The Artful Hermitage: The Palazzetto Farnese as a Counter-reformation 'diaeta'

WITTE IMPAGINATO 25-02-2008 12:06 Pagina 2

Arnold A. Witte

THE ARTFUL HERMITAGE

THE PALAZZETTO FARNESE AS A COUNTERREFORMATION DIAETA

«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER


ARNOLD A. WITTE

The Artful HermitageThe Palazzetto Farnese as a Counterreformation Diaeta

Copyright 2007 © «L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDERVia Cassiodoro, 19 – 00193 Roma

http://www.lerma.it

Progetto grafico:«L’ERMA» di BRETSCHNEIDER

Tutti i diritti riservati. E’ vietata la riproduzione di testi e illustrazioni senza il permesso scritto dell’Editore.

This publication of this book was made possible by grants from the Netherlands Organization for ScientificResearch (NWO) and the Stichting Charema, Amsterdam.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .INTRODUCTION: LANFRANCO’S CAMERINO DEGLI EREMITI AND THE MEANING OF LANDSCAPE

AROUND 1600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. TYPOLOGY AND DECORATION OF THE PALAZZETTO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Camerino and Palazzetto: a reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Decoration of the Palazzetto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The giardino segreto as ‘theatre of nature’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The typology of studioli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pliny’s diaeta and its Cinquecento imitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Studioli, gardens, and the genre of landscape-painting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The transition from studiolo to galleria around 1600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The typology of the Palazzetto Farnese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Camerino as part of the diaeta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. THE CARDINAL’S RETREAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Palazzo Farnese at Caprarola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Stanza della Solitudine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Stanza della Penitenza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rome: the Casa Professa-apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Iconography of the Cappellina Farnese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ignatius’ exemplarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Jesuit devotional retreats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Caprarola: the Palazzina Farnese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grottaferrata: the Palazzo Abbaziale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Camaldoli: a private cell? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. LANDSCAPES FOR MEDITATION AND EDIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cardinals retreating: Sfondrato, Borromeo and Bellarmino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bellarmino’s ‘Ladder of Nature’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The garden of Sant’Andrea al Quirinale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scenes of martyrdom in San Vitale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Contents

pag. 7

» 9» 23 » 27» 29» 38» 42» 44» 48» 51» 52» 54» 57» 57» 59» 62» 65» 72» 78» 79» 80» 84» 85» 89» 89» 99» 102» 108


6 Contents

Functions of the Sant’Andrea complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Christian Doctrine and the argument of nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Pilgrimage and the visible world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Missionary theory and natural philosophy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Allegorical gardens in Seicento Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Palazzetto as metaphorical Scala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. THE IMAGINARY, THE REAL AND THE EXEMPLARY HERMIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Images of hermits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cinquecento realities of solitary life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The case of Fra Pelagio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .De-historicising the hermit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Itinerant hermits in and around Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sant’Onofrio: the monk redressing as hermit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ephemeral landscapes and theatrical hermits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Giacinto da Casale in Piacenza . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Casale’s grotto and the Camerino degli Eremiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5. PATRONAGE, PROTECTORATE AND THE COUNTERREFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Orazione e Morte . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Arciconfraternita and its cardinal protectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Quarant’Ore and the Camerino . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sixteenth-century concepts of protectorate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Impending abolishment and renewal of the protectorate in 1606 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Between regular reform and curial changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Odoardo Farnese’s protectorates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Discalced Carmelites and the Propaganda Fide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .The Camerino’s Eucharistic message . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Saints, protectorates and paintings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

» 110» 112» 114» 117» 120» 122» 125» 126» 128» 129» 130» 133» 136» 141» 143» 147» 151» 151» 152» 155» 157» 160» 162» 164» 168» 174» 178» 181» 185» 187» 189» 207


7Titolo

This book first started as a Ph.D. research in Rome, in 1993, and its topic was suggested to me by BertTreffers, by that time teaching at the Catholic University Nijmegen. He introduced me to Bram Kempers,who kindly accepted to act jointly with Bert as my supervisor. From that moment on, I received supportfrom many persons and institutions without which this book would not have been possible. The RealeIstituto Olandese a Roma, the Reiman-de Bas Foundation, the Ministero degli Affari Esteri, the FulbrightFoundation, Radboud Stichting, Hendrik Muller Vaderlandsch Fonds and the University of Amsterdam,my present employer, supported periods of research in Italy and the United States. There, the staff of manylibraries and archives, but in particular at the Vatican Library, the Archivio di Stato, the BibliotecaNazionale Centrale Vittorio Emanuele II and the Bibliotheca Hertziana in Rome, were of great help andsupport.

During these years, many persons stimulated my thoughts at various occasions. Thanks are due toBoudewijn Bakker, Lisa Beaven, Sible de Blaauw, Francesca Cappelletti, Giovanna Capitelli, RobertoCobianchi, Reindert Falkenburg, Harald Hendrix, Johanna Heideman, Andrew Hopkins, Pamela Jones,Jan de Jong, Bram Kempers, Helen Langdon, Eckhard Levschner, David Marshall, Eric Moormann,Stefano Pierguidi, Elisabeth Priedl, Denis Ribouillault, Christina Riebesell, Clare Robertson, Sue Russell,Erich Schleier, Jean François Uginet, Roberto Zapperi and Alessandro Zuccari, and many others, for dis-cussing with me both the details and the larger picture at different moments in my research. But most ofall, I owe much gratitude for his continuing support to Martijn, to whom I dedicate this book.

Amsterdam, autumn 2007

Acknowledgments


Fig. 1. Annibale Carracci, Christ in Glory with Saints, ca. 1600. Galleria Palatina, Florence. Photo: Polo Museale Fiorentino.


9Titolo

On 21 December 1609, through his spokesman and personal secretary Alfonso Carandino, CardinalOdoardo Farnese (1573-1626) proposed to the Archconfraternity of the Orazione e Morte in Rome that theycede him the use of one room in their building. Farnese held a special position in the sodality’s organisationas he was their protector; he was also their neighbour on the via Giulia as he owned the Casino, or as it waslater called, Palazzetto, an annex to Palazzo Farnese built between 1601 and 1604 adjacent to the Church andoratory of the brotherhood.1

Odoardo Farnese (kneeling at the lower right in fig. 1) was a descendant from Paul III Farnese (reigned1534-1549), son of Duke Alessandro Farnese (1545-1592) and Princess Maria of Portugal († 1577). Odoardowas second child, younger brother of Ranuccio Duke of Parma and Piacenza (1569-1622), and for this reasondestined to become a cardinal. He received his education at the Roman court of his great-uncle CardinalAlessandro Farnese (1520-1589), and thanks to his family’s powerful relations, he was created cardinal in 1591at the age of 18 years. After some difficulties to obtain a reasonable amount of ecclesiastical benefices to pro-vide the income necessary for a prelate of his standing, he established an court where the arts and learningflourished.2 His kinship with a pope and ducal family, and relations with almost all royal houses of Europe alsomade him a conspicuous figure in Roman society. Until 1622, when Odoardo became regent of Parma, heresided in the grandiose Palazzo Farnese in Rome (fig. 2), which he had had embellished among other thingswith Annibale Carracci’s famous Galleria Farnese.3

In response to the request by Cardinal Odoardo, first the members of the board of the confraternity, andsix days later the entire congregation of the Orazione e Morte applauded the proposal and granted Farnesethe requested room. The ‘Libro delli decreti’ recorded that ‘for reasons of his devotion’, two openings couldbe made in the walls of the room - one of them with shutters - with a view into the church and oratory. Twomembers of the confraternity were sent to the cardinal to thank him for the favour he granted the brother-hood by means of this request.4

INTRODUCTIONLANFRANCO’S CAMERINO DEGLI EREMITI

AND THE MEANING OF LANDSCAPE AROUND 1600

1 The denomination of this part as Palazzetto stems from the early eighteenth century; Rossini 1725, p. 30 wrote ‘Nel Palazzettodetto il picciolo Farnese vicono alla Chiesa della Morte vi è un Camerino, detto del Romito…’ Seventeenth-century sources used theterm ‘Casino’, but as Palazzetto has become the more common denominator for this part of the premises, this term will be usedthroughout this book.

2 Ciacconi 1677 vol. 4, pp. 229-230, Palatio 1703 vol. 3, pp. 703-706, Cardella 1792-1797 vol. 5, pp. 315-317, Moroni 1840-1879vol. 23, pp. 213-214, Navenne 1914, pp. 127-128, Pastor 1925-1933 vol. 10, p. 178 and vol. 11, pp. 193-196 and 677-679, Nasalli Rocca1995, pp. 132 and 159-160, Briganti/Chastel/Zapperi 1987, Robertson 1988, Zapperi 1988, Zapperi 1994, and DBI 1960-present, vol.45, pp. 112-119.

3 Martin 1956 and Martin 1965, Marzik 1986, Zapperi 1994, Dempsey 1995 and Mozzetti 2002.4 ASVR, ASMOM 21, ‘Libro delli decreti’ fol. 30r: ‘Et p[er]che il s[igno]r Cavalier Carandino p[er] ordine dell’Ill[ustrissi]mo

s[igno]r Card[ina]l Farnese n[ost]ro P[ro]tettore, p[ro]pose, che sua S[igno]ria Ill[ustrissi]mo volera p[er] sua devotione fare unafenestra in Chiesa n[ost]ra ed una gelosia, passando dal suo corritoro nella sta[n]zia dove habita al p[rese]nte il nro Chierico, et peròch[e] lo p[ro]poneva nella da Co[n]greg[atio]ne p[er] farli partecipi di tal cosa, et ch[e] fosse anco con buona gratia di n[ost]roArchico[n]fr[erni]ta Il ch[e] sentendo la d[ett]a Co[n]greg[atio]ne lo accettò volentieri, et elesse li ss[igno]ri Feliciano d. Paulis, et


10 Arnold A. Witte

Subsequently, the general assembly appointed two members to draft and sign the contract with Farnese.In the written agreement, drawn up in January 1611 – more than a year later – the use of the space was grant-ed to Cardinal Odoardo during his lifetime; the confraternity remained the legal owner of the room.5 It alsorecorded that the cardinal would grant the brotherhood a lump-sum-payment, the amount of which was leftto his own magnanimity as nothing was stipulated in the contract. Moreover, Farnese had to erect a new build-ing between his own garden behind the Palazzetto and the property of the brotherhood, to make up for thespace they lost. After this first downpayment, yearly sums were given to the brotherhood in return for the stan-za or camerino that would later, in the eighteenth century, be called Camerino degli Eremiti; the contract wasin fact a leasehold.

