 212, 223, 235.
83
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

16. On the popular theme of Leda and the swan in the 21. Byam Shaw 1976, p. 72, no. 143, pl. 92.
Renaissance, including copies after the antique, see Bober
22. Hayward 1965, p. 145; Hayward 1976, pp. 143-45. See
and Rubinstein 1986, pp. 53-54, and Knauer 1960, pp. 5-55.
also Ward-Jackson 1979, p. 141, nos. 288-307. Hayward
The image of Leda and the swan also appears frequently in
(1962, p. 163) suggested that some of the drawings may
decorative arts, for example a maiolica inkstand and plate
have been executed by Salviati’s friend the goldsmith
(both late sixteenth century) in the Wallace Collection (11 B
Francesco di Girolamo da Prato.
77, 1 B 83),see Norman 1976, pp. 233-34, no. C114; pp. 254-
$6, no. C127. 23. Fuhring 1989, no. 531. Hayward also noted (1962, p.
163) that many attributions to Salviati are conjectural.
17. Compare to silverware designs in former Perman col-
lection drawing, Boerner 1970, no. 58, pl. 22, and Page 196s, 24. Albums in Universitatsbibliothek, Brinn; Museo delle
pp. 5-6. Scienze, Florence; Strahov monastery, Prague; Oester-
reichischen Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; see album in
18. Hayward 1962, p. 163; Boerner’ 1970, nos. 57-60, pls. 20-
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Hayward 1970, pp. 10-14;
22; Hayward 1976, pp. 144-145, 346-347, pls. 83, 86, 89, 90;
and Bukovinska et al. 1984, pp. 63-66. Jacopo Strada pur-
Fuhring 1989, p. 344, no. 531; Page 1965, pp. 5-6. Mortari
chased drawings from the heirs of Perino del Vaga in Rome
1992, pp. 176, 231, 233, 234, 240-41, nos. 39, 353, 370, 372; and from Giulio Romano’s son in Mantua. See Armenini
405. The present location of the Perman drawings include
1587 (1971), pp. 64-65.
the Metropolitan Museum ofArt,J.B. Speed Art Museum, a

Pierpont Morgan Library, and Houthakker collection. 25. Jansen 1987, pp. II, 13. Strada’s copies after Giulio
According to Byrne (New York 1981a, p. 98, no. 120), the Romano’s designs in Strahov have watermarks that date as
Perman drawings were dispersed after 1956; in 1964, early as the 1550s, see Bukovinska et al. 1984, pp. 61-66.
Colnaghi exhibited five of them, and the J. B. Speed Art
26. The National Design Museum Design for Egg Dish and
Museum purchased Design for a Salt Cellar, Tazza Stem and
Saltcellar is somewhat more refined in execution than the
Fork (64.33). For Colnaghi sale, see London 1964, nos. 10,
Victoria and Albert Museum version, in which the plan of
57, 62, 68, 70; Page 1965, p. 5. I would like to thank
the vessel has also been simplified and lacks the inscription.
Kimberly Spence and Peter Fuhring for providing informa-
The drawing was bought by the Victoria and Albert
tion on the drawings in the J. B. Speed Art Museum and
Museum in 1867, one of 276 sheets bound in a vellum cov-
Houthakker collection.
ered album, with a title page identifying the objects repre-
19. Hayward 1962, p. 163; Hayward 1965, pp. 144-49; Ward- sented as belonging to the treasury of Emperor Rudolf 1
Jackson 1979, pp. 141-43, nos. 288-307; Mortari 1992, pp. and a date of 1560 (Sunt Figurae num 275 Rudolfi Caesaris
229-230, nos. 338-49. See also Design for Casket and Tazza, Thesaurus Delineat). Rudolf 1, however, reigned from 1576
Sotheby’s sale, New York, January 9, 1996, no. 3. to 1612. Hayward identified approximately twenty of the
designs bound as copies from the school of Salviati, noting
20. See the pose of Leda, with her upper torso turned dor-
that thirteen of them are also replicated in drawings in the
sally to the viewer as she reaches forward with her right
Perman collection. Hayward attributed the rest of the draw-
arm, right leg bent and left leg raised up slightly, in Vico’s
ings to Erasmus Hornick, who published patternbooks of
engraving, Bartsch xv, p. 294, no. 25 (attributed design to
decorative arts designs in the 1560s, including eighteen
Perino del Vaga); Voss 1920, 1, p. 249, and Cheney 1963, p.
sheets of vessels (1565). Hornick served Rudolf m as
626, no. 23, attributed the original design to Salviati.
Kammergoldschmied in 1582 and died the following year.
Sixteenth-century images of Leda seated, turned with her
Hayward has suggested that the album then passed into the
upper torso dorsally to the viewer are relatively rare: com-
imperial collection at which time the inscription was
pare wax relief by Francesco Segala in Vienna and enamel
added. Hayward 1965, pp. 144-49, and Hayward 1976, pp.
and gold reliefin Vienna; Knauer 1960, pp. 22-23, figs. 23, 24.
244-245,
pl. 139.

84
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

8 Design for Spoon and Fork

late sixteenth century

Attributed to ANTONIO GENTILE (or Gentili, c. 15 19-1609)

THIS DRAWING of a spoon and fork with a

related couvert or place setting (Fig. 26) is a rare instance of successfully matched Renaissance sil-
verware and original design.' The drawing of the spoon and its silver counterpart (Metropolitan
Museum ofArt, 47.52.3) are comparable in length, almost one to one, and strikingly close in form
and ornamentation.? The handle is dynamically shaped in a double curve, stressed by the profile
rendering of the drawing.3 A satyr-herm, issuing from a mass of classical ornament and bending
forward to nibble grapes, forms the terminus of the handle. The lower portion of the shaft is
draped in swags and then curves sharply just above the bowl joint, which is composed of a mask
atop a scrolling torso. Small differences have been introduced to the final form of the silver spoon,
such as the substitution of wings for volutes to frame the tiny mask of the joint. The bowl of the
silver spoon is more elaborately conceived, taking the form of a scallop shell, fluted and ridged
with two entwined snakes at its upper edge, and a rat’s tail reinforcing the underside. These
changes in design reflect a practical concern for strengthening the utensil.
Although not included in the drawing, a knife (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 47.52.1) with a
handle of cast silver and a tapering single-edged blade of either gilt silver or an alloy of gold and
silver, was acquired by the museum along with the spoon and a fork. The knife matches the silver
spoon in style, motif, and workmanship. Here again the half-figure of a satyr springs from a handle
shaft that is draped in fabric swags and encrusted with a jumble of ornamental motifs (fruits,
masks, shells, and volutes).
The satyr on the knife is an older, bearded relative of the satyr of the
spoon; both strike angular poses, with jutting elbows and well-modeled muscular torsos that con-
vey a sense of movement in space.
The partially described fork in the drawing 1s linked to the silver fork (Metropolitan Museum
of Art, 47.52.2) by such decorative details as drapery swags on the lower handle shafts and
the tiny grotesque mask centered on each fork above the tines. The silver fork also relates generi-
cally to the silver knife and spoon, its ornamental handle formed by a female herm figure that
emerges, much like the satyrs, from a tapered and encrusted shaft. The two tines of the silver fork,
shaped to resemble the heads and elongated beaks of aftronted birds, however, differ significantly
from the three tines of the fork in the drawing. The silver fork also differs from the knife and
spoon in aesthetic sensibility: the fruit clusters on its handle lack the lushness of those on the knife
and spoon handles, and the placid nymph has none of the energy of the satyr-herms. The silver
fork is the work of a less accomplished goldsmith.4 The nymph’s figure is oddly proportioned,
with poorly articulated features. Her hands lack definition, in contrast to those of the satyrs which
are meticulously detailed, including tiny veins that stand out in relief. The color of the fork’s metal
is distinct as well, suggestive of a separate manufacture: its grayish cast differs from the warmer tone
of the spoon and knife.

85
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

The goldsmith Antonio Gentile, renowned as a maker of “...beautiful objects of gold and sil-
ver...with figures in a variety of poses...and assorted bizzerrie, masks, festoons, and animals,’S has
long been connected with the fork and spoon design in the Metropolitan Museum. Gentile was
also known as Antonio da Faenza, the name added to the drawing probably at a later date.° In
1932, Giorgio Sangiorgi connected this design to the extant silverware, which he had originally
attributed to Cellini, later revising his opinion based upon the name annotated on the drawing.
Sangiorgio also compared the bent, contorted poses of the satyr-herms to the theatrical slave
figures on the base of Gentile’s silver crucifix and candlesticks (No. 11).7 More than fifty years
The sil-
later, Gentile’s authorship of the drawing as well as the silver spoon and knife seems secure.
ver fork, however, appears to have been added at a later date, possibly commissioned to replace an
earlier fork that was lost or damaged.® SHV

Notes

1. The silver couvert (Metropolitan Museum of Art
47.52.1,2,3) was purchased for the Metropolitan Museum
of Art from Sangiorgi in Rome, together with the drawing,
by Adolph Loewi in 1947. For illustrations and discussion of
the silverware, see the Bibliography here and Hernmarck
1977, 2, figs. 04-506; Hayward 1976,p. 143, pl. 306; Honour
1971,p.84; Detroit 1958, pp. 135, 153, no. 400;Venturi 1937,
10, pt. 3, fig. 835; and Morassi 1936, p. 51, fig. 99.
2. Dimensions of the silverware are as follows: knife, 8% x
I % X I in. (216 x 29 x 25 mm); fork, 7%4 x % x % in. (184 x
I9 X 19 mm); spoon, 6'/6 x 1/6 x 1% in. (176 x 49 x 44
mm). The spoon of the drawing measures 7% in. in length,
only */6 in. longer than the silver example, but is consider-
ably deeper (3% vs. 1% in.), because the satyr figure of the
drawing is more sharply angled.
3. Ancient Roman ligulae (spoons) also have crooked joints
between the bow] and handle, perhaps as a point for hold-
ing the implement, Toledo 1977, p. 108 no. 69. See four
Roman spoons, first century B.c., Metropolitan Museum of
Art, 20.49.6-9.
4. A fork of apparently the same design is illustrated and
placed in the Corrand [sic] Collection in Florence, see
Marchese 1989, pl. xvu, 3. The fork is presently not in the
collection of the Museo Nazionale del Bargello, which
absorbed the Carrand Collection upon the death of Louis
Carrand in 1889 (written confirmation by director
Giovanna Gaeta Bertela, April 1996), see Rossi and Supino
1898; Florence 1989. Bargello 1895, p. 30, has only vague
descriptions of pairs of sixteenth-century Italian forks and
knives. A cruder and more generically similar version of the
fork is in the Museo Poldi-Pezzoli, Milan (inv. 536; 16.3 cm
long), with a suggested identification as Venetian, first half
of the sixteenth century. Its female herm is more skeletal,
the tines are adorned with acanthus rather than bird heads,
and there is an added mask and ornamental band on the
handle shaft. Milan 1981, no. 309, pl. 337.
5. ““Fece belli getti d’oro, e d’argento...figurine in diverse-attitudini
composte, ed abbigliamenti varii di diverse bizzerrie, di maschere, di
festoni, d’animali.” Baglione 1642 (1935), p. 109.
6. A second inscription in an old hand is located directly

86
DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures
FIG. 26
Attributed to Antonio
Gentile, Knife and Spoon,
second half of the sixteenth
century. In the style of
Antonio Gentile, Fork (The
Metropolitan of Art, New
York, Rogers Fund, 1947)
18
Design for
Spoon and Fork
late sixteenth century
Pen and brown ink,
brush and brown wash
over traces of black
chalk or charcoal, paper
irregularly trimmed
and lined
86x 7% in.
(208 x 197 mm)
Annotated:
Antonio da faenza in
brown ink in center;
...fano... faintly and
largely illegible, in chalk
or impressed on paper,
left of fork tines
PROVENANCE
Lord Amherst, Hackney,
Norfolk; [Drey Gallery,
Munich]; Giorgio
Sangiorgi, Rome;
Adolph Loewi, Venice
and Los Angeles
Metropolitan Museum
of Art, Rogers Fund,
1947, 47-52-4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sangiorgi 1932/33, pp.
224-28, fig. 4; Venturi
1937, X, pt.3, p. 947, fig.
836 (locates the drawing
at the Louvre); Avery
1947, Pp. 252-54;
“Metropolitan's Treasure,”
1947, PP. 25, 36;
“Renaissance Silver,”
1948, pp. 45-46;
Berliner 1951, pp. $3-
53, fig. 3; Hayward
1976, p. 143;
Hernmarck 1977, 1, p.
207, vol. 1, fig. 502;
Chadour 1980, pp. 72,
182-83, fig. 108;
Chadour 1982, p. 178,
fig. 73
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

under a trapezoidal area of discoloration, perhaps identify-
ing the draftsman of another image once pasted on the
same sheet. I am grateful to Suzanne Boorsch, Department
of Prints and Drawings, Metropolitan Museum of Art, for
this suggestion. Examination under ultraviolet light has
revealed signs of erasure, yet the inscription remains partial-
preliminary study for the Metropolitan Museum ofArt’s sil-
ver couvert. While the posture of the female herm of the
Morgan sketch is reminiscent of the nymph of the silver
fork, the della Porta herm is clothed, and there is no indica-
tion that the design was intended for silverware or even a
handle terminus.

by Teepe! wasfant< could be: BS ae ts ee 8. The fork may remain connected to Gentile’s atelier
dello Gallo (Cristofano Paolo Galli, Italian engraver, c. 1600),
through the small detail of a distinctive ring that fastens the
or ...fero detto Gatto (Gasparo Gatti).
strap encircling the nymph’s torso. This motif also occurs on
7. In a comparison of this drawing with Gentile’s drawing one ofthe slave figures from the base of Gentile’s silver cross
for the base of the crucifix (No.14), Berliner argued that (ill. Honour 1971,p. 82).
they were by different hands; he accepted Gentile’s author-
ship only for the crucifix design and dated the silverware
drawing about 1540—1550 and the silverware itself about
1545-1550. Gramberg (1960, p. 48) proposed that a sketch at
the Morgan Library by Guglielmo della Porta served as a

NO} Design for a Fork and Two Spoons

Italian, second half of the sixteenth century

THIS FORK AND TWO SPOONS represent lux-

ury objects for a sophisticated clientele and probably would have been realized in precious mate-
rials. The herm figures that shape all three handles were stylish ornament in the sixteenth century,
a fashion reflected in other silverware designs (see Nos. 17 and 18). Inventive figural transforma-
tions were especially pleasing to Renaissance tastes, and in this drawing, the herms merge seam-
lessly and ingeniously with motifs from nature. The armless female herm of the large spoon is
joined to a crested dolphin that bites hold of the shallow scallop-shaped bowl.The grinning satyr-
herm of the smaller spoon merges with an animal leg, the bestial claws of which “rake” the surface
of the bowl, creating a shape identical to the scallop shell. A clever logic underlies the spoon’s
marine ornament, in which a nymph with pearl necklace and shell anchor for her drapery changes
into a dolphin and scalloped bowl. In the other spoon, the animal claw and draped animal skin
refer to the woodland habitat of the satyr. Possibly intended as representations of the elements
(water and earth), the spoons’ thematic motifs may also reflect their intended use: the dolphin
spoon could have been appropriate for seafood delicacies, and the satyr spoon for forest fruits and game.
These utensils are probably serving pieces rather than dining utensils for personal use. The
four broadly splayed tines of the fork are distinctive; two or three tines were more common in din-
ing forks. Unsuitable for steadying meat while cutting with a knife, or even for inserting food into

88
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

19
Design for a Fork Cooper-Hewitt,
and Two Spoons National Design Museum,
Perand browaan’ Smithsonian Institution

brush and brown wash

useum purchase,
Museum
ties tinace Friends of the Museum

chalk or charcoal, lined Fund ore Eleanor

8% x 776 in. G. Hewitt Fund,

(217 x 189 mm) 1938-88-7848

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PROVENANCE
Gruber 1982, pp. 200-
Giovanni Piancastelli,
201, fig. 287; Thornton
Rome; Mr. and Mrs.
Edward D. Brandegee, HOOT, P. 104, fig. 103
Brookline, Mass. ,

89
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

the mouth, the splayed fork was best suited for lifting and serving dainty morsels such
as sweetmeats. A serving function is further supported by the fact that the fork is presented with
two spoons rather than with a knife which would have accompanied a carving or personal
dining set, a couvert.
Gruber attributed the National Design Museum drawing to Venice in the late sixteenth cen-
tury. More recently, Peter Thornton suggested that it might be the work of Gentile. Acomparison
ofthis drawing with Gentile’s design in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt (No. 18), however, prob-
ably rules out his authorship here because there are significant stylistic differences. Design for a Fork
and Tivo Spoons reflects a smooth and uncluttered aesthetic, especially in the handle shafts, while the
Gentile example is far more densely ornamented. Although both drawings are constructed with
linear strokes and with forms carefully modeled in wash, they represent two distinct graphic styles.
The National Design Museum drawing is characterized by delicacy and grace, while the one in
the Metropolitan Museum, like Gentile’s crucifix design (No. 11), is boldex and more energized.
The draftsman of the National Design Museum drawing took great care to arrange the three
forms neatly on a single page in dovetail fashion, suggesting that this is more than a simple “work-
ing” drawing or guide for execution by a goldsmith. The drawing may have served to present sam-
ple models of silverware to potential customers, or perhaps it was intended to be executed as a
print and included in a pattern book. SHV

90
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

‘Two Knives
ic.1640

‘After FRANCESCO SALVIATI (1510-1563)

Aegidius Sadeler (15 70-1629)

copy of engraving by Cherubino Alberti (1553-1615)