Accounts and journals of the brotherhood indicate that Cardinal Farnese soon started works on remodel-ling the room, obviously vacated early in 1610 by the priest who was named in the contract as its former inhab-

Horatio Malgarino p[er] andare à ringratiare S[ua] S[igno]ria Ill[usstrissi]ma di tanto favore, ch[e] lei ci vuole fare; et fù ordinatoch[e] p[er] tal eff[ett]o anco se Intimi una Congreg[atio]ne g[e]n[er]ale p[er] farlo sapere à tutta la n[ost]ra Archico[n]fr[aterni]ta ereputandolo p[er] favore grande.’ Fol.30v. of the ‘Libro delli decreti’ recorded the positive reaction of the general congregation to thisproposal.

5 See the Appendix. Earlier publications assumed that the contract was either drawn up on 13 June 1601 (Navenne 1921, p. 127n. 2), or on 13 January 1601 (Uginet 1980, p. 90). The original contract is in ASN, Fondo Farnesiano 1346, fasc.37, ‘Concessio Card.lisOdoardi Farnesij a Ven. Arciconfraternitate Mortis et Orationis de Urbe fabricandi unum murum atque forandi in eo una fenestraprospiciente Intra Ecclesiam dictae Archiconfraternitatis’. A copy is in the ASVR, ASMOM 59, ‘Registro di testamenti e istrumenti’,fols.197v-198r. See Barry 1999, p. 196 and Witte 2000, esp. p. 426.

6 On Giovanni Lanfranco, see Bellori 1672/2000, pp. 365-382, Passeri 1678/1995, pp. 138-163, Schleier 1964 and 1983, Bernini1985 and Schleier 2001.

Fig. 2: Façade of Palazzo Farnese, Rome. Photo: ICCD.


11Introduction

7 Jestaz 1994, p. 138: ‘Oratorio che risponde nella Morte’. 8 Bellori 1672/2000, p. 378: ‘in una camera del casino’.9 Passeri 1678/1995, p. 140: ‘alcuni quadri ad oglio per certi soffitti di stanzioni per lo medesimo Palazzo de Farnesi in quella parte

del quarto verso strada Giulia dov’è quell’arco che introduce dal Palazzo al Giardino.’ For Lanfranco’s work in the Camerino, seeSalerno 1952, Whitfield 1981, pp. 320-321, Schleier 1983, pp. 21-24, Bernini 1985, pp. 18-22, La scuola Emiliana 1994, pp. 176-179,I Farnese 1995, pp. 318-320, Schleier 2000, pp. 362-364, Witte 2000, and Witte 2001a.

10 Receipts for rent paid between 1632 and 1634 attest to this continuation of the contract after 1626; see ASN.FondoFarnesiano.b.1805.II; for the renewal of the contract in 1656 and again in 1662, see Navenne 1923 vol. 1, p. 127, n.2 and Uginet 1980,p. 90.

11 Rossini 1725, p. 30.12 Bellori 1672/2000, p. 378: ‘Morto Agostino [which occurred on March 2, 1602], e cresciuto Giovanni sopra l’età di venti anni,

si condusse a Roma nella scuola di Annibale Carracci, il quale impiegollo nel palazzo Farnese in una camera del casino, all’arco di stra-da Giulia, coloritivi à fresco in tutte quattro le faccie, varij Santi Romiti in penitenza ... onde non solo nelle mura, ma anche nel palcodipinse ad olio figurine picciole di Santi nell’heremo ....’

13 Passeri 1678/1995, p. 140: ‘Havendo dato principio ad operare col penello e non senza qualche gusto di maniera ben fondatacol parere del Caracci gli furono dati a fare alcuni quadri ad oglio …Dipinse in quelli alcuni SS. Eremiti habitanti in luoghi solitarij …Allora Giovanni Lanfranco poteva essere d’età d’anni 24 o 25 …’

itant. An access was constructed from the adjacent Palazzetto in the form of an elevated corridor, and the twowindows were knocked through to the interior of the Church and Oratory of the brotherhood respectively.Subsequently, the painter Giovanni Lanfranco (1580-1642)6 was commissioned to fresco all four walls of theroom with scenes of penitent saints and additionally provided nine oil-paintings on canvas with similar sub-jects for insertion in the wooden coffered ceiling.

In seventeenth-century inventories of Palazzo Farnese, this room was described as belonging to thePalazzetto, with reference to its location - ‘Oratory that corresponds to the Morte’.7 In 1662, the room waspartially dismantled, for which reason seventeenth century biographical sources on Lanfranco stated thathe painted ‘a room of the casino’8 - which stressed the link between the room and its access through thePalazzetto - or even ‘some paintings in oil for certain ceilings of rooms for the same Palazzo Farnese in thatpart of the quarter towards strada Giulia where is the arch that leads from the Palazzo to the garden.’9 Thelatter part of this citation indicates that the Palazzetto formed the access from the Palazzo to Farnese’ssecret garden on the bank of the Tiber, and that at least from around mid-century, the room that Farneserented from the brotherhood and which was located within their buildings, was considered part of theFarnese-property on the Via Giulia.

However, the lease-contract had specified that with the death of Cardinal Odoardo or his immediateheirs, the agreement would end. Until the eighteenth century, the leasehold with Odoardo was continuedby his relatives, as did the payment of the rent.10 In 1731 Duke Antonio Farnese, the last male descendantof the family, died and the contract was terminated. A year later, the room was demolished when the broth-erhood of the Orazione e Morte decided to erect a new church. From that time on, the iconographic themeof its decoration resulted in a descriptive name of the vanished space as the Camerino degli Eremiti, thechamber of the hermits.11

Seventeenth-century biographers of Lanfranco were well informed about the pictorial embellishment ofthe Camerino, but they disagreed upon the exact dating of its execution. In Le vite de’pittori scultori et architet-ti moderni of 1672, Giovan Pietro Bellori mentioned that Lanfranco went to Rome following the death ofAgostino Carracci in 1602 and was asked by Annibale Carracci to do the decoration in ‘a room in the casino,at the Arch over the Strada Giulia, where he painted on all four walls various saints in Penitence; … and notonly on the walls but also on the ceiling he painted in oil small figurines of saints in the desert…’12 In his Vitede Pittori Scultori Et Architetti of approximately 1678, the painters’ biographer, Giovanni Battista Passeri, gavea different account:

Having started to work with the brush and not without some taste of a well founded style to the opinion of Carracci, hewas given the commission for a number of panel-paintings in oil … He painted in them several holy hermits living in soli-tary places … By that time, he might have been 24 or 25 years old.13


12 Arnold A. Witte

Bellori implied that the Camerino was painted shortly after Lanfranco’s arrival in Rome, around 1602;Passeri’s information would lead to a dating of 1604-1605.14 The contract proved them wrong, as Lanfrancowas not able to decorate the walls before the spring of 1611 because of his sojourn in Piacenza, and the pay-ments made to him in 1616 and 1617 indicate that it was only several years later that the painter was hired todo the decoration.15

Bellori and Passeri were unaware of the fact that the room remained the property of the brotherhood andoffered a view into its church and oratory, but instead suggested it was part of the Farnese premises. Belloriwrote it was ‘in Palazzo Farnese in a room of the casino’, and Passeri referred to several rooms in the part ofthe palace adjacent to the garden, implying that it was not one single space for which Lanfranco was commis-sioned to provide decoration.16 Their confusion can be explained by the fact that the decoration of theCamerino was demolished in 1662, less than fifty years after its completion, and the paintings were relocatedelsewhere. First, Lanfranco’s oil-paintings - on canvas - were taken out of the coffered ceiling. In his descrip-tion, Bellori mentioned that these works had been given a new place in other rooms of the Farnese-palace:

not only on the walls but also on the ceiling he painted in oil small figures of saints in the desert, which were not long agoremoved and divided in small paintings for the rooms of the said palace.17

A later remark in the margin of Passeri’s manuscript confirmed this, and their state of preservation was givenas the reason for the removal and subsequent restoration by the painter Filippo Lauri.18 Passeri never saw theCamerino intact but only the paintings, while Bellori, on the other hand, might have had access to the roomthrough his contacts with Christina of Sweden who lived in the palace in 1655 and 1658. Therefore, he correct-ly mentioned the presence of frescoes on the walls that Passeri had omitted. It is also possible that Bellori hadbeen told so by Lanfranco himself, as he mentioned in his vita of the artist that he had known him personally.19

Because the 1653 inventory of the palace still mentioned the decoration as completely intact, the partialdismantling of the Camerino must have been done in the subsequent five years; since the oilpaintings werementioned in a list of objects to be sent to Parma in 1662, they must have been detached from their originalsetting by then. A puzzling fact is that shortly before the final demolition of the room in 1732, a descriptionof the Camerino mentioned the paintings on canvas as in situ. In his report of the Palazzo Farnese made upthat year, the representative of the Duke of Parma in Rome described the room’s decoration as completelyintact.20 However, other sources support the assumption of a partial demolition of the room in the 1660s, andthe sale of paintings with landscapes and hermits by Giovanni Lanfranco from the Farnese-collections in

14 See Schleier 1983, pp. 21-24.15 ASN Archivio Farnesiano 1805 I, ‘Spese per la corte di Odoardo Farnese’, fol.473r.: ‘e adì detto [25/1/1618] s[cudi] cento

m[one]ta a Giovanni Lanfranco Pitore per resto di s[cudi] 350 ch’importa la Pitura fatta nel Camerino che risponde alla Chiesa dellacompag[ni]a della morte così accordato con S[ua] Signo]ria Ill[ustrissi]ma …’ These payments were published by Denunzio 2000, pp.379-380. A dating before the end of 1617 has been proposed in Witte 2001a, p. 54; for Lanfranco’s 1611 sojourn in Piacenza, see Witte2001c.

16 Bellori 1672/2000, p. 378: ‘palazzo Farnese in una camera del casino…’ and Passeri 1678/1995, p. 140: ‘alcuni quadri ad oglioper certi soffitti di stanzioni per lo medesimo Palazzo de Farnesi…’

17 Bellori 1672/2000, p. 378: ‘cresciuto Giovanni sopra l’età di venti anni, si condusse a Roma nella scuola di Annibale Carracci,il quale impiegollo nel palazzo Farnese in una camera del casino, all’arco di Strada Giulia, coloritivi a fresco in tutte quattro le faccievarii Santi romiti in penitenza, essendo solito il cardinale Farnese ritirarsi in quella camera per sua divozione; onde non solo nelle murama anche nel palco dipinse ad olio figurine picciole di Santi nell’eremo, le quali non è molto tempo furono tolte e divise in quadrettiper le camere del medesimo palazzo.’

18 Passeri 1678/1995, p. 140 n. 3: ‘Hs.N. (56r) Queste Historiette incominciavano (56v) a patire, e furono dal Marchese ...Residente dell’Altezza di Parma fatte ristaurare dal Sig. Filippo Lauri e ridurre in Quadri per adornamento di certe stanze di sopra,dove al presente si conservano.’ For Filippo Lauri see Thieme/Becker 1907-1950 vol. 22, pp. 457-458. Passeri’s information that thepaintings were intended for a number of ceilings, i.e. more than one room, might have originated in this later situation.

19 Neveu 1980, pp. 477-478 and Montanari 2002 on Bellori’s services to Christina of Sweden; for the contacts between Bellori andLanfranco see Schleier 2000, p. 360 n. 1, and Bellori 1672/2000, p. 366: ‘noi abbiamo udito dall’istesso Giovanni.’

20 Whitfield 1981, pp. 320-321 n. 16 and Schleier 1983, p. 22.


13Introduction

21 Bernini 1985, pp. 354-356 for a number of paintings attributed to Lanfranco sold in the years between 1710 and 1721. Forinventories of the Farnese collections, see Bertini 1987.

22 Hager 1964, pp. 16-32.23ASN, Fondo Farnese 1311 contains a list of paintings: ‘Nota delli quadri originali della Guardarobba di S.A.S. in Roma che si

mandano a Parma 27 settembre 1662’. Both Salerno 1952, p. 191 n. 13 and Bernini 1985, p. 342 identified paintings by Lanfranco aspart of the decoration of the Camerino degli Eremiti in this description. In later inventories (1697, 1710, 1717 - see Bernini 1985, p.342f, and Bertini 1987) one gradually loses track of most canvases. The exact chronology of events regarding the destruction of ceil-ing and room after 1653 is unclear. For a discussion of the sources and interpretations see Schleier 1983, pp. 21-24.

24 Bernini 1985, pp. 354-355 and Bertini 1987, pp. 223-226.25 Bernini 1985, pp. 344-345, and Bertini 1987.26 La scuola Emiliana 1994, p. 176-178.27 Bernini 1985, p. 354 excluded Saint Anthony and Saint Eustace from the series; his compilation has not been followed by oth-

ers. 28 In the list of 1662, published by Salerno 1952, p. 191, n. 13, Bernini 1985, pp. 354-355, seven paintings were described: ‘6. Un

quadro in tela con N.Se nel deserto et angeli che li portano il mangiare …18. Un quadro in tela con un paese S. Eustachio che liapparisce il Cervio con Crocefisso in mezzo le corne con il cavallo e tre cani … 20. Un quadro in tela con S. Francesco che riceve lestimate e compagno con libro in mano … 24. Un quadro in tela con S. Benedetto nella grotta con libro in mano compagno che mandagiù un canestrino, et un demonio che tira una sassata, … 32. Un quadro in tela con paese e Sa Maria Madalena in estasi sostenuta da3 Angelini … 41. Un quadro in tela con paese e deserto con S. Honofrio in ginocchi con un Angelo che lo comunica … 66. Un quadroin tela con paese, et aqua con S. Maria Egitiaca et un altro santo che li porta la Communione…’

29 Salerno 1952, p. 191 n. 13 no.9 and Bernini 1985, p. 355: ‘Un quadro in tela con paese Eremitario, et un Romito con barbagrande mano del Lanfranchi segnato n. 205’.

30 This painting was described in the inventory of the Palazzo del Giardino in Parma of 1708 as ‘S. Paolo rapito da tre angeli alterzo cielo’ (Bertini 1987, p. 201), and is now in Naples; see La scuola Emiliana 1994, p. 161; here the painting has been ascribed toLorenzo Garbieri. Salerno 1952, p. 191 and Bernini 1985, pp. 354-356 included this painting, Schleier 1979, p. 12, Schleier 1983, p.23 and La scuola Emiliana 1994, p. 161 did not.

Parma and Naples during the first years of the eighteenth century contradicts their presence in Rome in 1732.21

Lanfranco’s frescoes remained in place until the brotherhood of the Orazione e Morte ended the agreementin 1731 and decided to aggrandise their complex. The edifice of the church and its adjacent buildings weretorn down to erect a new and grander edifice, designed by the architect Ferdinando Fuga.22

Dismantled before 1662 and torn down in 1732, the original appearance of the Camerino degli Eremiti hasbeen reconstructed in earlier publications with the help of archival material. The list of paintings sent to Parmain 1662 contains a number of canvases that once were part of the ceiling of the Camerino.23 Other inventoriesrecorded Lanfranco’s paintings after their transport to Parma and Naples.24 During the following century mostof these were lost or sold.25 Today only two of them are extant and held in the Museo Capodimonte in Napleswhere the Farnese collection was moved in the early eighteenth century.26 The subjects of these two paintings areChrist in the desert being served by Angels (fig. 3) and Mary Magdalene carried to heaven by angels (fig. 4).

In total, ten canvases, one more than the original nine, were identified by recent authors in seventeenth-and eighteenth-century inventories as originally belonging to the ceiling of the Camerino, on account of theirrelative size or their attribution to Lanfranco. Eight of these are undisputed.27 The canvases which certainlycame from the Camerino, apart from the two mentioned above, depicted Saint Eustace facing the stag withthe Cross between his antlers, Saint Benedict reading in his grotto while his companion sends down a basket,Saint Onuphrius in the desert kneeling before an angel bringing the Host, Saint Mary of Egypt receiving com-munion from a priest, and the Stigmatisation of Saint Francis.28 A last painting was a subject with a saint thatcould not be identified by later observers, and was simply called ‘landscape with a bearded hermit.’29 Thisleaves one panel-painting unidentified, for which two possibilities have been suggested.

The two paintings on which opinions diverge are Saint Paul being carried to Third Heaven, and SaintAnthony of Padua preaching. Pictures with these two themes were mentioned in various eighteenth-centuryinventories of the Farnese-properties. The former painting should be dissociated from the series as its meas-urements do not match the standard format of the other canvasses; moreover, Saint Paul was not an anchoritesaint.30 The latter painting, untraceable since the mid-eighteenth century, has been excluded on the grounds


14 Arnold A. Witte

of its iconography as Saint Anthony was not a proper hermit, although according to some hagiographies, hedid live as a recluse around 1222.31 When the latter painting should indeed be included in the programme ofthe Camerino notwithstanding its seemingly different theme, it raises questions about the general iconograph-ic theme of the room and its traditional epithet.

But the subjects of Lanfranco’s frescoes in the Camerino were obviously deemed suitable as decoration forthe new church of Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte, as all four were taken down and re-applied to the wallsof the new building.32 One was later destroyed, and another is hidden behind the present organ. One of thetwo visible frescoes depicts Saints Paul the First Hermit and Saint Anthony Abbot praying together while araven brings them a loaf of bread (fig. 5); the other depicts Saint Simeon Stylite visited by a snake climbingup his column (fig. 6). The fresco behind the organ, of which only details can be seen (figs. 7-10) has beenidentified on account of the visible details as Saint Bruno (visible in fig. 8) discovered by Count Ruggero (fig.9) while out with his hunting-party (fig. 10).33 The fourth fresco has never been described and was destroyed

31 AS vol. Iunii 2, p. 706 and BS 1961-1970 vol. 2, col.159 relate this episode.32 Hager 1964, p. 60, doc.IV.33 Schleier 1964, p. 10.

Fig. 3. Giovanni Lanfranco, Christ served by angels, ca. 1616. Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. Photo: Luciano Pedicini


15Introduction

Fig. 4. Giovanni Lanfranco, Saint Mary Magdalen rising up to heaven, ca. 1616. Museo Nazionale di Capodimonte, Naples. Photo:Luciano Pedicini.


16 Arnold A. Witte

Fig. 5. Giovanni Lanfranco, Saints Paul the First Hermit and Anthony Abbot, ca. 1616.Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte, Rome. Photo: Arte Fotografica, Rome.


17Introduction

Fig. 6. Giovanni Lanfranco, Saint Simeon Stylite, ca. 1616. Santa Maria dell’Orazione eMorte, Rome. Photo: Arte Fotografica, Rome.


18 Arnold A. Witte

Fig. 7. Giovanni Lanfranco, Saint Bruno visited by Count Roger, ca. 1616. Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte, Rome. Photo: ErichSchleier.

Fig. 10. Giovanni Lanfranco, SaintBruno visited by Count Roger, ca.1616. Detail of the hunting party.Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte,Rome. Photo: Erich Schleier.

Fig. 8. Giovanni Lanfranco, Saint Brunovisited by Count Roger, ca. 1616. Detailof Saint Bruno. Santa Maria dell’O-razione e Morte, Rome. Photo: ErichSchleier.

Fig. 9. Giovanni Lanfranco, SaintBruno visited by Count Roger, ca.1616. Detail of Count Roger. SantaMaria dell’Orazione e Morte, Rome.Photo: Erich Schleier.


19Introduction

34 Bellori 1672/2000, pp. 296-301, Passeri 1678/1995, pp. 29-34, Spear 1982 vol. 1, pp. 10-11 and 159-171, Witte 2001b and Witte2003; on the Oratory of Sant’Andrea, see Bellori 1672/2000, pp. 302-304, Passeri 1678/1995, pp. 28-29 and 148, Pepper 1988,cat.no.32, Fumagalli 1990 and Pedrocchi 1993, pp. 91-101.

35 Salerno 1977-1978 vol. 1, p. lx, Whitfield 1980, and Whitfield 1981.

in 1909-1910 when a doorway was opened in the sup-porting wall. It can be assumed that, for reasons ofsymmetry, it was also of horizontal format.

How did these four frescoes and nine panels fitinto the original space? As the inventories anddescriptions indicated, Lanfranco’s decoration con-sisted of frescoes on the four walls, probably onescene on each side surrounded by ornamental bor-ders in fresco. This structure resembled the decora-tion of the Cappella dei Santi Fondatori inGrottaferrata, painted by Domenichino in 1610 (fig.11), or the Oratorio di Sant’Andrea next to SanGregorio al Celio, a commission in which Lanfrancowas involved in 1609.34 The ceiling of the Camerinoconsisted of a wooden structure, probably gilded, inwhich the nine paintings were inserted, with theChrist served by Angels (fig. 3) in the middle, and theother paintings arranged around it in rows of three.