THIS ENGRAVING and one other—both illustrat-

ing a pair of knives—are the only known prints after Francesco Salviati’s designs for metalwork.
Salviati, a painter who first trained as a goldsmith, is credited in the inscription at the top of the
print.' These designs, engraved by Cherubino Alberti in 1583 and published with a papal privi-
lege,* were sufficiently popular to be published again later, in reverse, by Aegidius Sadeler with an
imperial privilege in 1605.3 The copies were reissued in the second quarter of the seventeenth cen-
tury by Marcus Sadeler, still with the date of 1605 but with his name added in the lower right. One
of the designs apparently served as inspiration for a strikingly similar knife handle in the Carrand
Collection of the Bargello, Florence (Fig. 27). Its carved ivory handle, of comparable size to the
printed version, shows the two female figures topped by a griffin, but it lacks the man kneeling at
their feet.+
Carving meat was a ritual of great importance at Italian Renaissance banquets (Fig. 28), and
contemporary manuals describe the various knives required for each task.5 Although ‘rendered in
the engraving in an abbreviated fashion, the thickness and tips of the knife blades are described
with enough specificity to identify the design for a carving knife on the left, its distinctive point
curving up toward the blade’s blunt side like the smembratore or dismembering knife illustrated in
Bartolomeo Scapp1’s banqueting manual. The hooked tip was used for skewering morsels or sepa-
rating joints.° The knife on the right, with a broader blade, perhaps ending in a rounded blunt tip,
may have been a serving knife (presentoir), used for presenting meat to guests.7
The focus of the print, however, are the knife handles. Utensils with elaborate handles were
not uncommon during the Renaissance, and several still survive.* Salviati’s handles are so richly
decorated with multiple figures and ornament that the designs themselves suggest a ceremonial
function. Like other metalwork designs by Salviati, active figures in high relief cover and crowd the
ornamented surface. The handle of the carving knife features the bearded satyr Marsyas, bound
with his arms above his head—a well-known antique type.9 Marsyas, who was flayed alive, was
gruesomely appropriate for a carving knife.'° Similarly, Fusoritto da Narni, a late-sixteenth-centu-
ry trinciante or carver, was proud of his special knife handle composed of horse’s teeth, tinted red
and white for a suitably macabre effect."! Kneeling between Marsyas’s legs is a bearded man who
reaches up to grasp the satyr’s genitals.
The serving knife is ornamented with the figures of two
bare-breasted females, perhaps the muses who judged the musical contest between Marsyas and
Apollo. At the top of this knife is Apollo’s griffin, and the man at the feet of the muses may be
Olympus, pleading for Marsyas’s life.

onl
 DISEGNO °* Dining Pleasures

Ge Salbuiat. fn
rg
20
Two Knives Cooper-Hewitt,
c. 1640 National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Engraving
Gift ofWiliam H.
9% xX 4% in.
Schab, 1944-84-1
(244 x 115 mm)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sheet:
Hollstein (Dutch and
11% x 6% in.
Flemish) xxi, p. 79, no.
(292 x 164 mm)
387 (state 2); de Jong
Inscribed: and de Groot 1988,
Frac’ Saluiat. In. at top; p. 286, no. 633.B.1;
CVM PRIVIL./S.C.M. fis Mortari 1992, p. 295
at the bottom left; 1 in MO, 1, Horitae
center; Marco Sadeler Cherubino Alberti ‘
excudit at bottom right; engraving. see: Bartsch
1605 on right knife XVII, p. III, NO.171;
Berliner and Egger
Inscribed in reverse: 5 d
1981,1,p. 53, NO. 371; 2,
Venter Implor Insatvrabilis 6 :
ie ig. 371; de Jong and de
on blade ofleft knife; : :
‘ Groot 1988,p. 285, no.
Sag Saute age 633.1. For the Aegidius
aoe a age Sadeler, first state, see:
EN 2a: Hayward 1976, p. 346,
Watermark: pl. 82; de Jong and de ~
Six-pointed star with Groot 1988, p. 286,
a crescent on top and NO. 633.A.1.
a circle and partial
crescent (of acrown?)
below (cf. Heawood
1131 and 1132,Venice,
c. 1610)
i i

The similar nature of the Latin inscriptions on the left blade, Venter Implor Insatvrabilis, and on
the right blade, Secvra Mens Ivge Convivium, support the supposition that these knives were to be
used together.'* It is difficult to find examples of comparable inscriptions on sixteenth-century
knife blades. Relatively few original steel blades survive; for they quickly became worn by repeat-
ed polishing and sharpening and required frequent replacement.!3 Latin inscriptions are more
commonly found on sets of Italian “grace knives” from the later sixteenth century. Made with
especially broad blades etched with notes and words of Latin graces to be sung before and after the
meat was served, these knives functioned as instruments both for cutting and prompting.'4 TLR
 DISEGNO * Dining Pleasures

FIG. 27 FIG. 28
French? late sixteenth Carver at a Banquet,
century? Knife with detail from ttle page
Ivory Handle (Museo of Bartolomeo Scappi,
Nazionale del Bargello, Opera, published in
Florence). Photograph hi Venice, 1610.
by Nicold Orsi Ait Photograph courtesy
Battaglini of Special Collections,
New York Public
Library

Shee

mee
an

HON hE MT IHRI

Notes

1. For the companion engraving, see Hollstein (Dutch and 8. Knife handles could be made from a variety of materials
Flemish) xxi, p. 79, no. 388; Bartsch xvu, p. III, no. 172; including gold, silver, steel, wood, and ivory. See Hayward
Berliner and Egger 1981, 2, pl. 372. 1954, p. 164; Bailey 1927, figs. 40-43.

2. Bartsch notes that a first state of Alberti’s engravings exist
without the papal privilege.
3. Hayward (1976, p. 346, pl. 82) attributes the 1605 edition
to Alberti, although it does not contain his signature mono-
gram.
9. Bober and Rubinstein 1986, p. 75 no. 32.
to. On the legend of Marsyas in classical and Renaissance
art, see ibid., pp. 72-78, and Wyss 1996. For the association
of Marsyas with dissection in the Renaissance, see Holman
L977 —7enpps 1-9:

4. The length of the Bargello’s knife handle (10.8 cm) com-
pares closely to the handle depicted in the print (10.5 cm).
I am grateful to Dott. Giovanna Gaeta, director of the
Bargello, for her assistance. It seems that the relation of the
knife to Salviati’s design has not been noted before. The
knife is described as sixteenth-century Italian in Rossi and
Supino 1898, p. 253, no. 181, and as sixteenth-century
French by Sangiorgi 1895, pl. 20.
5. Cervio emphasized the importance of using different
sizes of knives for carving various meats. Cervio 1593,
Pp. 4-5.
6. Scappi [1570] 1981, n.p.
7. For a discussion of carving knives see Bailey 1927, pp. 2-
3; Haedke 1970, p. 131; and London 1979, p. 2.
11. Fusoritto da Narni’s appendix to Cervio’s treatise on
carving, Cervio 1593, p. 68.
12. Secura Mens Iuge Convivium is similar to Proverbs 15, 15:
Secura mens quasi iuge convivium [But he that is of a merry
heart hath a continual feast]. Venter Implor Insaturabilis 1s
close to a passage also in Proverbs 13, 25: Venter autem impio-
rum insaturabilis [But the belly of the wicked shall want]. I
would like to thank Joe Alchermes (verbal communication)
and Harm-Jan van Dam (via Internet) for their assistance
with the inscriptions.
13. Hayward 1954, p. 164.
14. Bailey 1927, p. 4 and fig. 7; Clair 1964, p. 178. For a six-
teenth-century “grace knife,’ see Pagé 1896, 1, pl. v.
Compare German carving set of 1682 with etched decora-
tion and inscriptions on the blade in Bailey 1927, p. 3, fig. 8.

oS
 GIULIO ROMANO:
DESIGNS FOR COURT
LIVING
‘ erhaps no other artist of the sixteenth
century more completely embodied the ideal
of court artist and universal designer than
Giulio Romano. Born Giulio Pippi in Rome, ried woue by engravers, goldsmiths, tapestry
he was the most talented protégé of Raphael, weavers, and leather workers. As one admuinis-
whose large and very active workshop pro- trator marveled, “Master Giulio has so much to
duced buildings, decorations, and works of art, | do in designing and handing out work to so
including decorative arts, for the papal court.! many men who depend on him for their bread
Upon Raphael’s death in 1520, Giulio (along that he has not time... save:to give them one
with GianFrancesco Penni) inherited the mas- glance a day.’3
ter’s studio. Four years later, he was lured away A prolific designer in all media, Giulio left
to Mantua, a small but strategically important one of the most important legacies of cinque-
city-state between Milan and Venice, to serve cento decorative arts drawings.+ Today, several
Federico 1m Gonzaga (1500-1540), son of hundred designs by and copies after Giulio
Isabella d’Este and Francesco 1 Gonzaga. Romano for beds, bedwarmers, tapestries, can-
In the creation and decoration of buildings dlesticks, braziers, caskets, belts, and especially
in Rome, such as the Villa Lante, Giulio had dining vessels are scattered throughout muse-
already displayed his versatile talents as a ums the world over. In 1530, the goldsmiths of
designer of architecture, painting, and sculp- Mantua were so busy executing works for the
ture.* As artistic impresario for the marquis ducal family that Federico’s mother Isabella
(later duke) of Mantua and then for his d’Este had to search for an artisan in Ferrara to
brother Cardinal Ercole (1505-1563), Giulio fashion a silver basin for her.’ Unfortunately,
designed the settings and trappings of their none of Giulio’s precious metalwork objects
sophisticated court. Giulio (now called seems to have survived. All are lost or remain
Romano, “the Roman”) was responsible not unidentified. Among the only extant portable
only for creating palaces and villas (most objects designed by Giulio are tapestries,
notably the Palazzo del Te), churches and including a series with playful putti.®
chapels, markets and city gates, but also for Otherwise, his drawings, together with letters
orchestrating court weddings, funerals, about the commissions, constitute our only
triumphal entries, and entertainments. He primary sources on Giulio’s designs for deco-
commanded a small army of painters and rative arts objects.
sculptors as well as stucco workers, carpenters, Prodigiously inventive, Giulio’s designs
stonemasons, and gilders. His designs were car- ranged widely among the stylistic idioms of his
day—from restrained, elegant classicism (Fig.
29) to a writhing mass of natural foliage (No.
21). His decorative arts designs display the

94
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

same wit and sophistication that characterize of the four winds on a perfume burner and
those for architecture, painting, and sculpture. from a grinning satyr on a bedwarmer (Fig.
In Giulio’s hands, the popular sarcophagus- 32).5 A tureen with ducks swimming in a
shaped chest (forziere q sepultura, cassetta a moda marsh on the exterior has underwater scenes
di tomba) is ennobled with motifs from ancient on the interior, presented by Giulio in a cross
Roman sculpture (No. 22), while a well- section of the vessel.9
known and often copied classical candelabra is As Giulio himself noted, he sought to cre-
enlivened with putti and miniature lions that ate unusual effects.!° Some of these inventions
emerge from curled acanthus leaves (Fig. 30, were difficult to carry out, especially his pro-
31).7 In these and other drawings, ornament jects for metalwork.
The design for a saltcellar
and heraldry grow large and animated (Nos. 21 that he sent to Rome in 1525 was of such
and 22). Also typical of Giulio’s designs are the “subtle artifice” that it required the hand of a
marriage of nature and artifice as well as the master goldsmith, who, after its completion,
compact presentation of thematic imagery demanded the large sum of thirty ducats in
(Nos. 25 and 26). One eclectic ensemble (No. compensation.!!' When the duke of Sessa
25) unites a fanciful “boat” and marine crea- requested a similar saltcellar, this same gold-
tures with classical architecture, in which the smith, it was said, “‘did not have the heart to do
flanking Corinthian columns and winding another one like it, having endured great hard-
ribbon add a monumental and celebratory ship” in the execution ofthe first one.'? Giulio
aspect to the design. Even small objects realized that his designs required “great effort,”
become dramatic sculptural ensembles (Nos. which sometimes meant making an interme-
23 and 24). Some of Giulio’s designs were diary three-dimensional model and _ trial
clearly intended as works of theatrical attempts. %3
illusion—smoke was to billow from the mouths

FIG. 29
Giulio Romano, detail
of Banquet of Cupid and
Psyche, late 1520s (Sala
di Psiche, Palazzo del
Te, Mantua). Photograph
from Alinari/Art
Resource, New York

95
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

Predictably, Giulio preferred in Mantua in about 1541 or 1542, “no sooner

to supervise personally the exe- did one open one’s mouth to reveal an idea to
cution ofhis designs for decora- him, than he had already understood and
tive arts by having them designed it.”!7 Giulio’s drawings, in particular,
produced in Mantua. In 1539, were highly prized. Writing from Rome in
Giulio ‘tried to persuade 1539, Nino Sernini asked for “some beautiful
Federico Gonzaga to have designs by the hand of Giulio Romano” who
leather hangings made in is “divine in drawing.”!®8 As Vasari noted,
Mantua rather than Genoa so Giulio’s ideas were best expressed in his draw-
that he could oversee their dec- ings, which were more energetic and sure than
oration “in my way.’!4 In 1542, the final products.'9 At least twice, members of
Giulio sent Federico’s brother Giulio’s équipe ran off with his drawings. After
Ferrante Gonzaga in Sicily the first theft, Duke Federico Gonzaga asked
designs for a pitcher with fictive the rectors of
Verona to imprison the culprits,
droplets of water that condensed who had fled to their city. The duke wanted to
on the platter below in a ensure the recovery of all the drawings for his
whirlpool of marine life. Once palace project. He did not wish the designs to
again, Giulio urged that the be copied for others or executed elsewhere.?°
work be carried out in Mantua: These drawings were clearly prized for their
“In carrying out the work, it is novelty, which was lost to Frederico if they
necessary to be present in order were carried out elsewhere first.?!
to have it made well.’!5 Four After the death of Federico Gonzaga in
years later, Giulio informed June 1540, Giulio remained in Mantua to serve
FIG. 30
Roman,
Ferrante that a silver vase “does
Marble Candelabrum not resemble my design in any
(Vatican Museum,
way and even where it does
Rome)
resemble it, | am not surprised
that it did not come out well,
since I was not present.’!°
Giulio’s accomplishments as
draftsman and virtuoso designer
were legendary in his own time.
According to Vasari, who visited
the “abondante ed universale’’ artist

FIG. 31
Giulio Romano,
Design for a Candlestick,
c. 1§208-1546 (Christ HS Pie

Church, Oxford)

96
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

the duke’s brother and regent Cardinal Ercole. Giulio bequeathed his drawings to his son,
When Giulio died in 1546, Cardinal Ercole named after his teacher Raphael. Many
Gonzaga wrote: designs were sold, in turn, to Jacopo Strada, a

In truth it seems to me I have lost my right

Ree ici wor tive Ane akan ait ene
succeeded in taking away my appetite for
building, for silverware, for paintings. | would
not have the heart to do any of these without
the design of this wonderful genius, so that
having finished those few things for which I
have the drawings, I shall bury all my desires
with him.?2
Mantuan by birth, goldsmith by training, and
later imperial antiquarian and artistic agent. Of
all Giulio’s drawings, those for decorative arts
seem to have engendered the most copies
(many from Strada’s workshop)—a testament to
Giulio’s continuing importance for later deco-
rative arts design.?3 BETH L. HOLMAN

FIG. 32
Giulio Romano,
Design for a Bed Warmer,
c. 1§24-c.1546 (Christ
Church, Oxford)

Notes

1. Vasari states that Giulio died at the age of fifty-four in 33, nos. 123, 186; Shearman 1972; New York 1987, pp. 90-94
1546, which would place his birthdate in 1491 or 1492. A no. 19.
necrological record on Giulio’s death 1 November 1546,
2. On Giulio’ Villa Lante for the papal datary Baldassarre
however, states his age at death as forty-seven years (that is,
Turini da Pescia, begun as early as 1521, see Frommel 1989,
born c. 1499). Vasari-Milanesi §, p. $55; Ferrari 1992, Ul, pp.
pp. 127-53. The definition of Giulio’ role in the design of
1167-68. The date of 1499 is generally accepted (see, for
the Villa Madama, especially before Raphael's death, is com-
example, Hartt 1958, pp. 3-4 n. 1, 328, doc. 244). However, as
plex and problematic; cf. Frommel in Mantua 1989, pp. 98-
Belluzzi noted (in Mantua 1989, p. 99 and in Ferrari 1992,
103.
I, p. XXIV), it is possible that neither date is correct. An
inscription in a 1476 edition of Virgil’s works (British 3. “Messer Julio ha tanto che far, a dir il vero in disignar e dare daf-
Library Board, London, c.19.£.14/1B.20488), which once fare a tanti homeni che tutti vivano dil suo pane ch’el non ha tempo
belonged to Giovanni Pietro Arrivabene (1439-1504), de poterli solicitar, salvo che dargli una ochiatta al giorno,” letter of
humanist and secretary to Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga, has Aurelio Recordati to Federico 11 Gonzaga 23 May 1538.
a later inscription that places Giulio’s birthdate in 1492: Ferrari 1992, 2, p. 764; transl. in Hartt 1958, p. 76.
“Giulio Romano hoc deliniavit anno 1520. Aetatis 28°.’ London
4. For discussions of Giulio Romano’s designs for decora-
and New York 1994,p. 182, no. 90. However, the inscription
tive arts objects, see Hartt 1958, pp. 86-87; Jane Martineau in
is not by Giulio (who signed his name Julio) and must date
London 1981, pp. 195-98; Bukovinska et al. 1984, pp. 61-189;
after 1524; he was not called “Romano” until after his arrival
Fucikova 1987, pp. 217-28; Bazzotti in Mantua 1989, pp.
in Mantua. On Raphael’s workshop and Giulio’s Roman
454-65; N. Forti Grazzini in ibid., pp. 466-79; Welzig in
period, see Vatican 1984 and Mantua 1989, pp. 65-
Vienna 1989, pp. 250-64.
133. For Raphael’s designs for decorative arts, see also
Golzio 1936, pp. 22-23, 50; London 1983, pp. 149-50, 232- 5. Luzio and Renier 1896, pp. 270-71.