The Camerino was thus owned by the Confrater-nity of the Orazione e Morte, and part of its decora-tion was at least in a later stage considered suitablefor the embellishment of their new church. Thismeans that, on the one hand, the religious iconogra-phy of the Camerino’s decoration can be explainedthrough the spatial and optical relation with the adjacent church and oratory. Whether these saints were real-ly all hermits remains, however, an unresolved matter. Neither Passeri nor Bellori used this epithet in exactlythis way, and the hypothetical reconstruction at least suggests the presence of one saint that cannot properlybe called a hermit.

On the other hand, the room was accessible from, and was considered a part of the Palazzetto Farnese,which contained painted landscapes with mythological subjects by a number of painters from the Carracciacademy. In fact, Lanfranco’s biographers described the room as belonging to the Palazzetto, without notinga difference between its religious theme and the supposedly secular iconography of the rest of the building.Yet, in both contemporary descriptions and modern art-historical literature, the Palazzetto, including theCamerino, has been considered one of the decisive moments in the development of the genre of landscape.35

It was the site where Annibale Carracci and a number of his pupils showed their ability in this genre, and itwas in this respect formative for the later developments. And since landscape painting has often been consid-ered in modern art-historical literature as a genre developing from, and showing a predominantly secularworld-view, this implies a paradoxical relation of the Camerino with the rest of the Palazzetto. It is this para-dox resulting from modern concepts that is the theme of this book, and the issue that will constitute the back-ground of the iconographical interpretation of the Camerino degli Eremiti as part of the Palazzetto Farnese.

How should the decoration, location and function of the Camerino degli Eremiti be understood, and whatwas its meaning for the patron, Odoardo Farnese, and the brotherhood of the Orazione e Morte? Accordingto the contract, both parties saw the agreement as a profitable one, but it remains unclear just what they

Fig. 11. Interior of the Cappella dei Santi Fondatori. Badia diGrottaferrata, Grottaferrata. Photo: Polo Museale Romano.


20 Arnold A. Witte

expected. Was it only a financial agreement, or was there more at stake? And how would the function of theCamerino serve these aims? Another issue is the exact iconographical meaning of Lanfranco’s decoration. Ingeneral, the oeuvre of the painter is predominantly religious, with only a few exceptions. What position doesthe Camerino have in this context? Did indeed the cardinal order landscapes, as has been assumed by someauthors, as he preferred secular subjects, and had hermit saints included in them to justify this choice, as anexcuse? This seems highly improbable, given the contract of 1611 and the exact architectural situation of theCamerino. Just how Lanfranco’s paintings and the elements of landscape and hermits can be related to boththe brotherhood and the cardinal, and can also be related to the rest of the Palazzetto, is the main focus ofthis study.

Starting from the Camerino, these questions will also touch upon the Palazzetto as a whole – late seven-teenth-century descriptions of this addition to the main palace regarded it as an important stage in the devel-opment of the the genre of landscape painting. Thus, all issues that are raised by Lanfranco’s decoration alsoaffect the interpretation of the rest of the building, and even the general art-historical issues of landscapepainting and artistic patronage. Art-historical theories about collecting, perception and meaning of landscapesare tested against the still dominant assumption of secularisation as the main impetus of the genre by focussingon the Palazzetto and Camerino as a coherent ensemble.

Considered as a collection of paintings, the decoration of the Palazzetto demonstrates strange discontinu-ities in style and content that challenge both the difference between Italian and Northern landscapes, and theshift from religious to secular subject themes. The criterion of style – as defined in present-day art-historicalterms as an individual preference36 – obviously did not apply to Farnese’s tastes. Also the supposed incompat-ibility of secular versus religious interpretations of the genre of landscape is called into question by the dispo-sition of mythological, religious and other themes in the Palazzetto. Obviously, Cardinal Odoardo Farnese sawno objection in combining seemingly diverse subgenres and styles of landscape painting within the decorationof this apartment. As a result of his supposed predilection for worldly themes in painting, he has beendescribed as an art collector to whom his position as cardinal was of no influence on his preferences in art, orrather, as a cardinal who desired to exchange his cardinals’ hat for a worldy position as duke of Parma andPiacenza, or even as king of England.37 His seeming indifference to style, however, contradicts the assumptionthat he collected art for the sake of art only, and it is also contradicted by the contemporary descriptions thatnoted no such dychotomy between secular and religious, or northern European versus Italian painting.

Both the contemporary reception and the relatively short period of construction and decoration of the newwing suggest otherwise. For this reason, the Camerino degli Eremiti is considered in the present study as anintegral part of the Palazzetto Farnese, as which it was described by Passeri, Bellori and later authors.Architecture, function and decoration of this new wing are considered as aspects of a coherent program – notnecessarily explicated in writing – for a complex that served the patron’s interests. This also included the gar-den with its classical sculptures and rare flowers. This combination of study, picture gallery, garden of antiquesand sample-garden raise the question, what kind of building type the Palazzetto actually was, and howLanfranco’s Camerino fitted into that context. Before the decoration of the Camerino can be understood inthe context of the Palazzetto, its precise architectural typology should be sorted out.

The function of retreat that was mentioned by Passeri, which refers to the relation of the Camerino withthe church of the Orazione e Morte, is the next point of rerefence from which the Camerino and Palazzet-to will be considered. The Palazzetto can be compared to other retreats or apartments that Odoardo Far-nese disposed of in and around Rome, which all gave onto churches or convents. This leads to the questionwhether Odoardo Farnese was singular in this respect, or if this was a more general phenomenon in Coun-terreformation Rome.

36 See Panofsky 1964, pp. 23-31, Gombrich 1968, Dictionary of Art 1996 vol. 29, pp. 876-883 and Historisches Wörterbuch derPhilosophie 1971-present vol. 10, cols. 155-156; on style in early modern Italian art-theory, see Sohm 2001.

37 Robertson 1988 and Zapperi 1994.


21Introduction

38 For this discussion on the iconograhy of landscape painting, see especially Bruyn in Masters 1987, Falkenburg 1989,Bakker/Leeflang 1993, and most recently Bakker 2004.

Then, the function of the garden behind the Palazzetto as a place for retreat will be discussed in the con-text of contemporary practices and uses. To what extent did the visit to a garden, be it private or (semi-)pub-lic, sustain early modern scientific and antiquarian interests, and how did it simultaneously serve the devotion-al goal of retreat, to which the Camerino was dedicated? Contemporary sources on landscape, gardens anddevotion will be consulted to answer this question. The subsequent chapter discusses how in the early seven-teenth century the concept of the hermit was able to combine both the antiquarian and the religious tenden-cies from which the Baroque originated, and how this could be applied to the early seventeenth-century real-ity.

Although rather traditional art historical methods of research in these four chapters will render a certainnumber of answers to the questions conjured up by the decoration, architecture and spatial context of theCamerino and Palazzetto, these will not completely satisfy the question why Farnese commissioned all thiswork done behind his Palazzo. For that reason, his motives are considered in the final chapter. Was his patron-age really an expression of personal taste? In order to understand the background of his patronage, his posi-tion in the ecclesiastical hierarchy and his function as cardinal protector of several organisations will bedescribed, with particular attention to the meaning and importance of these ecclesiastical positions. This com-parison will provide the context which explains Odoardo’s motifs for having the Camerino added to thePalazzetto in 1611, and it also sheds light on the question as to how his patronage was motivated by personalor ‘individual’ considerations, and thus in how far the choice for landscape and anchorite saints was a resultof what we nowadays call ‘taste’.

The Camerino degli Eremiti and the Palazzetto Farnese will be considered in their architectural, function-al and iconographical relations not as chance additions to the Palazzo Farnese proper, but as forming, at a cer-tain moment in time, a coherent ensemble. The questions pertaining to the building and interior decorationof this particular ensemble will be considered from both the secular and the religious point of view, in orderto corroborate or refute the validity of the two existing hypotheses on landscape painting, its meaning and itsorigins. Was landscape painting indeed an expression of a new and secular world-view, or did it support reli-gious concepts that had originated in the Middle Ages?38 And last but not least, by considering the entirePalazzetto and its decoration also the relation between religious and secular intentions behind early modernpatronage of art can be reconsidered. As a result, this book aims to provide an answer to the question whyRoman landscape painting originated precisely in the period of the Counterreformation. It also sets out to dis-cover how this new genre was able to serve both as an expression of a new religious perception of the visibleworld, and as an extension of the sixteenth-century antiquarian culture to which Odoardo Farnese was heir,and that today is often mistaken as pagan or even secular in meaning.


22 Arnold A. Witte

Fig. 12. Giovanni Maggi, Plan of Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte, Rome, ca. 1598. Royal Library, Stockholm. Photo:Royal Library.


23

Most sources on the Camerino are silent on the spatial and architectural context of Lanfranco’s decora-tion. Since the room was hardly accessible during Farnese’s lifetime, partially dismantled after his death, andfinally destroyed in 1732, later descriptions repeated the facts about the Camerino as gleaned from Bellori’spublication - Passeri’s biography remained unpublished until the eighteenth century.39 Although Bellori’saccount was probably based on first-hand experience of the room in its original state, it merely intended toanalyse the works of art. Later references become increasingly unreliable; in 1725, the Camerino was men-tioned by Rossini as being a work by Domenichino, confusing it with other works in the Palazzetto.40 For abetter understanding of the spatial and architectural context of the Camerino within the Palazzetto one shouldthus return to the contemporary sources and compare these to the present-day situation. The original contractof 1611 between Cardinal Farnese and the brotherhood, a plan of the Church of Santa Maria dell’Orazione eMorte drawn around 1598 by the architect Giovanni Maggi (fig. 12), and a number of contemporary plans ofthe city of Rome provide insight into the architectural situation of the Camerino within the Palazzetto and thebuildings of the Confraternity.41

Today, the Palazzetto Farnese still stands along the Via Giulia, but consecutive interventions havedestroyed the garden and most of its interior disposition. The original appearance of Palazzetto and gardencan be partly deduced from contemporary depictions in maps and plans of Rome. It was located on via Giulia,between Palazzo Farnese and the Tiber, and consisted of a building with a three-arched loggia opening ontoan adjacent garden. A bridge spanned the road, to provide a private access to the Palazzetto from the Palazzoproper. In the 1625 map made by Giovanni Maggi some details of the complex were overemphasised: thebridge was given extravagant proportions and on this map it even led right up to the river-bank, on the left-hand side of a building which does not show the arcades of a loggia but still has the appearance of stables (fig.13).42 In Greuter’s map of 1618, the Palazzo and Palazzetto seem to be correctly drawn, but the giardino seg-reto or private garden is only given schematically.43 In a later map produced by Goffredo van Schayck of 1630,the bridge was not depicted and the buildings of the Palazzetto consisted of two irregular pavilions connect-ed by a wall along the Via Giulia with a gate in the middle. The façade along the road was highly irregular,which is inconsistent with the present situation. In Van Schayck’s illustration, the giardino segreto seemed apiece of barren land sloping towards the river, without the buttressing wall protecting it.44 The 1676 map of

39 Passeri 1678/1995.40 Rossini 1725, p. 30: ‘Nel Palazzetto detto il picciolo Farnese vicono alla Chiesa della Morte vi è un Camerino, detto del Romito,

dipinto dal famoso Domenichino.’ 41 Hager 1964, p. 13 fig. 2, published Maggi’s plan of Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte; see also Schleier 1983, p. 23 and Witte

2000. The plan is in the Royal Library in Stockholm, MS 45, fol.76. Earlier reconstructions of the Palazzetto were published byBourdon/Laurent-Vibert 1909 and Uginet 1980.

42 Frutaz 1962 vol. 2, plate CXLVII,13.43 Frutaz 1962, vol. 2, plate CXLV,7.44 Frutaz 1962, vol. 3, plate CXLIII,7.

1. TYPOLOGY AND DECORATION OF THE PALAZZETTO

Titolo


24 Arnold A. Witte

Giovanni Felda (fig. 14) seems closer to the original situation during the time of Cardinal Odoardo. It showedthe Palazzetto as consisting of two separate parts; on the left side the Palazzetto proper, on the right side sta-bles and other functional buildings.45

Drawings and etchings from the seventeenth century offer little more than the information drawn from themaps. The relatively unimpressive façade of the Palazzetto or the adjacent church of Santa Mariadell’Orazione e Morte was never recorded in prints before the reconstruction of the church in 1732. Only adrawing by Jan Goeree in Vienna (fig. 15) of around 1664 shows the Palazzo Farnese with in the backgroundat the right side, the upper part of the façade of Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte. To the left of that, a win-dow on the upper floor might belong to the Camerino, that according to the plan had one window openingtowards the exterior. Views of this part of Rome taken from the viewpoint of the river from that period areequally rare. Only eighteenth-century prospects such as the series of etchings with views on the Tiber, fromthe Magnificenze di Roma by Giuseppe Vasi of 1754, depict the situation of the Palazzetto. The ‘Fianco dellaStrada Giulia dalla parte del Tevere’, plate 88 of this series, indicated a garden with trees (see fig. 16). Detailed

45 See also Frutaz 1962, vol. 3, plate CLIII for the 1663 map by Johan Blaeu, which gives a situation slightly different from theFalda map of 1676. Although the Blaeu map seems to be more detailed in some respects, the Falda map corresponds better with thenineteenth-century information.

Fig. 13. Giovanni Maggi, Plan of Rome, 1625. University of Amsterdam. Detail showing the Palazzo and Palazzetto Farnese. Photo:UB Amsterdam.


25Typology and decoration of the palazzetto

46 Jestaz 1994, p. 159: ‘Stalla in strada Giulia’.47 Uginet 1980, p. 89f.48 See Hibbard 1967 for the licence of 4 April 1603, and Uginet 1980, pp. 113-118 for the building-accounts.49 See the 1626 inventory in ASN Fondo Farnesiano 1853.III-XII nr. 4, ‘Elenco delle statue di proprietà del serenissimo Duca di

Parma, esistente nel Palazzo, e Luoghi ossiano Villa di Roma. Forse del 1626, o 1650.’ This inventory was dated to 1642 by Riebesell1989, p. 80.

information on its layout cannot be obtained from these sources; the only accurate indication of the garden-design might be obtained from Nolli’s preparatory design for his 1748 Map of Rome (fig. 17).

There are no contemporary designs that inform on the disposition of the rooms inside the Palazzetto.Archival sources indicated that the building was the result of alterations to an existing structure of stables.Attached to these original stalls was a storage for hay (a fenile); an inventory of 1644 still mentioned these stallson via Giulia, so a part of the structure was not affected by the rebuilding of the Palazzetto.46 On a nineteenth-century plan of the buildings this division is still visible; one side contained larger spaces that were indicatedas ‘scuderie e rimesse’. Between 1601 and 1604, a part of this structure, adjacent to Santa Maria dell’Orazionee Morte, was altered to contain five medium-sized rooms on the first floor; on the ground floor a loggia withniches for sculptures and two further vaulted rooms were constructed.47 The building-accounts of these yearsmention external and internal walls torn down or built, as well as ceilings being vaulted.

From the archival sources and present-day situation it can be deduced that there were two entrances tothis Palazzetto; one was at ground level by means of a centrally positioned door from the via Giulia, but theaccess route was a bridge built over the road (fig. 18). This arched bridge surmounted by a terrace wasplanned in conjunction with the refurbishing of the building but it was only constructed afterwards. The per-mission for its construction was given in 1603, and the accounts prove that it was erected in 1604.48 The bridgeextended from an annex to the palace proper (fig. 19); it joined the Palazzetto on the roof-terrace. An inven-tory made up after the death of Cardinal Odoardo also mentioned the presence of antique statues on this ter-race, and maybe on the bridge as well.49

Fig. 14. Giovanni Falda, Plan of Rome, 1676. University ofAmsterdam. Detail showing the Palazzo and Palazzetto Farnese.Photo: UB Amsterdam.

Fig. 15. Jan Goeree, View of Piazza Farnese, ca. 1664. Detailshowing the façade of the Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte.Albertina, Vienna. Photo: Albertina.


26 Arnold A. Witte

The garden was laid out behind the Palazzetto in the same period; the mention of the ‘giardinetto nuovo’in the accounts of 1601-1603 indicated that there had been no preceding horticultural organisation of thesegrounds.50 This giardino segreto extended to the bank of the river Tiber and was there closed off by a wall. Apost-mortem inventory of the Farnese gardens in Rome contained a meticulous description of this garden,drawn up with assistance from the gardener himself, which indicates that Nolli’s plan reflected the originallayout.51 The grounds were divided into two sections, each subdivided into four flowerbeds.52 The section nextto the premises of the Orazione e Morte, and overlooked from the newly furbished rooms, was centeredaround a fish-pond with central fountain; the latter was embellished with sculptures of four shells, four puttiwith vases on their shoulders, and four tortoises, positioned around a central spout with five nozzles.53 On itspeperino-balustrade stood three vases decorated with Farnese-lilies and balls. The other part of the gardenconsisted of four larger beds with precious bulbs and medicinal plants. At the center of this section grew a

50 Uginet 1980, p. 93f.51 The inventory was made with assistance of the gardener, Giovanni Ganzia, and is in ASP, Carte Farnese, Racc.Manoscritti, Busta

86: ‘Descrizione de Giardini di Campo Vaccino, Trastevere, Vignola e Vigna di Madama. 6 April 1626. It was published in Benedetti1973, pp. 479-480.

52 Benedetti 1973, p. 479: ‘Nel giardino segreto di detto palazzo contiguo alli suddetti Camerini al quali si può andare con descen-dere dal detta area per una scala fatta per servitio di detti Camerini pure sotto la custodia di detto Garzia, et compartito in quattroparti principali, ciascuna de quali è poi partita in diversi quadretti tutti piani parte di cipolle di diversi fiori, et parte di radici di sem-plici diverse et tra detti quattro quadri è un arbore di Castagno Aquino, che fà fiori, un arbore di lauro Amaniano, et un altro chiam-ato la grana tintora è da due parti le più longhe di tutte le dette parti principali sono arbori 48 in tutto d’aranci alti egualmente cioècirca palmi 12 eccetto uno piccolo vicino alla peschiera. Il resto di detto giardino consiste in altri 4 quadretti piccoli …’ In the inven-tory of 1644/1650, there is a shorter description of the ‘giardinetto secreto della Morte’ that largely corresponds with the situation asdescribed in 1626; see Jestaz 1994, p. 161.

53 Benedetti 1973, p. 480: ‘in mezzo de quali è una peschiera longa circa quattro canne, larga ci[rc]a 3,5 tutta circondata di bal-austri di peperino piena d’acqua con una fontana in mezzo di 4 conchiglie, 4 tartarughe, 4 puttini con vasi mediocri in cima et unametà di pi[om]bo con 5 bocchini che gettano acqua. Et soprà il balaustro d’essa peschiera cono tre vasi di creta lavorati conmascheroni po[rtanti](?) palle e gigli con piede di peperino pieni [d]i terra senza piante con suoi manici di capacità d’una soma l’u[no]dico.’ The similarity of this fountain with the Fontana delle Tartarughe in Rome, and the fountain with two putti in the Sala d’Ercolein the Palazzo Farnese at Caprarola is striking.

Fig. 16. Giuseppe Vasi, Fianco della Strada Giulia, plate 88 fromDelle magnificenze di Roma, Rome 1754. University Library,Utrecht. Photo: UB Utrecht.

Fig. 17. Giambattista Nolli, Plan of Rome, 1748. Detail showingthe ground plan of Palazzo and Palazzetto Farnese. University ofAmsterdam. Photo: UB Amsterdam.



54 Bellori 1672/2000, p. 367: ‘essendo solito il Cardinale Farnese ritirarsi in quella camera …’55 ASN. Fondo Farnesiano b. 1346 fasc. 37, fol.1r: ‘stantia, seu cubiculu d[ictis] Archiconfraterntis, in quo per prius inhabitabat

Clericus dictae Eccl[esi]ae…’56 The measurements in the Maggi-plan were presumably in palmi romani; according to Doursther 1965, p. 375, the palmo romano

measured 223 mm.57 La scuola Emiliana 1994, p. 176 gives the measurements of the Christ as 116 x 143 cm and those of the Mary Magdalene as 109

x 78 cm.

large flowering horse chestnut. The garden was decorated with pots with 48 orange- and lemon-trees, andother vases with roses and other flowers.

From these documents it can be deduced that the Palazzetto formed an architectural extension to PalazzoFarnese itself and was connected to the main building by means of a bridge, offering its owner access to thenewly laid out private Tiber-garden. In 1611, this Palazzetto was extended with an additional room; by meansof a passage, Cardinal Farnese could reach the Camerino degli Eremiti directly from the Palazzetto. The useof the verb ritirarsi, used by Bellori with respect to the Camerino when he wrote ‘the cardinal being in thehabit of retiring to this room…’ fits the general impression of this autonomous architectural complex andadjacent ground as well.54 How was the Camerino connected to this Palazzetto?