O7
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

6. Brown and Delmarcel 1996, pp. 87-89, 158-83, 194-205
with further references.
7. On the sarcophagus-shaped chest, see Vasari-Milanesi, 2,
p. 148;Thornton 1991, pp. 193 and 382 ns. 2, 3,9, 10; Koeppe
1994, p. 30, fig. 13. Compare also a sixteenth-
century gold casket in the Metropolitan Museum of Art;
Hayward 1976, p. 360, pl. 246. On the Sant’ Agnese cande-
labra (Figs. 7, 30), see No. 2 and Vatican 1989, pp. 98-99, nos.
59-60. For Giulio’s drawings after the ancient candelabra
(Strahov 7/10; Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Disegni Ashby,
n. 289; and Christ Church, Oxford), see Byam Shaw 1976, p.
131, no. 424, pl. 232; Nesselrath in Vatican 1984, pp. 314-15,
no, 119; and Bukovinska et al. 1984, pp. 81, 84.
8. On perfume burner, Strahov 93/171, see Bukovinska
al. 1984, p. 152 (called a saltcellar). Compare, however,
Strahov 73/115; ibid., pp. 132-33 (called a perfume burner).
See also Bazzotti in Mantua 1989, p. 456.
g. On the drawings for a tureen, British Museum, 1874-8-8-
66 and 1874-8-8-67, see Pouncey and Gere 1962, p. 75, nos.
120, 121, pls. 98, 99 and Hartt 1958, p. 292, nos. 92, 93, figs.
142, 144.
to. As Giulio wrote, “volendo fare foggie insolite,” in a letter to
Ferrante Gonzaga, 15 September 1546, Ferrari 1992, 2, p.
1162.
11. Francesco Gonzaga to Federico 1 Gonzaga
December 1525, ‘‘essendo opera de sutile artificio, et che non ha de
andare per mane de altra persona che per le sue.” Ferrari 1992, 1,
p- 112; see also letters of 7 and 22 November 1525 and 1
March 1526 in Ferrari 1992, 1, pp. 106, 109, 125-26.
12. Francesco Gonzaga to Federico 1 Gonzaga, 12 March
1526, “non ha animo de questi di farne un’altra de questa sorte,
dicendo haverli durata grandissima fatica dietro.” Ferrari 1992, 1,
p. 128. No physical description is given of this saltcellar, but
the complexity of Giulio’s designs for saltcellars is illustrated
by Strahov 17/22 (Bukovinska et al. 1984, p. 89), undoubt-
edly the same large, silver gilt saltcellar “with five satyrs
around and five festoons” (“cum cing. sattiri dintorno et festoni
cing.) inventoried in the Gonzaga collection in 1542.
Archivio di Stato, Mantua, Archivio Notarile Estensione kK.
10, fol. 1osv.
16. Giulio Romano to Ferrante Gonzaga, 15 September
1546, “Per un servitore de vostra signoria mi é stato portato un vaso
quale in conto alcuno non si somiglia a mio disegno e quando pur
somigliassi non mi maraveglio che non sia riuscito, non essendoci
stato presente, perché volendo fare foggie insolite bisogna sempre fare
un modello di legno o d’altra cosa e farne prima la sperienza nella
quale si chiarisce del difetto e molte volte con gran fatica si conduce.”
Ferrari 1992, 2, pp. 1162-63.
17. ‘“né aveva si tosto uno aperto la bocca per aprirgli un suo con-
cetto, che l’aveva inteso e disegnato.” Vasari-Milanesi, 5, p. $51.
18. Nino Sernini, 2 February 1539, “qualche disegno bello di
mano di messer Iulio Romano,” “esso é divino in disegni”; Ferrari
1992, 2, pp. 797-98.
et
19. Vasari-Milanesi, 5, p. 528.
20. Federico Gonzaga to the rectors of Verona, 19
November 1530 in Ferrari 1992, I,\p. 347. Eleven months
later, Aurelio Crema, who had worked only a few months as
a painter in the Palazzo del Te, also fled with many of
Giulio’s drawings. Giulio Romano to Federico 11 Gonzaga,
14 October 1531 in Ferrari 1992, I, p. 447.
21. Federico’s mother Isabella d’Este exercised similar pro-
prietary control when she gave permission for use of an
imprese or fashion. She loaned a rare Greek manuscript to
Cesare d’Aragona on condition that it be shown only to a
12 limited number of people, lest exposure devalue it (“né las-
sarlo vedere a molti, per non diminuirli la reputatione”). Luzio
and Renier 1899, p. 25.
22. “Perdessimo il nostro messer Giulio Romano con tanto mio
dispiacere che in vero mi pare d’haver perduta la man destra... la
morte di questo raro huomo mi havera almeno giovato a spogliarmi
dell’appetito di fabbricare, degli argenti, delle pitture et cetera, per-
ché, infatti, non mi basteria pin l'animo di_far alcuna cosa di queste
senza il disegno di quel bello ingegno, onde, finite queste poche,
i disegni dé quali sono appresso di me, penso di sepelir con lui tutti
i miei desiderit...,” Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga to Ferrante
Gonzaga, 7 November 1546, in Ferrari 1992, 2, pp. 1168-69.
23. Hayward 1970, pp. 10-14; Hayward 1972, pp. 378-86;
Bukovinska et al. 1984, pp. 61-76; Jansen in Mantua
1989, p. 404.

Ig Ferrari LO02, 2p tlo2.

14. Giulio to Federico 11 Gonzaga, 23 April 1539, Ferrari

1992, 2, pp. 810-11.

15. Giulio Romano to Ferrante Gonzaga, viceroy in Sicily,

24 February 1542, “nel condure l’opera bisognaria esserli presente
a far cosa buona.” Ferrari 1992, 2, pp. 946-47. Giulio’s designs
for the pitcher and basin have been identified with Christ
Church, Oxford, 0859, and Devonshire Collection,
Chatsworth, 104. Byam Shaw 1976, p. 132, no. 428 and
Bazzotti in Mantua 1989, p. 461.

98
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

21 Design for Acanthus Rinceaux with Animals and Birds

iC. 1§24—46

Workshop of? GIULIO ROMANO £(1490s=1546)

AMONG GIULIO ROMANO’S gifts as a designer

was his ability to reinterpret common antique sources such as acanthus rinceaux. This design for
lush, interlaced foliage is symmetrically organized, bisected by a pair of interlaced and twisted
stems that curl and terminate in a large drooping flower in each of the four corners of the sheet.
Scattered among the leaves and vines are various animals, including salamanders, the emblem of
Giuho’s patron Federico Gonzaga, and, in the upper corners, two eagles, from the Gonzaga family
arms.' In antiquity, double acanthus rinceaux, oriented vertically and horizontally, often inter-
spersed with animals and insects, were popular motifs for ornamenting a variety of forms, from
furniture to architecture.* Although the interlaced pattern of the drawing is similar to antique
designs, its foliage has greater dynamism and complexity than any classical work.
This design is closely related to Giulio Romano’s drawing in the British Museum (Fig. 33) of
a single scrolling acanthus rinceau. The same media were used for both drawings, which are
approximately the same size.3 The entire surface of both drawings is covered in vines, foliage, and
bell-shaped pods with seed clusters, interspersed with animals and birds. Although the British
Museum drawing is comprised of a single rinceau, the overall effect of luxurious density and
dynamic movement is similar. These drawings reveal an intricate construction, which prompted
Frederick Hartt to describe the one in the British Museum as “perhaps the most splendid and cer-
tainly the most closely integrated drawing for architectural ornament which we know from
Giulio’s hand."4
The National Design Museum drawing, while complete in its overall concept and elaborately
modeled, contains numerous pentimenti. A monkey perched on a vine (left center), salamanders,
and eagles have been drawn over the acanthus leaves, the lines of which show through. This draw-
ing lacks the numerous fine lines that strengthen, give texture, and create a sense of depth in the
British Museum drawing. Also the motifs have less descriptive detail. Even if the National Design
Museum drawing is a copy or a reworked studio drawing, it reflects a design that must have
originated with Giulio Romano.’ Giulio’s practice was to produce highly finished modelli, charac-
terized by heavy wash and squared for transfer.° The scale seen on the sides of this rinceaux
design, if contemporary to the drawing, may have been added to aid in the final translation of
the ornament.

99
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

Design for Acanthus

Rinceaux with
Animals and Birds
c.1§24-46 PROVENANCE
Léon Decloux, Sévres
Pen and brown ink,
brush and brown wash, Cooper-Hewitt,
white gouache; scale National Design Museum,
in graphite added on Smithsonian Institution
each side; curving Gift of the Council,
stroke (of a letter?) in 1911-28-418
pen and brown ink cut
BIBLIOGRAPHY
off on lower center
of sheet New York 1959, p. 10,
Mie x sh 1m, no. 15 (as early seven-
(282 X 330 mm) teenth century Italian
or French artist);
Birke and Kertész 1992,
p- 194, no. 340

100
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

Giulio frequently used rinceaux in the decoration of objects and architecture, for example the
frescoed friezes of the Room of the Horses (Sala dei Cavalli) and Room of the Imprese (Sala delle
Imprese) of the Palazzo del Te.7 Similar overlapping lush foliage of scrolling acanthus rinceaux are
seen in the tomb for Ludovico Boccadiferro (d. 1545) in San Francesco, Bologna, designed by
Giulio and on his drawing for a casket in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (No. 22).8 The
double, interlocking scrolling vines of the National Design Museum drawing comprise a symmet-
rical, self-contained design that could have been used as a panel ornament for a variety of objects
or surfaces. TLR

Notes

1. Verheyen 1977, pp. 25, 26, 28; Praz in London 1981, 4. Hartt 1958,1, 253.
. 66, fig. 75. F
P a 5. Peter Dreyer, verbal communication, February 1996,
2. Toynbee and Ward Perkins 1950, 1-43; see especially pl. noted that the National Design Museum drawing was not
vu, I, the double acanthus scroll on a pilaster from the Arch from Giulio’s hand.
of Titus and on Roman stone furniture; see also Schmitz
6.Verheyen
erheyen 1977,
1977, Ppp. p . 49-5
49-50.
1926, pl. 19.

3. British Museum, Ff. 1-56 (255 x 438 mm), see Hartt 1958, Dade ae
pp. 253, 308, no. 366, fig. 538, and Pouncey and Gere 1962, 8. Ibid., p. 573.
p. 69, no. 90. A copy of the British Museum design in the
Albertina, sR 421 (251 x 312 mm) is ascribed to Giulio’s
workshop, see Birke and Kertész 1992, p. 194, no. 340.

FIG. 33
Giulio Romano,
Design for a Rinceau,
C. 1§24-C. 15406
(British Museum,
London)

IOl
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

i) i Design for a Cofanetto with Gonzaga Eagle

Gols24—16

GIULIO ROMANO £(1490s-15

46)

GIULIO ROMANO’S design for a cofanetto, or

casket, combines heraldic imagery and the standard repertory of classical decoration and injects
them with a new spirit of animation.! The antique motifs of scrolling acanthus rinceaux, palm
frond, eagle, and lion’s-paw feet that merge into curving acanthus leaves are revived with natural-
istic vigor. The large eagle, part of the Gonzaga arms, stretches its wings across the front of the cas-
ket.
This drawing is a preliminary design in which Guilio offers two .decorative alter-
natives—rinceaux or palm frond—for the front of the casket. The faint scroll below the palm frond
and wavy chalk lines in the space above the fluted frieze suggest that Giulio considered further
ideas for decorative motifs. The frieze on the lid, left unfinished, again offers alternative
motifs—acanthus leaves or fluting.
Like other sixteenth-century cassette (small chests), the form and decoration of Giulio’s design
reflect contemporary cassoni (large chests).2 Such caskets, were highly ornamental, elaborate
objects made of rich materials (No. 13). Inventories list caskets made ef amber, ivory, carved
cypress, and walnut, as well as caskets decorated with scenes and ornament of pastiglia (gilded or
painted gesso relief).3 In his design, Giulio has appropriated elements of Ferrarese-style caskets,
including the square-domed lid and plinth, which act as a form ofprotection for the delicate carv-
ing around the base of the chest.4 Here, however, Giulio has replaced the normally straight sides
with curving acanthus leaves and scroll work. These elements of the casket, along with the lions’
paws and recessed flat top, are influenced by classical sarcophagi and their Renaissance deriva-
tives.5 Chests and caskets like Giulio’s, however, often sit directly on the base instead of being
raised and separated from the molded plinth, a feature of traditional sarcophagi. TLR

Notes

1. An eighteenth-century note on the mount attributes this 3. Thornton 1991, p. 383 n. 1 and 2.
work to Giulio Romano, as do Bean and Turcié and
Bisreete 4. See Allentown 1980, p. 35, no. 29; Thornton 1991, p. 200
and fig. 234; Koeppe 1994, p. 30, n. 35 with further
2. On Italian cassoni, see Leningrad 1983; Thornton 1991, references.
pp- 192-204, 382-83. one te
5. See Bazzotti in Mantua 1989, p. 460.
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

Neil

22

a2
Design for a Cofanetto
with Gonzaga Eagle
c.1524—46 Annotated:
Iulio Romano in pen and
Pen and brown ink, brush :
brown ink at lower center
and brown wash, white
. of old mount;
gouache over black chalk,
A 23300E in graphite at
silhouetted and lined a sap
lower right of mount
Image:
Metropolitan Museum of
36 x 6% in.
Art, Rogers Fund, 196s,
(101 xX 167 mm)
65.125.3
Sheet:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
4% x 6% in.
Bean and Turci¢ 1982, p.
(116 x 177 mm
110, no. 102; Ugo Bazzotti
in Mantua 1989, p. 460

103
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

bo oe) Design for a Handle with Satyrs

Cc. 1524-46

GIULIO ROMANO 6(r490s—1546)

THIS DESIGN for a handle comprises two satyrs

back-to-back with arms linked and merging into a slender herm-like shaft adorned with winding
grapevines and acanthus leaves. The pommel, also clad in acanthus leaves, is presented with two
design options, a ram’s head (aegicrane) or a winged lion. The salamander on the handle stem was
the emblem of Giulio’s patron Federico 1 Gonzaga.
The empty escutcheon at the top was proba-
bly intended to accommodate the Gonzaga heraldic arms.
Since the top is unfinished, it is difficult to determine the intended function of the object,
which is generally identified as a mace handle.! Maces, however, evolved from bludgeoning
weapons to become formal ceremonial scepters signifying authority. Satyrs symbolized unre-
strained, bestial nature and sexual license, associations antithetical to the decorum and gravity
appropriate to a mace. Furthermore, the extreme tapering and the large pommel of Giulio’s design
do not conform to the cylindrical, armorial grip typical of amace.? Rather, the outline and form
of the drawing are comparable to designs for fans and hand-held mirrors by Francesco Salviati and
Etienne Delaune (1518/19-1583).3 Either of these objects would be more in keeping with the
iconography of Giulio’s design.
Satyrs frequently decorated objects connected with feasting or other forms of sensual pleasure
(Nos. 18, 19).4 Here, the grapevine, garland, and goatskin reinforce their usual associations with
Bacchus and bounteous revelry.5 The salamander, Federico’s emblem which Giulio repeated fre-
quently in his decoration of the Palazzo del Te, was believed to be immune to the heat of fire (and
passion).° The libidinous heat of the satyr, the associations of the salamander with fire, and the
winged lion that symbolized the element of fire in antiquity suggest that this handle may have
been intended for a fan.7 ESE

104
 DISEGNO ° Giulio Romano

23
Design for a Handle
with Satyrs
c. 1524-46
Pen and brown ink over
black chalk, brush and
brown wash, the lower
two inches of the
stem silhouetted and
joined to another sheet
of paper to continue
the design
16/16 X 33/16 in.
(418 x 96 mm)
PROVENANCE
Unknown collector
(Lugt s. 474); Jonathan
Richardson, Sr. (Lugt
2184); Sir Thomas
Lawrence (Lugt 2445);
Francis Egerton,
ist Earl of Ellesmere
(Lugt s. 2710b); sale
Sotheby’s, London,
5 December 1972,
lot 10
Pierpont Morgan Library.
Gift of the Fellows,
1972.18
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ellesmere Collection 1898,
no. 162; Hartt 1958,
p- 294, no. 119; London
1972, p. 29, no. 10;
PML Fellows Report 1976,
p. 166; Ugo Bazzotti in
Mantua 1989, p. 457

Notes

1. Identified as a mace carried before a cardinal in the cata-

logue of the Ellesmere sale (London 1972), as a mace or
sword hilt by Hartt, and as a mace by Bazzotti.

2. For this observation I am indebted to Donald J.

LaRocca, associate curator of Arms and Armor,
Metropolitan Museum of Art. For examples of maces, see
Boccia and Coelho 1975, pp. 14, 20, figs. 35-40, 473-75.

3. The mirror designs by Salviati and Delaune have small

rings at the handle base for attachment to garments, see
Roche 1957, figs. 46-48; Hayward 1976, p. 349, pl. 108; and
Turner 1986, pp. 181-82, no. 133. Salviati’s drawing in the
British Museum (1948-1-9-3), attributed to Lelio Orsi by
Popham, then to Salviati by Gere, was previously identified:
as a cardinal’s mace when in the collection of P. J.Mariette;
as a fan handle by Popham in 1967 (p. 33, no. 54). For
antique mirrors decorated with goddesses and sirens,
Dionysus with Semele, and Pan with Marsyas, see
Enciclopedia Italiana 32, pp. 320-22, S.v. “Specchio.” For
Renaissance mirrors, see also Thornton 1991, pp. 234-39.

4. On satyrs, see Enciclopedia dell’Arte Classica e Orientale

1966, 7, pp. 67-73; and Kaufmann 1983.