CAMERINO AND PALAZZETTO: A RECONSTRUCTION

The contract between Farnese and the Orazione e Morte provides crucial information for a new recon-struction of the Palazzetto and Camerino. First of all, the contract indicates that the Camerino was part of thebuildings that belonged to the brotherhood; before 1609 it served a cleric, presumably their priest, as his liv-ing quarters.55 It should thus be located within the premises of the church as drawn by Maggi. Since the con-tract of 1611 mentioned that the two windows were already constructed and gave onto the church and theoratory of the brotherhood, the room must have been situated in between these two spaces. The depiction ofinterior of the church in a late seventeenth-century manuscript shows a grated window high up on the wall onthe left hand side, that might have been one of the windows of the Camerino (fig. 20). The only plausible loca-tion is then above the room in the plan inscribed as the ‘spogliatore’ or cloakroom in Maggi’s plan (fig. 12).According to the measurements in this plan, the room measured 20 by 39 palmi romani, which is approxi-mately 4,4 by 8,6 meters.56 If one doubles the width of the painting of Mary Magdalene and adds the widthof the Christ one arrives at 3 meters for a total width, while their cumulative height adds up to 3.34 meters.57

Fig. 18: Bridge over the Via Giulia, 1602-1604. Photo: author. Fig. 19: Rear façade of Palazzo Farnese seen from the SantaMaria dell’Orazione e Morte. Photo: ICCD.


28 Arnold A. Witte

This would fit the measurements of the room, and leave enough space for an ornate gilt wooden ceiling, as wasmentioned in the inventories. Moreover, the location of the Camerino above the ‘spogliatore’ facilitated the con-struction of a new access from the recently finished Palazzetto Farnese, as it was directly adjacent to it.

A new reconstruction of the seventeenth-century situation of Palazzetto and Camerino (figs. 21 and 22)on the basis of these sources and the elements still visible today shows a building with two levels: a groundfloor and a first floor. On ground-level, there were two vaulted rooms with grated windows giving onto thevia Giulia.58 These rooms were located on either side of the corridor leading from the main entrance on thevia Giulia directly to the three-arched loggia (no. 5 on fig. 21). From here the garden could be accessed bymeans of a number of steps between the building and the lower level of the garden.59 A circular stairwell,accessible from the ground-floor-room on the left-hand side, connected the lower and upper floor, and thisspiral staircase ran to roof-terrace at the top of the building.60 This roof-terrace then provided the secondentrance to the building directly from the Palazzo Farnese by means of the bridge over the Via Giulia.

58 Uginet 1980, p. 98, nr. 935: ‘Per haver rotte et fatte tre finestre mezzanine fatte spallette et archi et messo li conci et ferrate divano palmi.’

59 Uginet 1980, p. 98, n. 942: ‘Per haver messo lo scalino della loggia lungo palmi 51 3/4’. This corresponds with the width of theloggia’s three arches.

60 Uginet 1980, p. 93, nrs.810-812, 816 referred to the construction of this ‘lumaca’, that according to idem, p. 94, nr.841 was sit-uated next to a ground-floor room: ‘Muro che divide la scala dalla stanzia acanto’. A further entry refers to the door constructed nextto this stairwell, providing an access to the stairwell and room from the side of the Vicolo della Morte, see idem p. 97, nr.900: ‘Mettituradella porta di tevertino che entra allo stanzino a piedi alla lumaca.’ The second stairwell on the side of the Via Giulia, drawn in thereconstruction of Uginet 1980, was probably a later alteration after the fire occurring in the Palazzetto in the seventeenth century. Iwish to thank Dr. Uginet for discussing this reconstruction with me.

Fig. 20. Miniature depicting the interior of the Santa Maria dell’Orazione e Morte, 1676.Archivio del Vicariato, Rome. Photo: Bibliotheca Hertziana. Rome.



61 This reconstruction is based upon Uginet 1980, p. 91, which was in turn used the reconstruction published byBourdon/Laurent-Vibert 1909.

62 Uginet 1980, p. 99, nr.964: ‘Per haver messi 3 mezzanini de tevertino sopra la loggia di vano.’63 The reconstruction published in Uginet 1980, p. 91, fig. 2 suggested that the circular stairwell was located towards the back of

the building, between the Palazzetto and the buildings of the Orazione e Morte, and made to provide access to the Camerino degliEremiti. This stairwell cannot have been constructed for this purpose in 1601-04, as the Camerino was not available at that moment.Moreover, there was no space for the stairwell on this spot, as the dividing wall between the Farnese-premises and the buildings of thebrotherhood was not perpendicular to the Via Giulia, but stood at an angle of 80 degrees; the side of the loggia bordered immediate-ly onto the wall towards the Vicolo della Morte. This must be concluded from the post in Uginet 1980, p. 94, nr. 822: ‘Muro della nic-chia nella loggia fatta nel muro vecchio verso la Morte.’ That this wall was not perpendicular but at an angle can be deduced fromFuga’s plans for the church for Orazione e Morte and the present situation (see Salerno/Spezzaferro/Tafuri 1973, ills.385, 386, andBuchowiecki 1967-1974 vol. 3, p. 63, and Le Palais Farnèse, vol. 2, pp. 24-25).

64 Whitfield 1981, p. 313. 65 R. Symonds, Diary, cited after Whitfield 1981, p. 316 n. 13. Symonds was able to enter the Palazzetto after the sequestration of

Farnese property by the papal authorities during the War on Castro in 1641. 66 This inventory has been published in Jestaz 1994 where it is dated to 1644. It was probably drawn up during the war on Castro.67 Jestaz 1994, pp. 136-138 and Bertini 1987, p. 222.68 The hanging of paintings in other rooms of the Palazzo presented a random mixture of subjects and artists, with a predomi-

nance of historical subjects. See Robertson 1995, pp. 70-79, and Jestaz 1994.69 Mancini 1956-1957 vol. 1, p. 143.

According to the 1644 inventory of the Palazzetto, on the first floor there were four camerini and one addi-tional space (see fig. 22).61 Two of those looked onto via Giulia; the others were located over the loggia andoverlooked the garden by means of three windows.62 In 1610, the corridor to the Camerino degli Eremiti (no.1on fig. 22) was constructed from this upper floor. The most probable location for this passageway was in theangle between the south-western room overlooking the garden, the only place where the buildings of thebrotherhood (nos. 2 and 3 on fig. 22) immediately bordered on the complex of the Palazzetto.63

DECORATION OF THE PALAZZETTO

The Palazzetto contained one of the earliest coherent collections of painted landscapes in early SeicentoRome, a fact that was noted by the occasional visitor able to enter these premises.64 Richard Symonds, anEnglish traveller who visited Rome around the middle of the seventeenth century, recorded in his Diary that ‘Ina little building toward the River … 3 or 4 rooms with … quadros of Annibal Carracci’s on the flat Roofe whichis of board and about 11 or 12 foot high is in all quarters with rare paeses of that incomparable master.’65 Theinventory of 1644 - considered to be a reasonably accurate reflection of the situation during the lifetime ofCardinal Odoardo – corroborates Symonds’ description of the interior arranged as private picture-gallery withprimarily landscape paintings.66 The information of this document allows for a virtual walk through the rooms.Here the different schools of painting preferred by Farnese were hung according to theme. Within the alloca-tion in the Palazzetto there is no sign of stylistic preference: Dutch, German, Roman and Bolognese paintingscould be seen next to one another. Several inventories of Farnese property during the seventeenth century list-ed among these works by Paul Bril, Carlo Saraceni, Annibale Carracci, his pupils and a number of otherpainters.67 These pictures were for the greater part acquired by Cardinal Odoardo himself as most works datedfrom the turn of the sixteenth century, and some were expressly commissioned for this environment.68

The conscious effort to bring them together in the Palazzetto indicates the existence of a coherent deco-rative programme for this building. In allocating paintings according to subject, Farnese followed the tenden-cy of the early seventeenth century of combining paintings with regard to their subject, as for example GiulioMancini had advised his readers in the Considerationi sulla pittura of around 1615-1620.69 The combination ofthemes and subjects indeed suggests a further level of meaning, in which the spatial arrangement of thePalazzetto becomes a signifying element of its own.

On the ground floor, the Palazzetto contained three painted landscapes with mythological subjects, exe-cuted in fresco on the ceilings of the main rooms around 1603. In the vault of the loggia opening onto the


30 Arnold A. Witte

Fig. 21. Reconstruction of the ground floor of the Palazzetto Farnese. Drawing: R.P. Reijnen.

Fig. 22. Reconstruction of the first floor of the Palazzetto Farnese. Drawing: R.P. Reijnen.



70 Bellori 1672/2000 pp. 292-293 and Malvasia 1841 vol. 2, p. 222. These frescoes were detached between 1816 and 1820 becauseof their precarious state of conservation. See Spear 1982 vol. 1, pp. 131-133, Whitfield 1981, pp. 312-323, Hochmann in Domenichino1996, pp. 173-177, and Paoletti 2003, p. 9.

71 Ovid 1986, pp. 61-66 for the story of Narcissus, p. 248 for the death of Adonis, and pp. 230-231 for the episode of Apollo andHyacinth. See Pigler 1956 vol. 2, pp. 175-178 for the death of Narcissus, ibidem p. 244-247 for Venus lamenting Adonis, and pp. 29-30 for the iconography of Apollo and Hyacinth, which was painted a second time by Domenichino in the Villa Aldobrandini inFrascati, now in the National Gallery in London. On the Cinquecento discussions on the depiction of Ovidian themes in painting, seeThimann 2002, esp. pp. 33-88.

72 Marino 1609, p. 75: ‘Ogni prato, ogni fior ride al tuo riso,/ Mentr’Elpinia frà lor movi le piante./Nel tuo leggiadro aspetto il suosembiante/ Vago di vagheggiar scorge Narciso./In te si specchia Adon, ch’espresso il viso/ Haver di Citherea gli sembra avante;/ EClitia, quasi volta al suo Levante,/Nel Sol de’tuoi begli occhi il guardo hà fisco/ Vinta in bellezza, e dal tuo piè calcata,/ D’amorosavergogna il volto tinto/ Inchina à te la Rosa innamorata./ Fossi anch’io fiore, e per poter dipinto/ Mostrarti sospirando aura dorata,/Melo foglie il mio duol, fossi Giacinto.’ It is interesting to note the act of colouring red and the allusion to painting in this poem. Spear1965, p. 71 held Agucchi responsible for the adaptation of the myths to this particular setting. Whitfield 1981, p. 322 suggested onthe basis of Malvasia 1841 vol. 2, p. 222, calling them ‘di sua invenzione’, that Domenichino conceived the program by himself to showoff his intellectual capacities. On Agucchi’s activities as artistic advisor in relation to the Carracci-school, see Ginzburg 1996 andMambro Santos 2001.