5. On the association of Dionysus with images of goat

sacrifice, see Frazer 1963, pp. 453-55, 538-39. Bacchus and
Pan are featured in Giulio’s decoration of the Room of
Psyche (Sala di Psiche) of the Palazzo del Te Verheyen 1972,
p. 47 n. 30, and Verheyen 1977, p. 26.

6. Verheyen 1977, p. 26; Praz in London 1981, p. 66.

7. On the association of winged lions with fire, see Cirlot

23 1962, pp. 180-82.

IOS)
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

4A Designs for Saltcellars

4B C1$24=40

GIULIO ROMANO (14908-1546)

THESE TWO DESIGNS typify Giulio Romano's

flair for the dramatic presentation of decorative arts objects. In one, a bearded triton and, in the
other, a sea creature with jaws agape support shells as they swim through waves. The energetic
liveliness of the drawings, their crisp, clean lines and the way in which wash was used also point to
Giulio’s authorship.! Finally, the drawings are similar in conception and design to two drawings by
Giulio in the British Museum, particularly Shell-Shaped Salt Cellar with Lion-Headed
Sea-Monster (Fig. 34). i
Seashells, popular motifs for sixteenth-century vessels, were naturally associated with salt, a
product of the sea. Therefore, shell-form objects are often described as “saltcellars.’3 While some in
fact were, many Renaissance saltcellars were architectonic in form and geometric in shape.4
A drawing of a shell on a sea creature, possibly a copy after Giulio Romano (Fitzwilliam
Museum), was indexed in the late sixteenth century as a “small saltcellar [saliera] when the prince
eats alone.’5 Cellini’s well-known and precisely described saltcellar for Francis 1 included marine
imagery.° :
Since antiquity, salt, considered to be a powerful, mysterious substance, was so precious and
costly that it was sometimes known as “white gold.’7 The salt trade and salt taxes were an impor-
tant part of the Renaissance fiscal system. Cities such as Venice, rulers, merchants, and the Church
tried to monopolize the production and sale of salt and engaged in negotiations and
wars to control this source of power and wealth.® Salt was displayed on the dining table in luxuri-
ous containers of precious materials like silver, which is often the medium of saltcellars listed
in inventories.
These drawings are among the first decorative arts designs reproduced in prints and credited to
Giulio. Both designs were reproduced in reverse (Fig. 35) by the Flemish artist Hendrick van der
Borcht the Younger (1614—c.1690) who engraved a series of fourteen tabletop objects described on
the title page as inventions by Giulio Romano.? The measurements of the published objects cor-
respond almost precisely to those in the drawings.!° Another similar design by Giulio, the Shell-
shaped Salt Cellar on the Base of Entwined Serpents (British Museum), was engraved by van der
Borcht while it was in the collection of the Earl of Arundel (1585—1646).!! It is very likely that the
National Design Museum drawings were also owned by Arundel at this time and, with the two
British Museum drawings (including Shell-Shaped Salt Cellar with Lion-Headed Sea-Monster), passed
into the collection of Jonathan Richardson, Sr. ERA

106
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

24A, 24B
Designs for Saltcellars
Cc. 1524-46

Pen and brown ink,

brush and brown wash;
24A is silhouetted
and lined
24A:2% x §‘/6 In.
(70 x 129 mm)
24B: 2% x 5% in.
(72 x 140 mm)

PROVENANCE

For both:J.Richardson
Sr. (Lugt 2184); Earl
Spencer (similiar to
Lugt 1531); Hippolyte
Destailleur Collection,
no. 62; sale, Paris, 19 May
1896; Léon Decloux,
Sévres

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution,
Gift of the Council,
IQ11-28-35A and Ig1I-
28-35B

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Mireur 1911, 2, p.126;

New York 1959, p. 7,
no. 9 (as by a Florentine
artist active about 1575)

24B

107
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

FIG. 34
Giulio Romano,
Design for Shell-Shaped Salt
Cellar with Lion-Headed
Sea-Monster, c. 1524-c.
1§46 (British Museum,
London)

4 3%

FIG. 35
Hendrick van der
Borcht the Younger,
Engraving from Fourteen
Vases after Giulio Romano,
seventeenth century
(The Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New :
York, Harris Brisbane ae
Dick Fund, 1931)

108
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

Notes

1. The drawings, attributed by Richard Wunder in the New plinth with beveled corners. Hayward 1970, pp. 12, 13, fig.
York 1959 exhibition catalogue to an “unknown Florentine 16; see also Pouncey and Gere 1962, p. 71; Bukovinska et al.
artist active c. 1575,’ are attributed to Giulio Romano in the 1984, p. 143 no. 82/147.
National Design Museum Drawings and Print Department
6. Benvenuto Cellini, Saltcellar for Francis 1, 1543,
files. Anote on the drawing mat suggests that they may be
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 881, ill. in Pope-
copies “after (?) Giulio Romano.” Peter Dreyer recently
Hennessy 1985, pp. 107-108, 112, pls. 51, 55-68. Cellini, Life,
concurred (verbal communication, February 1996) with the
Il, xxxvi: “around [the figure of the Sea] were many other
attribution to Giulio Romano.
fishes and creatures of the ocean. The water was represented
2. Shell-shaped Saltcellar on a Base formed by a Lion-Headed with its waves, and enameled in its proper color.”
Sea-monster (British Museum, Ff. 1-51); Pouncey and Gere
7. Toussaint-Samat 1994, p. 458. On salt, see Visser 1986,
1962, p. 72, no. 102, pl. 89.
PP. 63-77.
3. See, for example, Girolamo Campagna (1549—c. 1625),
8. Mollat 1971, pp. 61, 65-67; Hocquet 1973, pp. 115-26.
gilt bronze Neptune Carrying a Shell (Saltcellar), Museo
Correr, Venice (Mariacher 1993, p. 39, nos. 157-58, pls. vm 9. Ne intuearis vinum quando flauescit, cum splenduerit in
and 157-58); Italian (Florentine?) lapis lazuli salt, last third of vitro/color eius: ing[rfeditur blande sed in novissimo mordebit ut/
the sixteenth century, Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection coluber, et sicut regulus venena diffundit. /Iulio Romano, inventor.
(Somers Cock and Truman 1984, pp. 146-47, no. 35). For Henr. vander Borcht fecit. A copy of the series, bound as a slim
another shell-form vessel, see lapis lazuli tazza, Museo degli volume, is in the Metropolitan Museum ofArt, 31.32.24-37.
Argenti, Florence, in Hayward 1976, p. 369, pl. 333. Actual See Hollstein (Dutch and Flemish) 1, p. 98, nos. 39-52; de
shells were also often used in tabletop vessels or simply Jong and de Groot 1988, p. 282, no. 626.
mounted for display; for example, Eas or Cornelius Grosz,
to. The measurements of National Design Museum draw-
Ewer and Basin, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, in
ing, I91I-28-35A, compare with the corresponding mea-
Hayward 1976, p. 382, pl. 466, 467. For ancient Roman
surements (noted in parentheses) for the van der Borcht
shell-shaped vessels, see first century A.D. examples from the
engraving (Metropolitan Museum ofArt, 31.32.28): length
House of Menander, Pompeii, in the Museo Nazionale,
of top of shell 105 mm (105 mm), length of base 113 mm
Naples, 145554, in Stefanelli 1991, p. 269 nos. 80, 81, figs.
(120 mm), width from shell to base (triton head) 49 mm (46
15 55:450-
mm), width from shell to base (tail) 52 mm (47 mm). For
4. See saltcellars depicted in Vasari’s Esther and Ahasuerus in National Design Museum 1911-28-35 B: length of top from
the Museo Arezzo (Bertelli and Crifo 1985, pl. 11) and snout to shell r12 mm (109 mm), length of base 127 mm
Fogolino’s Banquet of King Christian of Denmark in Malpaga (124 mm), width from shell to base (head of sea creature) 53
Castle near Bergamo. (Thornton 1991, fig. 313). Saltcellars mm (53 mm), width from shell to base (tail) 52 mm (49
were described as “round,” “oval,” “octagonal,” and “trian- mm).
gular” in the inventory of Duke Ferdinando 1 de’ Medici,
11. Shell-shaped Saltcellar on a Base of Entwined Serpents
Spallanzani 1994, pp. 107, 186, 189.
(British Museum Ff. 1-50) ill. in Pouncey and Gere 1962, p.
5. [Saliera piccola quando il principe mangia solo]. See saltcellar 72 no. 101, pl. 89. Van der. Borcht print after the British
on folio 20, Fitzwilliam Museum, P.p.6/1948. Hayward, Museum drawing is Metropolitan Museum ofArt, 31.32.24.
who notes the inaccuracy of some descriptions in this See Bukovinska et al. 1984, pp. 108-109, no. 46/68 for other
album of one hundred drawings for precious metal vessels, versions of this design. On van der Borcht and his travels to
thought to be copies after Giulio Romano, does not raise Italy and England, see Hollstein (Dutch and Flemish) m1, p.
doubts about this saltcellar. The rather static drawing 98;Thieme-Becker 4, pp. 341-42.
Saltcellar features a shell supported by a dolphin set on a flat

109
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

Design for a Boat-shaped Vessel

Gas2A= 54.0)

GIULIO ROMANO (1490s-1546)

THE FUNCTION of this intriguing design has

been variously described and still remains uncertain. In 1945, Rudolf Berliner (Museum files)
identified it as a saltcellar.' In 1984, Gonzalez-Palacios, who attributed the drawing to an
unknown seventeenth-century artist, identified it as a cradle for the Colonna family. In 1989, Peter
Thorton described it as a design for a ceremonial cradle for Francesco Gonzaga (b. 1533), the first-
born son of Frederico 1 and his wife Margarita Paleologo, with the flanking columns supporting
a tester or drapery framework.? Inventories and letters provide evidence for the.commissioning of
cradles for important families} and the object resembles another Giulio design in the Strahov
notebook, which has also been identified as a cradle.4 Thornton suggested that the marine
themes-the boat-shaped vessel with shell cap, supported by mermaids riding on fish-filled waves,
and twin-tailed mermaids on columns—are references to the Gonzaga, whose city of Mantua was
surrounded by lakes and whose territory was bounded by the Po River. The aquatic imagery
including the two-tailed mermaids, which recur in Giulio’s designs for tabletop vessels,5 may have
also been appropriate to a rocking cradle. Scholars have labeled as cradles other similarly shaped
designs, including vessels with mermaids and other sea motifs in drawings attributed to Francesco
Salviati and Vasari.° There is at least one example of a comparable shaped cradle extant in Florence
that features nautical imagery. And, in the seventeenth century, Passarini made prints of boat-
shaped cradles, with and without testers.7
The Giulio Romano design in the National Design Museum has no visible means of rocking,
in contrast to extant cradles as well as many examples represented in paintings and drawings.®
More important is the absence of any arms or emblem crucial to the display of princely male
heirs. The base, form, and iconography of the object in the drawing are reminiscent of other types
of decoration including ephemera, particularly ship-form floats for triumphal processions.? Boat-
shaped containers with aquatic imagery were designed as dining vessels (see No. 10) and recepta-
cles for salt (No. 24), most notable of which is Cellini’s saltcellar for Francis 1.1° The framing
columns in the National Design Museum drawing, however, a motif absent in Giulio’s other
designs for table vessels, would have made it more difficult to remove salt from its container. In an
undated note in the Museum file, Elaine Dee, stating that the two-tailed mermaid was associated
with Charles v, suggested that the drawing was a design for a banqueting decoration in honor of
the emperor when he visited Mantua in 1530. The emblem of Charles v consisted of twin columns
(representing the Pillars of Hercules) with the motto Plus Ultra.™! GWK

me)
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

25
Design for a Boat-
shaped Vessel
c. 1524-1546

Pen and brown ink,

brush and brown wash
over black chalk, lined
13 2/6 X II Yin.
(351 X 301 mm)

PROVENANCE
P.J. Mariette (Lugt
1852), Count J. P. van
Suchtelen (Lugt 2332),
Hippolyte Destailler
Collection, No. 493,
Léon Decloux, Sévres

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Gift of the Council,
IQT1-28-169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

New York 1959, p. 6

no. § (attributed to
North Italian artist,
c. 1550); Providence
1973, pp. 24-26, no. 21;
Gonzalez-Palacios 1984,
p- 30, no. 23; Thornton
1991, pp. 253, 256, pl.
281; New York 1994,
pp. 67-68, no. 61, illus.
p. 203.

25

Ii!
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

Notes

1. In the 1959 exhibition, Richard Wunder described the 8. Although some extant cradles display the family arms on
drawing (attributed to a North Italian artist, c. 1550) as a the headrest rather than the side, the Gonzaga arms are not
Design for a Table Decoration and identified it as a salt, New even suggested on the shell which would have served as a
York 1959, p. 6 no. s. headrest if the vessel was intended to be a cradle. For cradles
with heraldic devices, see Fig. 6, and Pedrini 1948, fig. 379.
2. Peter Thorton to Elaine Evans Dee, 29 November 1989,
Museum files. See Thornton rg991, p. 253, fig. 281. This g. Vasari’s Design for the Chariot of Neptune, for marriage of
identification was accepted, with some reservations about Francesco de’ Medici to Joanna of Austria, 1565—66; The
the lack of heraldry, by Linda Wolk-Simon in New York Chariot of Europe and Africa and The Triumph ofAphrodite, for
1994, pp. 67-68, no. 61. the marriage of Francesco de’ Medici and Bianca Cappello,
1579; Nagler 1964, pp. 13-14, 27, 49, 55-57, pls. 5, 33, 373
3. Thorton 1991, p. 253.
Italian, mid-sixteenth century, Sketch for a Saltcellar?; Giulio
4. Strahov 2/2, Bukovinska et al. 1984, p. 80 (where the Parigi, Ship Design for the Festival of the Argonauts, Wedding of
design is designated a cradle, with a question mark). Prince Cosimo de’ Medici to Archduchess Maria Magdelena of
Austria, Florence 1608; Fuhring 1989, 1, p. 333, no. 509
5. See examples of Giulio’s designs in the Strahov note-
recto; 2, p. 661, no. 982. However, unlike most Renaissance
book, in Bukovinska et al. 1984, pp. 97, 103, 131, 135, 158,
floats, Giulio’s design does not provide
for wheels.
163.
10. For a mid-sixteenth-century design of a boat-shaped
6. Musée Bonnat, Bayonne 1317 (with atlantes and caryatids
vessel in the Victoria and Albert Museum with aquatic
as testers, and Medici arms); British Museum 1870-8-13-
imagery, see Hayward 1976, p. 347, pl. 88.
goo (also identified as a design for metalwork). Mortari
1992, p. I71, NO. 14; p. 212, no. 264. 11. Rosenthal 1971, pp. 204-28.

7. Massinelli 1993, p. 50, fig. 72; Filippo Passarini (1638-98),

Nuove inventioni d’Ornamenti, National Design Museum,
1960-185-1,
pl. 30.

IIl2
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano
|

26 Design for Memorial to a Dog

|c. 1531-34

GIULIO ROMANO (14908-1546)

THIS DESIGN, in which the curtains of a

canopy have been pulled theatrically aside to reveal a dog lying in stately fashion atop a dais and
tasseled cushion, is a preparatory drawing for a stucco relief (Fig. 36). The extant relief is part of the
wall decoration of the Giardino Segreto [Secret Garden] at the Palazzo del Te in Mantua.! The
enclosed courtyard, begun in 1528 and completed in 1534, stands removed from the palace itself,
located in a back corner of the villa gardens. While most of the palace was used for official state
entertainments, this intimate space remained the private preserve of Duke Federico 1 Gonzaga. In
the courtyard of the miniature complex, a series of decorative panels, executed between 1531 and
1534, fill the attic register on three of the surrounding walls. These panels were originally seven-
teen in number, alternately stucco and fresco, and separated by terms. Ten panels, including stucco
reliefs still bearing traces of polychrome, survive.?
The dog relief occupies the central lunette above
the loggia.
Giulio Romano’s design and the subsequent relief commemorate a favorite pet of Federico 1
Gonzaga. More than twenty years ago, Nicholas Penny connected the drawing to a 1526 request
from Federico to Giulio for two designs of a marble tomb with epitaph for his favorite dog,
recently deceased while delivering a litter.3 The actual tomb, if executed, has not been identified.
Although the dog’s swollen teats in the drawing recall the bitch who died in whelping, this draw-
ing is so close to the stucco that it seems unlikely to be for a tomb commissioned five to eight
years earlier. More likely, the design of the 1526 tomb may well have inspired the subsequent
design of the 1530s for the relief panel.4 Giulio’s portrayal of the outstretched animal is reminiscent
of contemporary human tomb figures, shown recumbent atop sarcophagi.5 The coffin is incom-
plete in the drawing, which may have been cut; the “lid” is expanded to a full sarcophagus form in
the extant stucco relief. The parted curtains are a motif found on many late medieval and
Renaissance wall tombs.
The creation of memorials to favorite dogs was well precedented among the Gonzaga.
Federico himself had previously sought to honor a deceased male dog by commissioning an effigy
in bronze in 1520. Owner of more than one hundred dogs and renowned as a breeder of horses,
Federico had his horses memorialized by Giulio in life-size fresco portraits in the Sala dei Cavalli
[Room of the Horses] of the Palazzo del Te. Giulio featured animals, rendered in life-like and ani-
mated poses, in many of his designs for decorative arts objects for the Gonzagas (see No. 22). In
Federico’s Giardino Segreto, the remaining lunette panels depict scenes of animal characters taken
from the fables of Aesop, a decorative theme which Rodolfo Signorini suggested was inspired by
the memorial nature of the dog relief panel.” SHV
 DISEGNO °* Giulio Romano

SR Aes SERIO, phi:

a

26 26
Design for Memorial
to a Dog
c.1$31-34
Pen and brown ink,
brush and brown wash
4% x 6%/6 in. ;
(124 x 160 mm)

Cooper-Hewitt,
National Design Museum,
Smithsonian Institution
Gift of Hugh Cassel,
1958-143-14
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Penny 1976, p. 298;
Verheyen 1977, p. 131;
Signorini 1988, p. 36
n. 7; Mantua 1989,
p. 363;Vienna 1989—90,
Wily, MOL S.