73 Ovid 1986, pp. 231 and 248 respectively. For a seventeenth-century discussion of the species of anemones, especially the pur-ple variety, see Ferrari 1646, p. 178.

74 On the popularity of the anemone in early seventeenth-century gardens, see Masson 1972, pp. 72-73, 75-76, and Hobhouse1992, pp. 128-129.

75 Masson 1972, p. 79.76 Spear 1967, p. 173, referred to Virgil’s Eclogue 38, where the narcissus is described as ‘suave rubens narcissus’, and Pliny the

Elder 1938-1962 vol. 6, p. 254 (Bk.21, ch.75), who refers to two varieties: ‘Narcissi duo genera in usum medici recipiunt, purpureoflore et alterum herbaceum ....’, and elsewhere, Bk XXI, 12, of a lily that is purple and similar to the narcissus.

77 Aldini/Castelli 1625, frontispice: ‘Tobia Aldino cesenate auctore. Illustr.mi et rev.mi principis et cardinalis Odoardi Farnesiimedico chimico, et eiusdem horti preafecto.’ Ferrari 1646, p. 15: ‘Tobiae Aldini, qui, dum Odoardi Cardinalis Farnesij medicus

giardino segreto (no. 5 on fig. 21) and on the ceilings of the two ground-floor-rooms giving onto via Giulia,Domenichino painted three mythological tales: the Death of Adonis, the Dying Narcissus and Apollo andHyacinth (figs. 23-25).70 The source for all three was Ovid’s Metamorphoses, and the continuing popularity ofthese stories for the subject of floral themes in art at the beginning of the seventeenth century is attested byan amorous poem in the Rime by the poet Giambattista Marino.71 In a complicated play between the myth oforigin of these three flowers, he compared the beauty of his own beloved with both that of Narcissus, Adonisand Hyacinth and the flowers they had turned into. Marino’s poem probably inspired the subject of the threefrescoes.72 Around 1600, the poet was affiliated to Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, with whom Farneseremained in close contact during most of his life. But the subject of the poem did not reflect upon the inten-tions of the frescoes in the Palazzetto.

According to both the classical text and seventeenth-century botanical sources, all three flowers referredboth to the colour purple and the species of the lily, and they were also considered related spieces. Oviddescribed how Hyacinth became ‘a flower … in form a lily, save that a lily wears a silver hue, this richest pur-ple’; and Adonis became ‘a blood-red flower’, which is often taken as a reference to the anemone.73 In Seicentotreatises on gardening, the very popular anemone was often considered to be a subspecies of the lily, and ofcourse it repeated the colour red.74 Also the lily and the narcissus were considered botanically related, as themention of a certain ‘Narciso Indiano gigliato, sferico’ in a description of a garden near the Colosseum indi-cates.75 The colour of this flower was not, however, mentioned. The narcissus had been described by Ovid aswhite or yellow, without any reference to the lily, but the Bible and classical sources such as Pliny the Elderand Virgil mentioned purple with reference to this flower.76

A more specific link between the narcissus, the lily, and the colour purple was provided in a 1625 botan-ical description of rare plants in the Horti Farnesiani, the Farnese-gardens on the Palatine Hill. PietroCastelli, lecturer of medicine at the University of the Sapienza in Rome, in 1625 published the Exactissimadescriptio rariorum quarundam plantarum que continentur in Rome in horto farnesiano, under the pseudo-nym of his friend Tobia Aldini, physician and Odoardo’s gardener.77 Castelli labelled one particular species


32 Arnold A. Witte

Fig. 23. Domenichino, The Death of Adonis, ca. 1603. Palazzo Farnese, Rome. Photo: Giuseppe Schiavinotto.

Fig. 24. Domenichino, Dying Narcissus, ca. 1603. Palazzo Farnese, Rome. Photo: Giuseppe Schiavinotto.



Chymicus, & Farnesiani horti praefectus ...’ For a discussion of this book and its author, see DBI 1960-present, vol. 21, pp. 747-750,esp. 748, Tagliolini 1988, pp. 185-186, Nocchi/Pellegrini 1990, p. 419, Coffin 1991, pp. 208-209 and Scott 1995b.

78 Freedberg 2002, p. 39. 79 Aldini/Castelli 1625, p. 83: ‘Lilionarcissus, seù Narcissolirion aptiùs hæc planta dicetur, quàm Tulipa: flos enim verè lilium emu-

latur, radix, & folia narcisi sunt.’ Later on, this plant was also found in the garden of Cardinal Antonio Barberini and indicated withthe same name; Ferrari 1646, pp. 115-118 followed Aldinus’ account and described the plant as follows: ‘Narcissus Indicus lato folionarcissino, flore rubeo liliaceo, album scilicet lilium imitante...’ See also Blair McDougall 1994, p. 236.

80 See Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca 1612/1987, p. 637 and GDLI vol. 13, p. 920.81 See Martin 1965, p. 42 and Pastoureau 1980, esp. pp. 445-48 for Odoardo’s impresa.82 Le Palais Farnèse vol. 1, p. 314 ill.1.

in this garden as ‘Lilionarcissus rubeus Indicus’, indicating the close resemblance observed by seventeenth-century botanists between the two species and this one flower, which in modern taxonomy is known asAmaryllis Belladonna (fig. 26).78 As Castelli noted in his description, the roots and leaves of the plant resem-bled the narcissus, and the flower was identical to the lily.79 In the Palazzetto, the three flowers depicted inthe frescoes of the groundfloor - and also present in vases in the real garden - were thus all purple andreferred to the lily in some way.

Domenichino’s works in the Palazzetto thus referred to the patron and his ecclesiastical dignity. In the sev-enteenth century all three flowers into which these mythological figures turned were taken as a reference tothe lily, the flower found sixfold in the escutcheon of the Farnese family. Also recurrent in all stories was thecolour purple, a particular reference to the status of cardinal for which in Italian the word ‘porporato’ wasused both as adjective and noun.80 Apart from the lily as a reference to the family and its ecclesiastical ties, thepersonal imprese of Cardinal Odoardo, devised by Fulvio Orsini, also showed the motif of the purple lily withthe Greek motto Vqeoteh auxanomaiV, or ‘I grow with Gods help’ (see fig. 27).81

The upper storey of the Palazzetto contained an apartment of four small rooms, camerini, and a provision-al chapel.82 These rooms were all similarly arranged, with ceilings consisting of a wooden structure into which

Fig. 25. Domenichino, Apollo and Hyacinthus, ca. 1603. Palazzo Farnese, Rome. Photo: Giuseppe Schiavinotto.


34 Arnold A. Witte

canvases were inserted; further paintings hung on thewalls. The first room described in the inventory,‘primo camerino a canto la Morte’, was primarilyfilled with works by Annibale Carracci. OdoardoFarnese favoured the artist from 1595 until theuntimely death of the painter in 1609.83 The wallswere hung with the Sleeping Venus with playing puttiby Annibale Carracci (fig. 28), a Rinaldo and Armida‘con boscaglia’ and a Diana taking a bath by the samepainter, and a Europa on the Bull (probably byAgostino Carracci) - all of these pastoral or mytholog-ical subjects, set within conspicuous landscape-set-tings.84 Another particular painting found in this roomwas the Arrigo Peloso, ascribed to Agostino Carracci,and depicting a hairy man, a monkey, a dwarf and amadman.85 All of these characters were present at thecourt of Odoardo Farnese, and have been identifiedrespectively with the uomo selvaggio Arrigo Gonzalez,the nano Rodomonte, and the buffone Pietro.86

Because of their abnormality and rarity, they wereconsidered beasts, types of ‘natural wonders’ apper-taining to the cardinal’s collections.

The ceiling of this first room provided allegor-ical and real images of the time of the day, as the1653 inventory recounted: ‘nineteen paintings withperspective views, landscapes and animals and onein the middle of larger size, with Apollo crownedwith laurel with the lyre, all with gilded cornice,which represent the Day, and forming the ceilingof the said Camerino.’87 Although the names of thepainters were omitted, on account of later Farneseinventories the central painting, now lost, has been

attributed to Annibale Carracci.88 On the same basis it can be assumed that these landscapes were by PaulBril, Jan Breughel the Elder or one of their Flemish assistants or followers.

83 Zapperi 1986, pp. 203-205.84 The Rinaldo and Armida is in the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples; see Bertini 1987, p. 165, no. 237; for the Sleeping Venus, in

Chantilly, see Bertini 1987, pp. 146-148, no. 187, De Boissard/Lavergne-Durey 1988, pp. 65-69, cat. no. 21 and Brooks 1998. The Rapeof Europa, attributed to Agostino, is in a private collection, London; see Bertini 1987, p. 162, no. 232 and I Farnese 1995, pp. 301-302,cat. no. 101. For a painting of Diana and Actaeon that can possibly be identified with the Diana taking a bath from the Palazzetto, nowin Bruxelles, Musée des Beaux Arts, see Bertini 1987, p. 134 no. 162.

85 Jestaz 1994, p. 136: ‘Uno più piccolo in tela, cornice dorata, dentro al quale è dipinto Arrigo peloso, Pietro matto, Amon nanoet altre bestie, mano del detto [Annibale Carracci].’ For this painting, now in Museo di Capodimonte and ascribed to AgostinoCarracci, see Bertini 1987, p. 111, no.81 and La scuola Emiliana 1994, pp. 109-110.

86 On the identification of these members of Farnese’s court and their status as natural curiosities, see Zapperi 1985. The identifi-cation of the person at the far right as Ulisse Aldrovandi has been proposed by Findlen 1998, p. 311.

87 Bertini 1987, p. 221, citing the inventory of 1653, ASP. Racc. Ms 86: ‘diciannove quadri a prospettive di paesi animali et uno dimezzo più grande con Apollo laureato con il Pletto tutti con cornicietta dorata che rappresentano il giorno, et formano il soffitto did[etto] Camerino.’