War
 DISEGNO * Giulio Romano

Notes

1. Verheyen 1977, p. 130; Signorini 1988, pp. 21-36. 4. According to Mantua 1989, p. 363, the sketch was
According to Museum files the drawing, once credited to preparatory to the panel rather than the tomb.
Francesco Salviati (1510-1563), was attributed to Giulio
5. See, for example, Giulio Romano’s tomb design for
Romano by Richard Wunder after 1958.
Federico’s father, Francesco Gonzaga, Louvre 3576, in
2. Hartt 1958, pp. 145-46. Mantua 1989, pp. 558-59.

3. Penny 1976, p. 298. For the text of Frederico’s letter of 15
October 1526, see Ferrari 1992, 1, p. 177: “Ni é morta una
cagnolina di parto, la qual voressimo fare sepelire in una bella
sepoltura di marmore con uno epitaphio, perhd volemo che facciati
dui dissegni che siano belli, che li faremo fare di marmore” [a little
dog has died in whelping, and we would like to bury her in
a pretty tomb of marble with an epitaph, so we wanted you
to make two designs that will be beautiful that we will have
made of marble].
6. For this family tradition, see Signorini 1978, pp. 317-321.
Documents concerning Federico’s earlier canine memorial
are published in Signorini 1988, p. 36, n. 8.
7. Signorini 1988, p. 21. According to Signorini, pp. 21, 25,
the panel illustrations are loosely based on woodcuts from
an edition of Aesop’s tales, published in Verona in 1479. The
volume of this edition of Aesopus moralisatus still survives in
Mantua with the arms of Federico 1 Gonzaga’s grandpar-
ents, Federico 1 and Margherita of Bavaria.

FIG. 36
After Giulio Romano,
Stucco Relief of a Dog,
1530s (Secret Garden,
Palazzo del Te, Mantua;
photograph courtesy
of Egon Verheyen)

faLES
 IARTISTS’
BIOGRAPHIES

BACEIO BANDINELET
(1493-1560)
Sculptor
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vasari-Milanesi 5, pp. 133-200; Colasanti 1905; Thieme-
Becker 2, pp. 439-40; Hirst in Dizionario Biografico.
Italiano 1963, 5, pp. 688-92; Ward 1982. ANTONIO GENTILE
(or Gentili, also known as Antonio da Faenza,
The son of a Florentine goldsmith, Baccio Bandinelli c. I§ 19-1609)
trained with the sculptor il Rustici. He was active pri-
marily in Rome (1528-34) and Florence, where he was | Goldsmith, sculptor
a loyal servant of the Medici, serving both Popes Leo x. BIBLIOGRAPHY
and Clement vii as well as Cosimo 1. His major com-_ Baglione 1642, p. 109; Thieme-Becker 13, pp. 412-13;
missions include the Hercules and Cacus, Orpheus, and the. Sangiorg1 1932, pp. 220-29; Honour 1971, pp. 82-84;
Cathedral choir (Florence), the Andrea Doria Monument Chadour 1980.
(Carrara) and the Medici papal tombs (Rome). Known |
Active in Rome during the second half of the sixteenth
for his draftsmanship, Bandinelli founded an “academy”
century, Gentile is best known for his silver gilt altar
of art in the Vatican and designed prints engraved by,
cross and candlesticks for the high altar of Saint Peter’s,
Agostino Veneziano and Marco Dente.
Rome (completed 1582). His other commissions, now
lost, included reliquaries for Pope Pius v (1570) and the
Society of Jesus (1578), the base for a cross in the San
GIROLAMO GENGA Martino monastery of Naples (1593), and the design of
(c. 1476-15 51) fountains for Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. Amember of
Painter, architect the Roman goldsmiths’ guild from 1552, Gentile served
as assayer to the papal mint between 1584 and 1602.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Vasari-Milanesi 6, pp. 315-40; Thieme-Becker 13, pp.

386-89; Pinelli and Rossi 1971.
LUZIO
Born in Urbino and trained as a painter under Luca’
Signorelli and Perugino, Genga worked on commissions
for Pandolfo Petrucci of Siena and Agostino Chigi in
Rome. In 1522, Genga returned to his native city to
serve as architect, engineer, and artistic adviser to
Francesco Maria della Rovere, duke of Urbino. His most |
important project was at the Villa Imperiale, the ducal
residence outside of Pesaro which he restored, expand-_
ed, and decorated. After the death of Francesco Maria in.
1538 Genga continued in service to the duke’s son and.
successor, Guidobaldo 1.
ROMANO
(active 1528-1575)
Painter, stucco worker
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vasari-Milanesi 6, pp. 212; Pouncey and Gere 1962, pp.
110-12; Davidson 1966, pp. 68-70; Schilling and Blunt
1973; pp- 92-95; Rome 1981, pp. 19-21.
Active in Rome in the mid-sixteenth century, Luzio
(according to Vasari) painted grotesques and worked on
much of the stucco work at Palazzo Doria (c. 1528-33)
in Genoa as the apprentice of Perino del Vaga. Luzio
returned to Rome in 1534 where payment records indi-
cate he was charged to paint numerous rooms in Castel
Sant'Angelo. Luzio also worked at Santa Maria in Via
(1548), on the ceiling decoration for San Giovanni in
Laterano (from 1563, in collaboration with Daniele da
Volterra), on painting and stucco work in the Sala di
Constantno and other rooms in the Vatican (156s).

116
NICCOLO MARTINELLI, IL TROMETTA
(also called Niccolé da Pesaro, active 1565— 1585)

Painter

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baglione 1642, p. 125; Pouncey and Gere 1962; Gere 1963.
FRANCESCO SALVIATI
Born in Pesaro, Martinelli studied under Taddeo
| (born de’ Rossi, 1510-1563)
Zuccaro (1529-1566) in Rome, where he received
important ecclesiastic commissions. In addition to his Painter
most celebrated work, the vault frescoes in the choir of BIBLIOGRAPHY
Santa Maria in Aracoeli (1566-68), Martinelli also exe- Thieme-Becker 29, pp. 365-67; Vasari-Milanesi 7, pp.
cuted frescoes in Santa Maria dell’Orto. His last known 1-47; Cheney 1963; Mortari 1992.
decorative commission was for the palace of Cardinal
Francesco was born in Florence, the son of
Cesi in 1585. Although most of his working life is
Michelangelo de’ Rossi, a velvet manufacturer. He first
believed to have been spent in Rome, an altarpiece and
trained in the workshops of goldsmiths (a cousin and an
church fresco by him still survive in Pesaro.
uncle) before studying drawing and painting with
among others Baccio Bandinelli and Andrea del Sarto.
After 1529, Francesco moved to Rome and entered the
NBS SA DA MODENA service of Cardinal Giovanni Salviati, whose name he
(Nicoletto Rosex, active c. 1500-1522) adopted. Other important patrons included the Farnese
Painter, engraver family (especially Pier Luigi, as well as Ranuccio, and
Alessandro) and Pope Pius tv. The artist went to Rome
BIBLIOGRAPHY
several times—also Florence, Bologna, Venice, Verona,
Providence 1980, p. 79; Thieme-Becker 25, 456-57; Licht
and Mantua, and (in 1554) France. In addition to the
1970; Washington 1973, pp. 466-69.
many paintings on panel and in fresco, he designed
Little is known about Nicoletto of Modena, an impor- tapestries, intarsia, mosaic, and decorative arts objects.
tant early sixteenth-century engraver of allegorical, reli-
gious, and classical subjects who is best known for his
prints of grotesque and candelabra ornament. In 1506, ENEA VICO
he received a commission to paint the ceiling of a small
(1523-1567)
chapel in Padua. The next year he left his signature as a
egraffitto “Nicholeto da Modena/Ferrara 1507” in the Engraver, antiquarian
Domus Aurea in Rome. His engravings bear dates from BIBLIOGRAPHY

1500 to 1512, but some of his prints also seem to reflect
artistic influences from about IsIs to 1520.
PERINO DEL VAGA
(Buonaccorsi, IsOI—1547)
Painter
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vasari-Milanesi 5, 587-632; Thieme-Becker
37; Armani 1986; Wolk-Simon 1989.
Trained by Ridolfo Ghirlandaio, the Florentine painter
Perino del Vaga moved to Rome (c. 1516), where he
worked on the Vatican Logge with Raphael’s workshop
and, according to Vasari, studied ancient grottesche and
techniques of stucchi. Influential early works include the
decoration of the Palazzo Baldassini in Rome (1518-20)
and the Palazzo Doria in Genoa, where he fled after
being imprisoned for ransom during the Sack of Rome.
He returned in 1539 to direct the decoration
Castel Sant’ Angelo.
Thieme-Becker 34, pp. 328-29; Providence 1980, p. 93;
Landau and Parshall 1994, pp. 165, 284-88, 290, 293-95,
303-307.
Born in Parma, Enea Vico became one of the leading
engravers in Rome. His earliest signed works, a series of
twenty-four grotesques,* were published by Roman
printmaker Tommaso Barlachi in about 1541 or 1542;
later Vico prints were published by Salamanca and
Lafrery. He did engravings of architecture, sculpture, and
34, pp. 34-
ornament as well as the designs of leading artists includ-
ing Michelangelo, Salviati, and Bandinelli. From 1546 to
1563 Vico was in Venice, where his engravings illustrated
a number of books. An antiquarian and numismatist
who had illustrated books and written a treatise on
Roman coins (1550s), be was appointed curator of the
collection of antiquities, coins and gems belonging to
Duke Alphonso 1 d’Este in Ferrara (1563), where Vico
died in 1567.
of the

ry

Acanfora 1985: Elise Acanfora,
“La
tavola,”’ Rituale cerimoniale etichetta, ed.
S. Bertelli and G. Crif6, Milan, 198s,
pp. 53-60.
Adelson 1983: Candace Adelson,
“Cosimo 1 de’ Medici and the Foundation
of Tapestry Production in Florence,”
Firenze e la Toscana dei Medici nell’ Europa
del ‘500, vol. 3, Relazioni artistiche. Il
linguaggio architettonico, Florence, 1983,
pp. 899-924.
Adelson 1985: Candace Adelson,
“Documents for the Foundation of
Weaving under Cosimo 1 de’ Medici,”
Renaissance Studies in Honor of Craig Hugh
Smyth, ed. Andrew Morrogh et al.,
2 vols., Florence, 1985, 2, pp. 3-17-
Adelson 1990: Candace Adelson, “The
Tapestry Patronage of Cosimo 1 de’
Medici, 1545-1553, PH.D. diss., Institute
of Fine Arts, New York University, 1990.
Alberti (Grayson ed. 1972): Leon
Battista Albert, On Painting and On
Sculpture, trans. with intr. and notes
by Cecil Grayson, London, 1972.
Alberti (Rykwert ed. 1988): Leon
Battista Alberti, On the Art of Building in
Ten Books, trans. Joseph Rykwert, Neil
Leach, and Robert Tavernor, Cambridge
Mass., 1988.
Allentown 1980: Allentown Art
Museum, Beyond Nobility: Art for the Private
Citizen in the Early Renaissance, exhib. cat.
by Ellen Callmann, Allentown, Pa., 1980.
Allison 1993/94: Ann Hersey Allison,
“The Bronzes of Pier Jacopo
Alari-Bonacolsi, called Antico,” Jahrbuch
der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in
Wien, 89/90 (1993/94).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Armani 1986: Elena Parma Armani,
Perin del Vaga, L’anello mancante: Studi
sul manierismo, Genoa, 1986.
Armenini 1587 (1971): Giovanni
Battista Armenini, De’ veri precetti della
Pittura, 1587; reprint, Hildesheim and
New York, 1971.
Arseni 1969: Carlo Arseni, Villa imperiale
a Pesaro e altre questioni riguardanti Vattivita
di Girolamo Genga architetto, Urbino, 1969.
Avery 1947: C. Louise Avery, “Sculptured
Silver of the Renaissance,’ Metropolitan
Museum ofArt Bulletin 5 (June 1947), pp.
Baglione 1642 (1935): Giovanni
Baglione, Le Vite de’ Pittori Scultori et
Architetti, 1642, facs. ed., Rome, 1935.
Bailey 1927: Bailey, Charles Thomas
Peach, Knives and Forks, Selected and
Described..., London and Boston, 1927.
Baldinucci 1681 (1976): Filippo
Baldinucci, Vocabolario Toscano dell’ Arte
del Disegno, Florence, 1681, facs. ed.,
Florence, 1976.
Ballardini 1950: Gaetano Ballardini,
“Nota: Faenza,” Bollettino del Museo
Internazionale delle ceramiche in Faenza
36 (1950), pp. [O1-103.
Barasch 1985: Moshe Barasch, Theories
of Art from Plato to Winckelmann, New
York, 1985.
Barber and Barker 1989: Richard
Barber and Juliet Barker, Tournaments,
Jousts, Chivalry and Pageants in the Middle
Ages, New York, 1989.
Bargello 1895: Museo nazionale
di Firenze, Collection Carrand al Bargello,
Rome, 1895.
118
Barocchi 1971, 1973 (1979):
Paola Barocchi, ed. Scritti d’Arte del
Cinquecento. vill. Disegno, 1971 and 1973,
reprint, Turin, 1979.
Barriault 1994: Anne B. Barriault,
Spalliera Painting of Renaissance Tuscany:
Fables of Poets for Patrician Homes,
University Park, Pa., 1994.
Bartsch: Adam Bartsch, Le peintre graveur,
a
21 vols., new ed. Leipzig, 1854-76.
Battini 1553: Benedetto Battini,
Vigilate Quia Nescitis Diem Neque Horam,
Antwerp, 1553.
Baur 1977: Veronika Baur, Kerzenleuchter
aus Metall: Geschichte, Formen, Techniken,
Munich, 1977.
Baxandall 1971: Michael Baxandall,
Giotto and the Orators: Humanist Observers
of Painting in Italy and the Discovery
of Pictorial Composition, 1350-1450,
Oxford, 1971.
Bean 1982: Jacob Bean with the assis-
tance of Lawrence Turcié¢, 15th and 16th
Century Italian Drawings in the Metropolitan
Museum ofArt, New York, 1982.
Belluzzi and Capezzali 1976:
Amedeo Belluzzi and Walter Capezzali,
Il palazzo dei lucidi inganni/Palazzo Te a
Maritova, Florence, 1976.
Berg-noé: H. A. van den Berg-noé,
“Lorenzo Lotto e la decorazione del coro
ligneo di S. Maria Maggiore in Bergamo,”
Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut
te Rome, n.s. 1, 36 (1974), pp. 145-63.
Berlin 1939: Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin, Katalog der Ornamentstich-Sammlung
der Staatlichen Kunstbibliothek Berlin,
Berlin and Leipzig, 1939.

Berlin 1969: Staatliche Museen zu
Berlin, Zauber des Ornaments, exhib. cat.,
Berlin, 1969.
Berlin 1971: Goldschmiedewerke der
Renaissance 5, Kataloge des
Kunstgewerbemuseums, cat. by Klaus
Pechstein, Berlin, 1971.
Berlin 1988: Albrecht Altdorfer:
Zeichnungen, Deckfarbenmalerei,
Druckgraphik, Kupferstichkabinett,
Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preussischer
Kulturbesitz, Museen de Stadt
Regensburg, 1988.
Berliner 1951: Rudolf Berliner,
“Two Contributions to the Criticism of
Drawings Related to Decorative Art,”
Art Bulletin 33 (March 1951), pp. 51-53.
Berliner and Egger 1981: Rudolf
Berliner and Gerhart Egger, Ornamentale
Vorlageblatter des 15. bis 19. Jahrhunderts 3,
Munich, 1981.
Bernard: Bernard, Opera Omnia 182, ed.
Joannis Mabillon, Turnholti, Belgium.
Bertela and Spallanzani 1992:
G. Bertela and M. Spallanzani, eds., Libro
d’inventario dei beni di Lorenzo il Magnifico,
Florence, 1992.
Bertelli and Crifo 1985:
Sergio Bertelli and Giuliano Crifo, eds.,
Rituale, cerimoniale, etichetta, Milan, 1985.
Bertolotti 1888 (1974): A. Bertolotti, Le
arti minori alla corte di Mantova nei secoli Xv,
xvi e xvi, Milan, 1888, reprint ed., 1974.
Birke and Kerész 1992: Veronika Birke
and Janine Kertész, Die Italienischen
Zeichnungen der Albertina 1,Vienna, 1992.
Bisticci, 1951: Vespasiano da Bisticci,
Vite di Uomini Illustri del Secolo xv, ed.
P. d’Ancona and E. Aeschlimann,
Milan, 1951.
DISEGNO * Bibliography
Bober and Rubinstein 1986: Phyllis
Pray Bober and Ruth Rubinstein,
Renaissance Artists & Antique Sculpture:
A Handbook of Sources, New York, 1986.
Boccaccio 1495 (Romano, 1951):
G. Boccaccio, Genealogie deorum gentilium
libri, 1495, ed.V.Romano, Bari, 1951.
Boccardo 1989: Piero Boccardo, Andrea
Doria e le Arti: Committenza e Mecenatismo
a Genova, Rome, 1989.
Boerner 1970: C. G. Boerner, Neue
Lagerliste nr. 55: Ornamente aus vierhundert
Jahren, Diisseldorf, 1970.
Boggiali: Giuliano Boggiali, La Posata,
Milan, n.d.
Borsook: Eve Borsook, “Documenti,”
Antichita Viva 9 (1970), no. 3, pp. 3-20.
Braghirolli 1879: Willelmo Braghirolli,
Sulle Manifatture di Arazzi in Mantova,
Mantua, 1879.
Braun 1932: J. Braun, Das Christliche
Altergerdt in seinem Sein und in seiner
Entwicklung, Munich, 1932.
Briquet 1923: Charles-Moise Briquet,
Les Filigranes: dictionnaire historique des
marques du papier des leur apparition vers
1282 jusqu’en 1600, Leipzig, 1923.
Brown and Delmarcel 1996: Clifford
M. Brown and Guy Delmarcel, with Anna
Maria Lorenzoni, Tapestries
for the Courts
of Federico 11, Ercole, and Ferrante Gonzaga,
1522—63, Seattle, 1996.
Brunner 1971: Herbert Brunner, Vecchi
Argenti Europei, Milan, 1971.
Bukovinska et al. 1984: Beket
Bukovinska, Eliska Fucikova, and
Lubomir Konecny, “Zeichnungen von
Giulio Romano und seiner Werkstatt in
Einem Vergessenen Sammelband in Prag,”
Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen
in Wien 80 (1984), pp. 63-183.
119
Bulfinch 1871 (1959): Thomas Bulfinch,
Bulfinch’s Mythology, 1871, reprint, New
York, 1959.
Bunt 1943: Cyril Bunt, “The Silver
Nef,” Connoisseur 111 (1943), pp. 90-95.
Byam Shaw 1976: James Byram Shaw,
Drawings by Old Masters at Christ Church,
Oxford, Oxford, 1976.
Calvi and Bertelli 1983: Giulia Calvi
and Sergio Bertelli, “La Bocca del
Signore: Commensalita e Gerarchie sociali
fra cinque e seicento, I] Linguaggio, il
Corpo, La Festa: Per un ripensamento della
tematica di Michail Bachtin, Milan, 1983,
Pp. 197-219.
Cambridge 1988: Baccio Bandinelli,
1493-1560: Drawings from British
Collections, exhib. cat. by Roger Ward,
Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, 1988.
Carl 1983: Doris Carl, “Documenti
inediti su Maso Finiguerra e la sua
famiglia,’ Annali della Scuola Normale
Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere e
Filosofia, ser. 3, 13 (1983), pp. 507-54.
Cecchi 1992: Alessandro Cecchi,
“Filippino Disegnatore per le arti appli-
cate,” in Florentine Drawing at the Time of
Lorenzo the Magnificent ed. Elizabeth
Cropper, Florence, 1992, pp. 55-61.
Cellini, Life: Benvenuto Cellini, The Life
of Benvenuto Cellini Written by Himself,
trans. John Addington Symonds, ed. John
Pope-Hennessy, London, 1949.
Cellini, Treatises: Benvenuto Cellini,
The Treatises of Benvenuto Cellini on
Goldsmithing and Sculpture, trans. and ed.
C. R. Ashbee, London, 1888, reprint,
Dover Publications, New York, 1967.
Cennini 1933 (1960): Cennino Cennini,
The Craftsman’s Handbook “Il Libro
dell’ Arte, trans. D.Thompson,
Jr., 1933,
reprint, New York, 1960.

Cennini 1991: Cennino Cennini, I! Libro
dell’ Arte, ed. Mario Serchi, Florence, 1991.
Cervio 1593 (1980): Vincenzo Cervio,
Il trinciante: ampliato..., Venice, 1593,
reprint ed., Sala Bolognese, 1980.
Chadour 1980: Anna Beatriz Chadour,
Antonio Gentili und der Altarsatz von
St. Peter, PH.D. diss., Westfalische
Wilhelms-Universitat, Miinster, 1980.
Chadour 1982: Anna Beatriz Chadour,
“Der Altarsatz des Antonio Gentile in
St. Peter zu Rom,” Wallraf-Richartz
Jahrbuch, 1982, pp. 133-93.
Cheney 1963: Iris Cheney, “Francesco
Salviati (15 10—63),” PH.D. diss., Institute
of Fine Arts, New York University, 1963.
Chiodi 1962: Luigi Chiodi, ed., Lettere
inedite di Lorenzo Lotto, Monumenta
Bergomensia 8, Bergamo, 1962.
Clair: Colin Clair, Kitchen and Table:
A Bedside History of Eating in the Western
World, New York, 1964.
Cleveland 1981: Cleveland Museum
of Art, Draughtsman Eye: Late Italian
Renaissance Schools and Styles, exhib.
cat. by Edward Olszewski and Jane
Glaubinger, Cleveland, 1981.
Clifford 1991: T. Clifford, “Some
Unpublished Drawings for Maiolica and
Federigo Zuccaro’s Role in the ‘Spanish
Service’,” Renaissance Pottery, ed.
T. Wilson, London, 1991, pp. 166-76.
Clifford and Mallet 1976:
Timothy Cliftord and J.V.G. Mallet,
“Battista Franco as a Designer for
Maiolica,” Burlington Magazine 118
(June 1976), pp. 387-410.
Colasanti 1905: Colasanti,
“I]
Memoriale di Baccio Bandinelli,”
Repertorium ftir Kunstwissenschaft
28, 1905, pp. 406-43.
DISEGNO
Collijn 1933: Isak Collijn, ed., Katalog
der Ornamentstichsammlung des Magnus
Gabriel de la Gardie in der kgl. Bibliothek
zu Stockholm, Stockholm, 1933.
Cooper Union 1957: Cooper Union
Museum for the Arts of Decoration,
New York, An Illustrated Survey of the
Collections, New York, 1957.
Cora and Fanfani 1982: G. Cora
and A. Fanfani, La Maiolica di Cafaggiolo,
Florence, 1982.
Cropper 1976: Elizabeth Cropper,
“On Beautiful Women, Parmigianino,
Petrarchismo, and the Vernacular Style,”
Art Bulletin 58 (September 1976),
Pp. 374-94
Cruciani 1968: Fabrizio Cruciani,
II Teatro del Campidoglio e le feste Romane
del 1513, Milan, 1968.
Cugnoni 1879/80: G. Cugnoni,
“Agostino Chigi 11 Magnifico,” Archivio
della Societa Romana di Storia Patria 2,
Rome, 1879, pp. 37-82, 209-26, 475-90; 3,
Rome, 1880, pp. 213-32, 291-305, 422-48;
4, Rome, 1881, pp. 56-75, 195-216.
Dacos 1969: Nicole Dacos, La découverte
de la Domus Aurea et la formation des
grotesques a la renaissance, London and
Leyden, 1969.
Dal Poggetto 1983: Paolo Dal Poggetto,
“Tl cantiere della Villa Imperiale,” Urbino e
le Marche prima e dopo Raffaello, ed. Maria
Grazia Ciardi Dupre dal Poggetto and
Paolo Dal Poggetto, Florence, 1983, pp.
381-97.
Davidson 1966: Bernice FE Davidson,
Mostra di disegni di Perino del Vaga e la sua
cerchi, catalogo critico, Florence, 1966.
Davies and Hemsoll 1983: Paul Davies
and David Hemsoll, “Renaissance balus-
ters and the Antique,” Architectural History
26 (1983), pp. I-23.
* Bibliography
Degenhart and Schmitt 1980:
Bernhard Degenhart and Annegrit
Schmitt, Corpus der Italienischen
Zeichnungen, 1300-1450: Il. Venedig,
Berlin 1980.
de Jong and de Groot: Marijnke de
Jong and Irene de Groot, Ornamentprenten
in het Rijksprentenkabinet: 1, 15de & 16de
eeuw, Amsterdam, 1988.
Detroit 1958: Detroit Institute of Arts,
Decorative Arts of the Italian Renaissance,
1400-1600, exhib. cat., Detroit, 1958.
Dillon 1989: Gianvittorio Dillon,
“Novita su Francesco Salviati disegnatore
per orafi,” Antichita Viva 28 (1989),
Pp- 45-49.
Draper 1988: James David Draper,
review of Cambridge 1988, Master
Drawings 26, no. 2 (Summer 1988),
pp. 137-38.
Dumesnil 1853: Antoine Jules Dumesnil,
Histoire des plus célébres amateurs Italiens
et leurs relations avec les artistes, Paris, 1853.
Eisler 1989: Colin Eisler, The Genius of
Jacopo Bellini: The Complete Paintings and
Drawings, New York, 1989.
Elias 1978: Norbert Elias, The History
of Manners: The Civilizing Process 1, trans.
E. Jephcott, New York, 1978.
Ellesmere Collection 1898: Catalogue
of the Ellesmere Collection of Drawings at
Bridgewater House, 1898.
Enciclopedia dell’arte: Enciclopedia
dell’Arte Classica e Orientale 7 Rome, 1966.
Enciclopedia Italiana: Enciclopedia Italiana
di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Rome, 1949.
Ettlinger 1953: L. D. Ettlinger,
“Pollaiuolo’s Tomb of Pope Sixtus rv,”
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes 15, nos. 3-4 (1953), pp. 239-74.

Falletti 1982: Celia Falletti, “Le feste per
Eleonora d’Aragona da Napoli a Ferrara
(1473), Spettacoli Conviviali dall’ Antichita
Classica alle Corti Italiane del’4o00, Viterbo,
1982, pp. 269-89.
Ferrara 1988: Gabriele Corbo, ed.,
A Tavola con il Principe, exhib. cat., Castello
Estense, Ferrara, 1988.
Ferrari 1992: Daniela Ferrari, ed., Giulio
Romano, Repertorio di fonti documentarie,
2 vols, Rome, 1992.
Ferretti 1982: Massimo Ferretti,
“T maestri della prospettiva,” Storia dell’arte
italiana, 1982, pt. 3; vol. 4, pp. 459-585.
Florence 1989: Arti del Medio Evo e del
Rinascimento/Omaggio ai Carrand,
1889—1989, ed. Paola Barrocchi, Giovanna
Gaeta Bertela, and Marco Spallanzani,
exhib. cat., Museo Nazionale del Bargello,
Florence, 1989.
Florence 1992: Uffizi, II Disegno
Fiorentino del Tempo di Lorenzo il Magnifico,
exhib. cat., ed. A. Petrioli Tofani,
Florence, 1992.
Fock 1988: C. Willemiyn Fock, ‘“Pietre
Dure Work at the Court of Prague
and Florence: Some Relations,” in Prag
um 1600: Beitrage zur Kunst und Kultur
am Hofe Rudolfs 1, exhib. cat., Vienna,
Kunsthistorisches Museum, Freren, 1988.
Fort Worth 1993: Beverly Louise
Brown and Paola Marini, eds., Jacopo
Bassano, ¢. 1510-1592, exhib. cat. Kimbell
Art Museum, Fort Worth, 1993 (exhibi-
tion began in Bologna, Museo Civico,
1992 Bassano del Grappa).
Frank 1988: Eric Frank, “Pollaiuolo
Studies,” pu.D. diss., Institute of Fine Arts,
New York University, 1988.
Frommel 1989: Christoph Luitpold
Frommel, “Villa Lante e Giulio Romano
artista universale,” Giulio Romano, Atti del
Convegno Internazionale di Studi su
“Giulio Romano e l’espansione europea del
Rinascimento,” Mantua, 1989, pp. 127-53.
DISEGNO »* Bibliography
Fucikova 1987: Eliska Fucikova, “Giulio
Romano and His Workshop: Designs for
Artisans,” Drawings Defined, ed. Walter
Strauss and Tracie Felker, New York, 1987,
pp. 217-28.
Fuhring 1989: Peter Fuhring, Design into
Art, Drawings
for Architecture and Ornament:
The Lodewijk Houthakker Collection,
London, 1989.
Gere 1963a: J. A. Gere, “Drawings by
Niccol6 Martinelli, il Trometta,” Master
Drawings 2, no. 4 (Winter 1963), pp. 3-18.
Gere 1963b: J. A. Gere, “Taddeo Zuccaro
as a Designer for Maiolica,’ Burlington
Magazine 105 (July 1963), pp. 306-15.
Ghiberti (Morisani 1947): Lorenzo
Ghiberti, 1 Commentari, ed. O. Morisani,
Naples, 1947.
Giusti 1992: Anna Maria Giusti,
Pietre Dure: Hardstone in Furniture and
Decorations, trans. Jenny Condie and
Mark Roberts, London, 1992.
Goldthwaite 1972: Richard A.
Goldthwaite, “The Florentine Palace
as Domestic Architecture)’ American
Historical Review 77 (1972), pp. 977-1012.
Goldthwaite 1987: Richard A.
Goldthwaite, “The Empire of Things:
Consumer Demand in Renaissance Italy,”
Patronage, Art and Society in Renaissance
Ttaly, F W. Kent and P. Simons, eds.,
Oxford, 1987, pp. 153-75.
Goldthwaite 1989: Richard A.
Goldthwaite, “The Economic and Social
World ofItalian Renaissance Maiolica,”
Renaissance Quarterly 42, no. 1 (1989),
pp. 1-32.
Goldthwaite 1993: Richard A.
Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand
for
Art in Italy, 1300-1600, Baltimore, 1993.
Golzio 1936: Vincenzo Golzio, Raffaello
net documenti, Vatican, 1936.
Gonzalez-Palacios 1984: Alvar
Gonzalez-Palacios, Il Tempio del Gusto,
Milan, 1984.
Gourarier 1994: Zeev Gourarier, Arts
et manieres de table en occident, des origines
a nos jours, Thionville, 1994.
Gramberg 1960: Werner Gramberg,
“Guglielmo Della Porta, Coppe
Fiammingo und Antonio Gentili da
Faenza,’ Jahrbuch der Hamburger
Kunstsammlungen 5(1960), pp. 31-49.
Gramberg 1981: Werner Gramberg,
“Notizen zu den Kruzifixen des
Guglielmo della Porta und zur
Entstehungsgeschichte des
Hochaltarkreuzes in S. Pietro in
Vaticano,’ Mtinchner Jahrbuch der
Bildenden Kunst 33 (1981), pp. 95-114.
Griseri 1986: Angela Griseri, Oreficeria
del Rinascimento, Novara, 1986.
Grottanelli 1985: Cristiano Grottanelli,
“Cibo, istinti, divieti,’ in Bertelli and
CrifO 1985, pp. 31-52.
Gruber 1982: Alain Gruber, Silverware,
trans. by David Smith, New York, 1982.
Gruber 1994: Alain Gruber, ed., The
History of Decorative Arts: The Renaissance
and Mannerism in Europe, trans. John
Goodman, New York, 1994.
Guidotti 1994: Gabriella Cantini
Guidotti, Orafi in Toscana tra XV e XVIII
secolo, 2 vols., Florence, 1994.
Guillaud, Anzelewski, and
Anzelewski 1985: Jacqueline Guillaud
and Maurice and Fedja Anzelewski,
Altdorfer and Fantastic Realism in German
Art, New York, 1985.
Haedeke 1970: Hanns-Ulrich Haedeke,
Metalwork, trans. Vivienne Menkes, New
York, 1970.
Haines 1983: Margaret Haines,
The “Sacrestia delle Messe” ofthe Florentine
Cathedral, trans. L. Corti, Florence, 1983.

Hall 1979: James Hall, Dictionary of
Subjects and Symbols in Art, rev. ed.,
New York, 1979.
Hartt 1958: Frederick Hartt, Giulio
Romano, New Haven, 1958.
Haskell and Penny 1981: Francis
Haskell and Nicholas Penny, ‘Taste and
the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture,
1500-1900, New Haven, 1981.
Hatfield 1970: R. Hatfield, “Some
Unknown Documents for the Medici
Palace in 1459,” Art Bulletin 52 (1970),
pp. 232-45.
Hayward 1954: J. EFHayward, “The
Howard E. Smith Collection of Cutlery,”
Connoisseur 134 (December 1954),
pp. 164-73.
Hayward 1962: J. F Hayward, “The
Mannerist Goldsmiths: 1 (Italian Sources)
and Some Drawings and Designs,”
Connoisseur 49 (March 1962), pp. 156-65.
Hayward 1963: J. F Hayward, “The
Mannerist Goldsmiths: 2. France and
the School of Fontainbleau. Part 2,”
Connoisseur 153 (May 1963), pp. 11-15.
Hayward 1965: J. F Hayward,“The
Mannerist Goldsmiths: 3. Antwerp. Part
Iv: Italian Influence in the Designs of
Erasmus Hornick,’ Connoisseur 58 (March
1965),
Pp. 144-49.
Hayward 1967: J. F Hayward, “The
Mannerist Goldsmiths: 5, Germany. Part
i: Erasmus Hornick and the Goldsmiths
of Augsburg,” Connoisseur 164 (1967),
pp. 216-22.
Hayward 1968: J. F Hayward, “The
Goldsmiths’ Designs of the Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek Reattributed to Erasmus
Hornick,” Burlington Magazine 110
(April 1968), pp. 201-207.
Hayward 1970: J. F Hayward,“ Ottavio
Strada and the Goldsmiths’ Designs of
Giulio Romano,’ Burlington Magazine
112 (January 1970), pp. 10-14.
DISEGNO * Bibliography
Hayward 1972: J. F Hayward,“Some
Spurious Antique Vase Designs of the
Sixteenth Century,’ Burlington Magazine
114 (June 1972), pp. 378-86.
Hayward 1976: J. F Hayward, Virtuoso
Goldsmiths and the Triumph of Mannerism,
1540-1620, London, 1976.
Heawood 1957: Edward Heawood,
Monumenta Chartae Papyraceae: Watermarks
Mainly of the 17th and 18th Centuries,
Hilversum, 1957.
Heikamp 1986: Detlef Heikamp, Studien
zur Mediceischen Glaskunst: Archivalien,
Entwurfszeichnungen, Glaser und Scherben,
Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen
Institutes, No. 30 Florence, 1986.
Heim 1978: Bruno Bernard Heim,
Heraldry in the Catholic Church/Its Origins
Customs and Laws, Gerrards Cross,
Bucks., 1978.
Hernmarck 1977: Carl Hernmarck,
The Art of the European Silversmith,
1430-1830, 1, London, 1977.
Heydenreich and Lotz 1974: Ludwig
H. Heydenreich and Wolfgang Lotz,
Architecture in Italy, 1400-1600, trans. Mary
Hottinger, Harmondsworth, 1974.
Hierarchia Catholica 1923: Hierarchia
Catholica/medii et recentioris aevi/sive/sum-
morum pontificuny, s.t.e. cardinalium,
cclesiarum antistitum/series 3, Regensberg,
1923. Note inchoavit Cuilelmus Van
Gulik; absolvit Conradus Eubel; editio
altera quam curavit Ludovicus Schmitz-
Kallenberg.
Hildburgh 1945: W. L. Hildburgh, “On
Some Italian Renaissance Caskets with
pastiglia Decoration,” Antiquaries Journal 25
(1945),
pp. 123-37.
Hirst 1961: Michael Hirst, “Francesco
Salviati’s “Visitation’,” Burlington Magazine
103 (June 1961), pp. 236-40.
Hitchcock 1978: Henry-Russell
Hitchcock, Netherlandish Scrolled Gables
of the Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth
Centuries, New York, 1978.
Hocquet 1973: Jean-Claude Hocquet,
“Monopole et concurrence al fin du
moyen age. Venise et les Salines De Cervia
cxu—xvi siécles,’ Studi Veneziani 15
(1973),
Pp. 21-133
Hollstein (Dutch and Flemish):
EW.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish
Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, ca.
1450-1700, 1-, Amsterdam, 1949-.
Hollstein (German): Hollstein’s
German Engravings, Etchings and Woodcuts,
1400-1700, 31,T. Falk, ed. Blaricum, 1984.
Holman 1977-78: Beth Holman,
“Verrocchio’s Marsyas and Renaissance
Anatomy,’ Marsyas 19 (1977-78), pp- 1-9.
Honour 1971: Hugh Honour, Goldsmiths
& Silversmiths, London, 1971.
Hope 1962: Thomas Hope, Costumes of
the Greeks and Romans, 2 vols. in 1, New
York, 1962 reprint of Costume of the
Ancients, London, 1809.
Hope 1981: Charles Hope, “Artist,
Patrons, and Advisers in the Italian
Renaissance,” Patronage in the Renaissance,
ed. G. Lytle and S. Orgel, Princeton, 1981,
PP- 293-343.
Illustrated Bartsch: The Illustrated Bartsch,
New York, 1979-.
Indianapolis 1962: Indianapolis,
John Herron Museum ofArt, Old Master
Drawings, 1962.
Irmscher 1984: Gunter Irmscher, Kleine
Kunstgeschichte des europdischen Ornaments
seit der friihen Neuzeit (1400-1900),
Darmstadt, 1984.
James 1932 (1951): Montague Rhodes
James, “Pictor in Carmine,” Archaeologia
94 (1951), pp. 141-166. (Written in 1932
but not published until 1951).

Jansen 1987: Dirk Jacob Jansen, “Jacopo
Strada et le commerce d'art?’ Revue de
Art 77 (1987), pp. 11-21.
Jenkins 1970: A. Frazer Jenkins, “Cosimo
De’ Medici’s Patronage ofArchitecture
and the Theory of Magnificence” Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 33
(1970), pp. 162-70.
Jenni 1987: U. Jenni, “The Phenomena
of Change in the Modelbook Tradition
around 1400,” pp. 35-47, in Drawings
Defined, ed. Walter Strauss and Tracie
Felker, New York, 1987, pp. 35-47.
Jessen 1894: Pieter Jessen, Katalog der
Ornamentstich-Sammlung des Kunstgewerbe-
Museums in Berlin [Staatliche
Kunstbibliothek], Leipzig, 1894.
Kemp 1974: Wolfgang Kemp, “Disegno:
Beitrage zur Geschichte des Begrifts
zwischen 1547 und 1607,” Marburger
Jahrbuch ftir Kunstwissenschaft 9 (1974),
pp. 219-40.
Kemp 1977: Martin Kemp, “From
‘Mimesis’ to ‘Fantasia’: The Quattrocento
Vocabulary of Creation, Inspiration and
Genius in the Visual Arts,” Viator 8 (1977),
pp- 347-98.
King 1945: William King, “Two Pottery
Specimens from the Museum
Leverianum,” Apollo (December 1945),
pp. 298-300.
Knauer 1969: E. Knauer, “Leda,” Jahrbuch
der Berliner Museen 10 (1969), pp. 5-55.
Koeppe 1994a: Wolfram Koeppe,
“French Renaissance and Pseudo-
Renaissance Furniture in American
Collections,’ Studies in the Decorative
Arts I, no. 2 (1994), pp. 48-65.
Koeppe 1994B: Wolfram Koeppe,
“French and Italian Renaissance
Furniture at the Metropolitan Museum
of Art: Notes on a Survey,’ Apollo
(June 1994), pp. 24-32.
DISEGNO ° Bibliography
Koeppe 1995: Wolfram Koeppe, “The
Chest in the Italian and Central European
Bedchamber from the rsth to the 17th
Century,’ Decorative Arts Institute on the
Bedroom from the Renaissance to Art Deco,
ed. Meredith Chilton, Toronto, 1995.
Kohlhaussen 1967: Heinrich
Kohlhaussen, Niirnberger Goldschmiedekunst
des Mittelalters und der Diirerzeit 1240 bis
1540, Jahresgabe des Deutschen Vereins
fur Kunstwissenschaft 19, Berlin, 1967.
Kris 1928: Ernst Kris, “Di alcune
opere ignoto di Giovanni dei Bernardi
del Tesoro di San Pietro,’ Dedalo 9
(no. 2, 1928), pp. 97-111.
Kris 1929: Ernst Kris, Meister und
Meisterwerke der Steinschneidekunst in der
italienschen Renaissance, 2 vols.,Vienna 1929.
Lafortune-Martel 1992: Agathe
Lafortune-Martel, “De l’entremets culi-
naire aux piéces montées dun menu
de propagande,” in Du Manuscrit a la Table:
Essais sur la cuisine au moyen dge et
repertoire des manuscrits Médiévaux contenant
des recettes culinairies, ed. Carole Lambert,
Montreal and Paris, 1992, pp. 121-29.
Lambert 1981: Susan Lambert, Drawing,
Technique & Purpose, Victoria and Albert
Museum, London, 1981.
Landau and Parshall 1994: David
Landau and and Peter Parshall, The
Renaissance Print, 1470-1550, New Haven
and London 1994.
Landolfi 1990: Luciano Landolfi,
Banchetto e Societa romana: dalle origini al
I secolo a.c., Rome, 1990.
Laurioux 1992: Bruno Laurioux, “Table
et hiérarchie sociale a la fin du moyen
age,’ in Du Manuscrit a la Table..., ed.
Carole Lambert, Montreal and Paris,
1992, pp. 87-108.
Le Blanc 1854-88: Charles Le Blanc,
Manuel de l’amateur d’estampes..., Paris,
1854/88—90.
Leningrad 1983: Leningrad, Italian
Cassoni from the Art Collections of Soviet
Museums, exhib. cat. by Liubov Faenson.
Libero 1950: P. Giuseppe de Libero,
“Calamaio di un grandissimo storico;
ceramica preziosa-cimelio raro,” Faenza,
Bollettino del Museo Internazionale delle
ceramiche in Faenza 36 (1950), pp. 99-101.
Licht 1970: M. M. Licht, “A Book
of Drawings by Nicoletto da Modena,’
Master Drawings 8, no. 4 (Fall 1970),
Pp- 379-86.
Liebenwein 1992: Wolfgang Liebenwein,
Studiolo: storia e tipologia di uno spazio
culturale, trans. from the 1974 German ed.
by Alessandro Califano, Modena, 1992.
Lightbown 1978: RonaldW. Lightbown,
Secular Goldsmiths’ Work in Medieval
France: AHistory, London, 1978.
Lightbown 1986: Ronald Lightbown,
Mantegna with a Complete Catalogue of the
Paintings, Drawings and Prints, Oxford, 1986.
London 1964: P. & D. Colnaghi & Co.,
Exhibition of Old Master Drawings, London,
1964.
London 1970: British Museum, Fifty
Masterpieces of Classical
Art in the British
Museum, London, 1970.
London 1972: Sotheby and Company,
London, Catalogue of the Ellesmere
Collection. Part 1. Drawings by Giulio
Romano and Other Sixteenth- Century
Masters, sale cat., 5 December 1972.
London 1979: Victoria and Albert
Museum, Masterpieces of Cutlery and the Art
ofEating, exhib. cat., London, 1979.
London 1981: Victoria and Albert
Museum, Splendours of the Gonzaga, ed.
D. Chambers and J. Martineau, London,
198.

London 1983: J. A. Gere and Nicholas
Turner, Drawings by Raphael from the Royal
Library, the Ashmolean, British Museum,
Chatsworth and Other English Collections,
exhib. cat., British Museum, London, 1983.
London 1990: Phillips Auction House,
Old Master Drawings, London, December,
1990.
London 1993: Francis Haskell et al.,
The Paper Museum of Cassiano dal Pozzo
(ts 88-1657), exhib. cat. British Museum,
London 1993.
London 1995A: Colnaghi, Old Master
Drawings and 19th Century Drawings,
London, 199s.
London 1995B: British Museum, German
Renaissance Prints, 1490-1550, exhib. cat. by
Giulia Bartrum, London, 199s.
London and New York 1994: Royal
Academy of Arts, London and Pierpont
Morgan Library, New York, The Painted
Page: Italian Renaissance Book Illumination,
1450-1550, exhib. cat., ed. Jonathan J. G.
Alexander, London and Munich, 1994.
Lotteringhi della Stufa 1965: Maria
Luisa Incontri Lotteringhi della Stufa,
Pranzi e Conviti: La Cucina Toscana dal XVI
secolo ai Giorni d’ Oggi, Florence, 1965.
Lotz 1951: Wolfgang Lotz, “Antonio
Gentile or Manno Sbarri?” Art Bulletin 33
(December 1951), pp. 260-62.
Luzio 1907, 1909: Alessandro Luzio,
“Isabella d’Este e Leone x dal Congresso
di Bologna alla Presa di Milano
(1515-1521), Archivio Storico Italiano 40
(1907), pp. 18-97; 44 (1909), pp. 72-126.
Luzio 1908: A. Luzio, “Isabella d’Este
e il sacco di Roma,’ Archivo Storico
Lombardo, series 4, 10 (1908) pp. 5-107,
361-425.
DISEGNO * Bibliography
Luzio and Renier 1893: A. Luzio and
R. Renier, Mantova e Urbino: Isabella
d’Este ed Elisabetta Gonzaga, Turin, 1893.
Luzio and Renier 1896: Alessandro
Luzio and Rodolfo Renier,
“Il lusso di
Isabella d’Este Marchesa di Mantova,”
Nuova Antologia 63 (1896), pp. 441-69
(pt. 1); 64, pp. 294-324 (pt. 2, 3), 65,
pp. 261-86 (pt. 4, 5), 666-88 (pt. 7, 8).
Luzio and Renier 1899-1903:
Alessandro Luzio and Rodolfo Renier,
“La coltura e le relazione letterarie
d'Isabella d’Este Gonzaga,’ Giornale Storico
della Letteratura Italiana 33 (1899), pp. 1-62;
34 (1899), pp. I-97; 62 (1903), pp. 75-111.
Lydecker 1987: John Kent Lydecker,
The Domestic Setting of the Arts in
Renaissance Florence, PH.D. diss., Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, 1987.
Lynes 1987: Russell Lynes, More Than
Meets the Eye: The History and Collections
of Cooper-Hewitt Museum, The Smithsonian
Institution’s National Museum of Design,
New York, 1987.
MacCurdy 1938: Edward MacCurdy,
‘The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci, trans.
and ed. Edward MacCurdy, 2 vols., New
York, 1938. ; Messisbogo, Libro nuovo nel qual s’insegna
Manni 1986: Graziano Manni, Mobili
in Emilia con una indagine sulla civilta
dell’arredo alla corte degli Estensi, Modena, 1986.
Manselli 1982: Raoul Manselli,
“La
festa nel medioevo,” Spettacoli conviviali
dall’antichita classica alle corti italiane del
‘400, Viterbo, 1982, pp. 219-41.
Mantua 1989: Palazzo del Te, Mantua,
Giulio Romano, exhib. cat. by Ernst H.
Gombrich et al., Milan, 1989.
Marchese 1989: Pasquale Marchese,
L’Invenzione della Forchetta: Spilloni
schidioncini lingule imbroccatoi pironi forcule
forcine eforchette dai Greci ai nostri
forchettoni, 1989.
Mariacher 1993: Giovanni Mariacher,
Bronzetti Veneti del Rinascimento, Vicenza,
1993.
Martindale 1972: Andrew Martindale,
The Rise of the Artist in the Middle Ages and
Early Renaissance, London, 1972.
Martini 1967: Francesco di Giorgio
Martini, Tiattati di architettura ingegneria e
arte militare, transcr. L. Maltese Degrassi,
ed. C. Maltese, Milan, 1967.
Massinelli 1993: Anna Maria Massinelli,
Il Mobile Toscano, Milan, 1993.
Massinelli and Tuena 1992: Anna
Maria Massinelli and Filippo Tuena,
Treasures of the Medici, New York, 1992.
Mayor 1969: A. Hyatt Mayor, “Early
Engraving in Germany and the
Netherlands,” in reprint of Max Lehrs,
Late Gothic Engravings of Germany & the
Netherlands, New York, 1969.
Messisbugo 1549 (1992): Cristoforo
di Messisbugo, Banchetti, composizioni
di vivande e apparecchio generale, Ferrara,
1549, reprint ed. Vicenza, 1992.
Messisbugo 1559: Cristoforo di
a far d’ogni sorta di vivanda, Venice, 1559.
“Metropolitan’s Treasure,” 1947:
“The Metropolitan’s Double Renaissance
Treasure,” Art News 46 (August 7947),
pp. 25, 36.
Milan 1981: Museo Poldi Pezzoli,
Orologi-Oreficerie, Milan, 198t.
Milan 1992: G. Biscontini Ugolini and
J. Petruzzellis Scherer with C. Salsi, eds.,
Maiolica e Incisione: Tie secoli di rapporti
iconografici, Milan, 1992.
Milwaukee 1989: Milwaukee Art
Museum, Renaissance into Baroque.
Italian Master Drawings by the Zuccari,
1550-1600, exhib. cat. by E. James
Mundy,Milwaukee, 1989.

Mireur tori: H. Mireur, Dictionnaire
des Ventes d’Art, Paris 1911.
Modena 1984: Lanfranco e Wiligelmo:
Il Duomo di Modena, exhib. cat., Palazzo
Comunale, 3 vols., Modena, 1984.
Mollat 1971: Michel Mollat, “Sel et
société discriminations et contradictions,”
Studi Romagnoli 22 (1971), pp. 57-69.
Monnas 1987: Lisa Monnas, “The Artists
and the Weavers:
The Design of Woven
Silks in Italy, 1350-1550,” Apollo 125
(June 1987), pp. 416-24.
Montanari 1988 (1994): Massimo
Montanari, The Culture of Food, 1988;
trans. C. Ipsen, Oxford and Cambridge,
Mass., 1994.
Morassi 1936: Antonio Morassi, Antica
oreficeria italiana, 6th Triennale of Milan,
Milan, 1936.
Mortari 1992: Luisa Mortari, Francesco
Salviati, Lucca, 1992.
Muararo 1992: Michelangelo Muararo,
Il Libro Secondo di Francesco e Jacopo dal
Ponte, Bassano, (1992).
Nagler: George K. Nagler, Neues
Allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexicon, Munich, 1841.
Nagler 1964: A. M. Nagler, Theatre
Festivals of the Medici, New Haven, 1964.
New York 1959: Cooper-Hewitt
Museum, Five Centuries ofDrawing, exhib.
cat., New York, 1959.
New York 1981A: Metropolitan
Museum ofArt, Renaissance Ornament
Prints and Drawings, exhib. cat. by Janet
S. Byrne, New York, 198.
New York 1981B: Drawing Center,
Sculptors’ Drawings over Six Centuries,
1400-1950, exhib. cat. by Colin Eisler,
New York, 1981.
DISEGNO ° Bibliography
New York 1983: Metropolitan Museum
of Art, The Vatican Collections: The Papacy
and Art, exhib. cat., New York, 1983.
New York 1990: Metropolitan Museum
of Art, Italian Renaissance Frames, exhib.
cat. by Timothy J. Newbery, George
Bisacca, and Laurence B. Kanter, New
York, 1990.
New York 1992: Metropolitan Museum
of Art and Royal Academy of Arts, Andrea
Mantegna, exhib. cat. ed. Jane Martineau,
New York and London, 1992.
New York 1994: Metropolitan Museum
of Art, Sixteenth-Century Italian Drawings
in New York Collections, exhib. cat. by
William Griswold and Linda Wolk-Simon,
New York, 1994.
‘New York and Nuremberg 1986:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
and Germanisches Nationalmuseum,
Nuremberg, Gothic and Renaissance Art
in Nuremberg, Munich, 1986.
Norman 1976: A.V. B. Norman,
Wallace Collection Catalogue of Ceramics 1:
Pottery, Maiolica, Faience, Stoneware,
London, 1976.
Northhampton 1978: Smith College
Museum ofArt, Antiquity in the
Renaissance, exhib. cat. by W. Steadman
Sheard, 1978.
Oliver 1977: Andrew Oliver, Jr., Silver
for the Gods: 800 Years of Greek and Roman
Silver, Toledo, 1977.
Onians 1988: John Onians, Bearers of
Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiquity,
the Middle Ages, and the Renaissance,
Princeton, 1988.
Page 1965: A. Page, “Late Renaissance
and Baroque: Three Acquisitions,”J.B.
Speed Art Museum Bulletin 25, no. 3 (1965).
Pagé 1896: Camille Pagé, La coutellerie
depuis l’origine jusqu’a nous jours: La fabrica-
tion ancienne e moderne, Chatellerault, 1896.
Paris 1987: Musée du Louvre,
Ornemanistes du XVve au XVIle siecle,
Gravures et Dessins, exhib. cat., Paris, 1987.
Paris 1996: Musée du Louvre, Pisanello:
Le Peintre aux Sept Vertus, exhib. cat.,
Paris, 1996.
Parker 1956: K.T. Parker, Catalogue of
the Collection of Drawings in the Ashmolean
Museum, Oxford, 1956.
Passarini 1698: Filippo Passarini,
Nuove Inventioni d’Ornamenti d’Architettura
e d’Intagli Diversi, Rome, 1698.
Pastor 1924: Ludwig von Pastor, History
of the Popes, trans. and ed. Ralph Francis
Kerr, Saint Louis, 1924.
Pedrini 1949: Augusto Pedrini, Italian
Furniture: Interiors and Decoration of the
Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries, London,
1949.
Penny 1976: Nicholas B. Penny, “Dead
Dogs and Englishmen,’ Connoisseur 192
(August 1976), 298-303.
Peters 1979: Jane S. Peters, “Early
Drawings by Augustin Hirschvogel,”
Master Drawings 17, no. 4 (Winter 1979),
PP. 359-391.
Petronius: Peironius, trans. and ed.
W. D. Lowe, Cambridge, 1905.
Pettorelli 1926: Arturo Pettorell,
Il Bronzo e il Rame nell’ Arte Decorativa
Ttaliana..., Milan, 1926.
Pevsner 1940 (1973): Nikolaus Pevsner,
Academies ofArt, Past and Present,
Cambridge, 1940; reprint ed., New York,
1973.
Pevsner 1942: Nikolaus Pevsner, “Terms
of Architectural Planning in the Middle
Ages,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes 5 (1942), pp. 232-37.

Piacenti Aschengreen 1968:
C. Piacenti Aschengreen, I! Museo degli
Argenti a Firenze, Milan, 1968.
Pico della Mirandola 1971:
Giantrancesco Pico della Mirandola, On
Imagination, (1501), trans. and ed. Harry
Caplan (1930), reprint ed., Westport,
Connon
Pinelli and Rossi 1971: Antonio
Pinelli and Orietta Rossi, Genga Architetto.
aspetti della cultura urbinate del primo, ’500,
Rome, 1971.
PML Fellows Report: Seventeenth
Report to the Fellows of the Pierpont Morgan
Library, New York, Pierpont Morgan
Library, 1976.
Pope-Hennessy 1985: John Pope-
Hennessy, Cellini, New York, 1985.
Popham 1972: The Drawings of Leonardo
da Vinci, intro. and notes by A. E. Popham,
1946, repr. London, 1972.
Popham and Pouncey 1950:
A. E. Popham and Philip Pouncey, Italian
Drawings in the Department of Prints
and Drawings in the British Museum: The
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,
London, 1950.
Pouncey 1965: Philip Pouncey,
Lotto disegnatore, 1965.
Pouncey and Gere 1962: Philip
Pouncey andJ.A. Gere, Italian Drawings in
the Department of Prints and Drawings in
the British Museum: Raphael and His Circle,
London 1962.
Providence 1973: Rhode Island School
of Design, Museum ofArt, Drawings and
Prints of the First Maniera, exhib. cat. by
C. Wilkinson et al., Providence, 1973.
Providence 1980: Brown University,
Ornament and Architecture: Renaissance
Drawings, Prints and Books, exhib. cat.,
Providence, 1980.
DISEGNO
Rackham 1977: Bernard Rackham,
Victoria and Albert Museum: Catalogue
of Italian Maiolica 1, London, 1977.
Raggio 1960: Olga Raggio,“A Farnese
Table: A Rediscovered Work byVignola,”
Metropolitan Museum ofArt Bulletin (March
1960), pp. 213-31.
Rasmussen 1989: JOrg Rasmussen,
Italian Majolica in the Robert Lehman
Collection, New York, 1989.
“Renaissance Silver” 1948:
“Renaissance Silver for the Dinner Table,”
Connoisseur 121 (March 1948), pp. 45-46.
Richter 1883 (1970): Jean Paul Richter,
comp. and ed., The Literary Works of
Leonardo da Vinci (1883), rev. ed., New
York, 1970.
Richter 1926: Gisela M.A. Richter,
Ancient Furniture: A History of Greek,
Etruscan, and Roman Furniture, Oxford, 1926.
Robertson 1992: Clare Robertson,
Il Gran Cardinale: Alessandro Farnese, Patron
of the Arts,New Haven and London, 1992.
Rome 1981: Museo Nazionale di
Castel Sant “Angelo, Gli Affreschi Di Paolo
ma Castel Sant’Angelo, Rome, 1981.
Roscher 1894-97: W. H. Roscher,
Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der Griechischen und
Rémischen Mythologie, Leipzig, 1894-97.
Rosenthal 1971: E. Rosenthal, “Plus
Ultra, Non Plus Ultra and the Columnar
Device of Emperor Charles v,” Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 34
(1971), pp. 204-28.
Rossi 1889-1890: U. Rossi, “La
Collezione Carrand al Museo Nazionale
di Firenze,’ Archivio Storico dell’ Arte 2
(1889), pp. 10-23, 215-28, 3 (1890),
Pp. 24-34.
Rossi 1974: Filippo Rossi, Oreficeria
Italiana, Milan, 1974.
126
* Bibliography
Rossi and Supino 1898: U. Rossi and
I. B. Supino, Catalogo del Rinascimento/
Museo Nazionale di Firenze, Rome, 1898.
Rubin 1995: Patricia Lee Rubin, Giorgio
Vasari:
Art and History, New Haven and
London, 199s.
Rucellai (1960): Giovanni Rucellai,
Giovanni Rucellai ed il suo Zibaldone, ed.
A. Perosa, London, 1960.
Sale 1974: John Russell Sale, “An
Iconographic Program by Marco Parenti,”
Renaissance Quarterly 27, no. 3 (1974), pp.
293-99.
Sanfilippo 1989: M. Sanfilippo, “Giulio
Feltrio Della Rovere,’ Dizionario Biografico
degli Italiani 37, Rome, 1989, pp. 356-57.
Sangiorgi 1895: Giorgio Sangiorgi,
ed., Guides des Musées d’Italie: Collection
Carrand au Bargello, Rome, 189s.
Sangiorgi 1932: Giorgio Sangiorgi,
“Opere di Antonio Gentili Orefice
Faentino,” Bollettino d’Arte 26, nos. 2-3
(1932), pp. 220-29.
Saslow 1996: James M. Saslow, Florentine
Festival as “Theatrum Mundi”: The Medici
Wedding of1589, New Haven, 1996.
Scamozzi 1615: Vincenzo Scamozzi,
L’Idea della Architettura Universale, Divisa in
x Libri, Venice, 1615.
Scappi 1570 (1981): Bartolomeo Scappi,
Opera: Dell’arte del cucinare, Venice, 1570;
facs. ed., 1981.
Scappi 1610: Bartolomeo Scappi,
Opera di Bartomomeo Scappi M. dell’arte del
cucinare,.., Venice, 1610.
Scheller (1995): Robert Scheller,
Exemplum: Model-Book Drawings and the
Practice of Artistic Transmission in the Middle
Ages (ca. 900—ca. 1470), trans. Martin
Hoyle, Amsterdam, 199s.

Schiaparelli 1983: Attilio Schiaparelli,
La Casa Fiorentina e i Suoi Arredi nei Secoli
XIV e XV, Florence, 1983.
Schilling and Blunt 1973: Edmund
Schilling and Anthony Blunt, The German
Drawings in the Collection of Her Majesty the
Queen at Windsor Castle, and Supplements
to the Catalogues of Italian and French
Drawings, London, 1973.
Schmitz 1926: Hermann Schmitz,
The Encylopaedia of Furniture:An Outline
History of Furniture Design..., intro. H. P.
Shapland, Plymouth, 1926; reprint, New
York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1963.
Schottmuller 1921: Frida Schottmuller,
Furniture and Interior Decoration of the
Italian Renaissance, New York, 1921.
Serlio 1537: Sebastiano Serlio, Regole
Generali di Architettura..., Book tv,
Venice, 1537.
Serra 1936: Luigi Serra, “La mostra
dell’antica oreficeria italiana alla Triennale
di Milano,” Bolletino d’arte 29, M (1936), p. 93.
Shearman 1972: John Shearman,
Raphael’s Cartoons in the Collection of Her
Majesty the Queen and the Tapestries for the
Sistine Chapel, London, 1972.
Shearman 1989: John Shearman,
“Giulio Romano and Baldassare
Castiglione,’ in Mantua 1989, pp. 293-301.
Signorini 1978: Rodolfo Signorini,
“Two Notes from Mantua. A Dog Named
Rubino,” Journal of the Warburg and
Courtauld Institutes 41 (1978), pp. 317-21.
Signorini 1981: Rodolfo Signorini,
“Gonzaga Tombs and Catafalques,” in
London 1981, pp. 3-13.
Signorini 1988: Rodolfo Signorini, “Le
favole di Esopo nel ‘giardino secreto’ della
villa del Te, Quaderni di Palazzo Te 4
(1988), pp. 21-36.
DISEGNO * Bibliography
Smit 1993: Hillie Smit, “The Tapestry
Collection of Pope Julius 11 (1503-1513):
Notes by Marcantonio Michiel in 1519,”
CIETA Bulletin 71 (1993), pp. 49-60.
Snodin and Howard 1996: Michael
Snodin and Maurice Howard, Ornament:
A Social History since 1450, New Haven,
1990.
Somers Cocks and Truman 1984:
Anna Somers Cocks and Charles
Truman, The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection:
Renaissance Jewels Gold Boxes and Objets de
vertu, New York and London, 1984.
South Bend 1980: Snite Museum of
Art, Notre Dame University, Janos Scholz,
Musician and Collector, exhib. cat. by Janos
Scholz, South Bend, 1980.
Spallanzani 1994: Marco Spallanzani,
Ceramiche alla Corte dei Medici nel
Cinquecento, Modena, 1994.
Stefanelli: Lucia Pirzio Biroli Stefanelli,
L’Argento dei Romani: vasellame da tavola
e d’apparato, Rome, 1991.
Strong 1976: Donald Strong, Roman Art,
New York, 1976.
Stumpo 1989: E. Stumpo, “Hieronymus
Della Rovere,’ Dizionario Biografico degli
Italiani 37, Rome, 1989, pp. 350-53.
Summers 1981: David Summers,
Michelangelo and the Language ofArt,
Princeton, 1981.
Taillevent 1988: Taillevent, The
Viandier ofTaillevent:An Edition ofAll
Extant Manuscripts, ed. Terence Scully,
Ottawa, 1988.
Tait 1986: Hugh Tait, Catalogue of the
Waddesdon Bequest in the British Museum, 1.
The Jewels, London, 1986.
Tervarent 1968: Guy de Tervarent,
Attributs et Symboles dans l’Art Profane
1450-1600, Geneva, 1968.
Thieme-Becker: Ulrich Thieme and
Felix Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der
Bildenden Kiinstler von der Antike bis zur
Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1907-47.
Thornton 1974: Joan Thornton,
“Antonio di Neri Barili and the Chapel
of St. John the Baptist in Siena Cathedral,”
Apollo 99 (April 1974), pp. 232-39.
Thornton 1991: Peter Thornton,
The Italian Renaissance Interior, 1400-1600,
New York, 1991.
Todorow 1976: Maria Fossi Todorow,
I Disegni del Pisanello e della sua cerchia,
Florence, 1976.
Tofani 1969: Anna Maria Petroni
Tofani, “Per Girolamo Genga,’ Paragone
22 (1969), no. 231, pp. 39-56.
Tofani 1983: Anna Maria Petroni Tofani,
“Girolamo Genga,” Urbino e le Marche
prima e dopo Raffaelo, ed. Paolo Dal
Poggetto, Florence, 1983, pp. 355-58.
Toussaint-Samat 1994: Maguelonne
Toussaint-Samat, History of Food, trans.
Anthea Bell, Cambridge, 1994.
Toynbee and Ward-Perkins 1950:
J. M.C. Toynbee and J. B. Ward-Perkins,
“Peopled Scrolls: A Hellenistic Motif in
Imperial Art,” Papers from the British School
at Rome 18 (1950), pp. 1-43.
Turner 1986: Nicholas Turner, Florentine
Drawings of the Sixteenth Century, New
York and London, 1986.
Varoli-Piazza 1991: Rosalia Varoli-
Piazza, ed., Il Paliotto di Sisto 1v ad Assisi.
Indagini e intervento conservativo, Assisi, 1991.
Vasari (Milanesi ed. 1906):
Giorgio Vasari, Le Vite degli Artisti, ed.
Milanesi, Florence, 1906.
Vatican 1984: Raffaello in Vaticano,
exhib. cat., Vatican, 1984.

Venturi 1932: A.Venturi, Storia dell’arte
italiana, Milan, 1932.
Verheyen 1972: Egon Verheyen,
“Die Malereien in der Sala di Psiche des
Palazzo del Te,” Jahrbuch der Berliner
Museen 14, 1972, pp. 33-68.
Verheyen 1977: Egon Verheyen, The
Palazzo del Te in Mantua: Images of Love
and Politics, Baltimore, 1977.
Vienna 1981: Ornamentale Variationen des
Manierismus, exhib. cat. by Gerhart Egger,
Vienna, 1981.
Vienna 1989-90: Kunsthistorisches
Museum (Neue Burg), Vienna, Fiirstenhofe
der Renaissance: Giulio Romano und die
Klassische Tradition, exhib. cat., 1989—90.
Vienna 1994: Kunsthistorisches Museum,
1994, La Prima Donna del Mondo: Isabella
d’Este Fiirstin und Mazenatin der
Renaissance, ed. Sylvia Ferino Pagden,
Vienna, 1994.
Visser 1986: Margaret Visser, Much
Depends on Dinner, New York, 1986.
Vitruvius: Vitruvius, The Tén Books on
Architecture, trans. Morris Hicky Morgan,
New York, 1960.
Vocabulario 1878: Vocabulario degli
Accademici della Crusca, Florence, 1878.
Volbach 1948: Wolfgang Fritz Volbach,
“Antonio Gentili da Faenza and the
Large Candlesticks in the Treasury of
St. Peter's,” Burlington Magazine 90
(October 1948), pp. 281-86.
Voss 1928: Hermann Voss, Zeichnungen
der italienischen Spdtrenaissance, Munich, 1928.
Waddy 1990: Patricia Waddy, Seventeenth-
Century Roman Palaces: Use and the Art of
the Plan, New York and Cambridge,
Mass., 1990.
Ward 1982: Roger Ward, ‘“Baccio
Bandinelli as a Draughtsman,” Master's
thesis, Courtauld Institute of Art,
London, 1982.
DISEGNO * Bibliography
Ward-Jackson 1979: Peter Ward-Jackson, Woods-Marsden 1988: Joanna Woods-
Italian Drawings 14th—16th Century 1, Marsden, The Gonzaga of Mantua and
Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 1979. Pisanello’s Arthurian Frescoes, Princeton, 1988.
Washington 1973: National Gallery Wright 1992: Allison Wright, “Antonio
of Art, Early Italian Engravings in the, Pollaiuolo, ‘Maestro di Disegno’,”
National Gallery ofArt, exhib. cat. by Jay Florentine Drawing at the Time of Lorenzo
A. Levenson, Konrad Oberhuber, and the Magnificent, ed. Elizabeth. Cropper,
Jacquelyn L. Sheehan, Washington, 1973. Florence, 1992, pp. 131-46.
Washington 1983: National Gallery Wyss 1996: Edith H.Wyss, The Myth of
of Art, The Prints of Lucas Van Leyden & Apollo and Marsyas in Art of the Italian
His Contemporaries, exhib cat. by Ellen S. Rennaissance: The Images and Their Meaning,
Jacobowitz and Stephanie Loeb Stepanek, Newark, Del., 1996.
Washington, 1983.
Zorzi 1985: Elvira Garbero Zorzi,
Watson 1978: Katharine J. Watson, “Cerimoniale e spettacolarita. I] tovaglio-
“Sugar Sculpture for Grand Ducal lo sulla tavola del principe,” in Bertelli
Weddings from the Giambologna and Crifo 1985, pp. 67-83.
Workshop,’ Connoisseur 199 (September
1978), pp. 20-26.
Weil-Garris 1983: Kathleen Weil-
Garris, “On Pedestals: Michelangelo's
David, Bandinelli’s Hercules and Cacus and
the Sculpture of the Piazza della
Signoria”, Rémisches Jahrbuch fir
Kunstgeschichte 20 (1983), pp. 378-415.
Wilson 1987: Timothy Wilson, Ceramic
Art of the Italian Renaissance, London, 1987.
Wilson 1991: Timothy Wilson,*Girolamo
Genga, designer for maiolica?” Italian
Renaissance Pottery: Papers Written in
Association with a Colloquium at the British
Museum, ed.T,Wilson, London, 1991,
pp. 157-65.
Wilson 1993: Timothy H. Wilson,
Western Decorative Arts, Part 1. National
Gallery of Art, Washington, 1993.
Wisch and Munshower 1990: Barbara
Wisch and Susan Scott Munshower, eds.
“All the World’s a Stage...” Art and
Pageantry in the Renaissance and Baroque:
Part 1 Triumphal Celebrations and the Rituals
of Statecraft, University Park, Pa., 1990.
Wolk-Simon 1989: Linda Wolk-Simon,
review of Armani 1988 in Art Bulletin 71
(September 1989), pp. 515-23.
VSN ut
O€eSP# HLINSHOIH
Pew,

dnd alva
 ISBN 0-7872-3521-0 ©

KENDALL/HUNT PUBLISHING COMPANY

Dubuque, lowa

wih 0 i
BN 0—9105 1-3

y I 91 0