88 Bertini 1987, p. 100 nr. 42. On the iconography of Apollo and the times of the day, or accompanied by the Hours, see Ripa 1603,pp. 203-214, where a direct quote is given from the story of Phaeton by Ovid.

Fig. 26. ‘Lilionarcissus Rubeus Indicus’, p. 82 from PietroCastelli, Exactissima descriptio rariorum quarundam plantarumque continentur in Rome in horto farnesiano, Rome 1625.University of Amsterdam. Photo: UB Amsterdam.



Fig. 27. Floral ceiling decoration, from the ‘Camerino’, 1596 (fresco) by AnnibaleCarracci. © Palazzo Farnese, Rome, Italy / The Bridgeman Art Library.

Fig. 28. Annibale Carracci, The Sleep of Venus, ca. 1603. Musée Condé, Chantilly © Musée Condé, Chantilly / Giraudon / TheBridgeman Art Library.


36 Arnold A. Witte

Following this first camerino was a space called ‘camerino primo a mano manca’, which functioned as achapel, given its furnishing with an altar consisting of a wooden table on a stand, with a wool covering.89 Twosmall cabinets serving as storage for religious utensils were illuminated on the outside with painted landscapes:‘two cupboards for the service of the altar decorated with landscapes.’90 The room also contained anotherobject in 1653, a segetta or close-stool, which seems strangely out of place in this context, and was probablynot an original piece of furniture from the early seventeenth century.

At the centre of the ceiling of the second camerino, a representation of another cosmological theme,Aurora spreading flowers, was surrounded by prospettive - meaning probably landscape-paintings, andunspecified figural themes.91 Also in this case, the names of painters were not mentioned in the inventory;reconstructions have linked the centrepiece with a painting by Annibale now in Chantilly, that shows Auroracrowned by flowers, seated on a cloud, and dispersing flowers over the awakening earth with the help of twoputti (fig. 29). This depiction utilised one element from the description of this theme in Cesare Ripa’sIconologia, namely the basket with flowers, but in all other aspects diverged from the traditional iconographyof Aurora on a chariot with a torch in her hand to drive away the darkness.92 The surrounding paintings of thefour putti scattering petals of flowers were painted di sotto in su (fig. 30).93 The room also included a set offourteen portraits of ‘various Princes and Princesses of Portugal’, according to the inventory executed by aFlemish master; these images formed a gallery of Cardinal Odoardo’s maternal ancestry - his mother wasprincess Maria of Portugal.94

In the third camerino, the theme of Night painted by Annibale Carracci formed the focal point of the ceiling’sdecoration.95 It depicted a female personification of the nighttime, flying with sleeping putti in her arms above amoonlit landscape (fig. 31). This iconography accorded quite accurately with the prescriptions of the Night givenby Ripa, as a woman with large wings holding two sleeping children.96 Around this central panel, eight depictionsof sleeping amorini and four nocturnal landscapes, now lost, were inserted. The theme of night was relatively newin the genre of landscape, which was pursuid by a number of northern painters, such as Adam Elsheimer, thenworking in Rome.97 Four works ascribed to Paul Bril in the inventory of 1662 probably referred to the landscapesfrom this room, as they all depicted moonlit scenes; one painting of a sleeping putto with a torch in his hand might

89 Jestaz 1994, p. 136: ‘3304. Un altare di legno, tavolina di sopra et telaro da basso.’90 Jestaz 1994, p. 136: ‘3305. Due armarietti per servitio dell’altare dipinti a paesi.’91 Jestaz 1994, p. 137: ‘Nove quadri con cornicetta dorata attorno, parte a prospettive e parte a figure, con uno più grande in mezzo

dell’Aurora, che formano il soffito di detto camerino’. For the diverse meanings of prospettiva, see GDLI vol. 14, pp. 710-712. Symondsin his Diary (see Whitfield 1981, p. 319) wrote ‘In one roome in the roofe is Aurora flat as if flying in the ayre spreading flowers’, buthe did not mention the prospettive. For the painting of Aurora, see Bertini 1987, p. 133, nr. 155, and De Boissard/Lavergne-Durey1988, pp. 70-72, cat. no. 23

92 Ripa 1603, p. 34: ‘Aurora. Giovinetta, alata … nel braccio sinistro un cestello pieno de varij fiori’. An example of the more tra-ditional iconography of Aurora is in the Stanza dell’Aurora in Palazzo Farnese at Caprarola; likewise a room in which the thematicreflected the cosmological cycle of the day; see Pierguidi 2002b, p. 287.

93 For these putti-paintings, identified with four canvases in the Musée Condé in Chantilly, see Bertini 1987, pp. 90-93, nrs. 20-23and De Boissard/Lavergne-Durey 1988, pp. 72-73, cat. nos. 24-27.

94 Jestaz 1994, p. 136: ‘Quattordeci retrattini in tavola con cornici negre, con diverse Principi et Principesse di Portogallo, manod’un Fiamengo.’ These paintings are now in the Galleria Nazionale di Parma, inv.no.1177; see Robertson 1992, pp. 145-147. On thematernal family and its portugese connections, see Arcioni 1626, p. 11 and Zapperi 1994, p. 35.

95 Jestaz 1994, p. 137, no. 3321: ‘Nove quadri, quattro d’Amorini, quattro più grandi a prospettive di paesi illuminati dalla luna,in mezzo uno grande della Notte che vola.’ The central painting of the Night is now in Musee Condé in Chantilly, see DeBoissard/Lavergne-Durey 1988, pp. 69-70, cat. no. 22; one of the amorini was identified with a copy after Annibale in the Museo diCapodimonte; see Bertini 1987, p. 94 nrs.26-29, p. 133 no. 153, and La scuola Emiliana 1994, p. 139. Whitfield 1981, p. 319 erroneous-ly identified these paintings of amorini with the four ‘Amours’ now in Chantilly.

96 Ripa 1603, p. 360: ‘Notte. Donna vestita d’un manto azurro tutto pieno di stelle, & habbia alle spalle due grande ali in atto divolare, sarà di carnaggione fosca, & haverà in capo una ghirlanda di papavero, & nel braccio destro terrà un fanciullo bianco, & nelsinistro un’altro fanciullo nero, & haverà i ppiedi storti; & ambidue detti fanciulli dormiranno.’

97 See Howard 1992 for representations of the night-sky in Elsheimers work, and the relative influence of Galilei’s discoveries onthis subgenre of landscape; see Witte 2008 for Odoardo Farnese’s possible patronage of Elsheimer.



98 Bertini 1987, p. 223: ‘25. Un paese in tela illuminato dalla luna con prospettiva di colonnate, e rovine antiche con huomini edonne che stanno al fuoco mano di Pavolo Brilli segnato n. 137./ 26. Un paese in tela traverso illuminato dalla Luna con burasca dimare con vascello, e barchette, mano del Brilli segnato n. 300/ 27. Un quadro in tela traverso illuminato dalla Luna con paese una car-rozza a 4; et altre figurine, mano del Brilli segnato n. 302/ 28. Un quadro in tela traverso illuminato dalla Luna da una parte incendiocon figurine e dell’altra monti con piciole casette, segnato n. 481.’ See also Salerno 1952, p. 191 and Ruby 1999, p. 37 and esp. 55. Fora painting of a sleeping putto, ascribed to Annibale Carracci and now in Capodimonte, see La scuola Emiliana 1994, p. 139.

99 Jestaz 1994, p. 137: ‘Una lettiera d’ebano intersiata d’argento con profili e folgiami, colonne quadre senza vasi, con cileo e pen-denti dentro e fuori, coperta e tornaletto simile e dette coperta ....’

100 Cited after Whitfield 1981, p. 320.101 Jestaz 1994, p. 138: ‘diversi scherzi e balli di putti e altre figure dipinte in giallo.’ See also Bertini 1987 p. 222.102 Bertini 1987 p. 231: ‘quadro in tela con diversi puttini che tirano dardi, altri che nuotano, dipinto in giallo chiaroscuro.’103 Jestaz 1994, pp. 137-138, citing from the inventory 1728-1734, in ASN.Fondo Farnesiano 1853 III (X): ‘Un quadro in tela con

diversi puttini che si tirano mele e prospettive di colonne dipinte di giallo scuro … Un quadro in tela con diversi puttini che lavoranoalla fucina ed una fontana di giallo scuro … Un quadro in tela traverso con puttini che ballano, e fanno altri giochi … Un quadro tra-verso in tela con puttini che fanno diversi giochi, alcuni fanno il gioco della civetta … Un quadro in tela con puttini che fanno la gatta

also be identified as a former part of this decoration.98 Most appropriate, a lettiera or daybed made of inlaid ebonywas one of the pieces of furniture, pointing to the use of this room as a place to rest.99

The fourth room - ‘ultimo Camerino’, which according to Symonds was a ‘little closet’100 - of this enfilade con-tained a ceiling for which the general theme of playing putti was chosen. According to the description of 1644,there were paintings with ‘diverse plays and games of putti and other figures painted in yellow.’101 In an invento-ry of 1662-1680, one of these was described as ‘a painting on canvas with various putti throwing the javelin, oth-ers that swim, painted in yellow chiaroscuro.’102 The Naples inventory of 1728-1734 described five other similarworks: ‘A painting on canvas with various putti throwing apples and perspectives painted in yellow chiaroscuro… A painting on canvas with diverse putti that work in a forge and a fountain … A painting on a horizontal can-vas with dancing putti, and others that play … A painting on a horizontal canvas of small putti that play diversegames, some flirt … A painting on canvas with putti that play gatta cieca with a pergola …’103

Fig. 29. Annibale Carracci, Aurora, ca. 1603. Musée Condé, Chantilly. © Mathieu Lombard.


38 Arnold A. Witte

The putto was a popular subject in art duringthe sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and wasoften depicted as engaged in diverse human activi-ties.104 One of the connotations of this theme wasthat of the ‘aetas aurea’, the Golden Age that wasrelated to the theme of Arcadia - and thus the gar-den. The subject of the annual seasons was anotherconnotation of representations of putti - they oftenreferred to autumn and harvest of grapes.105

‘Bacchanals of putti picking grapes and playingamong each other, which signifies Autumn’ was thephrase used to describe a series of tapestries wovenon commission of Ferrante Gonzaga in the mid-six-teenth century.106 The plucking of apples in the lastcamerino could in this case refer to this same time ofyear, while the putti in the forge probably constitut-ed a reference to winter, while the playing andsporting putti indicated spring,107 and the dancingfigurines stood for the summer. Thus, even thoughthe subject of landscape was not explicitly presentin the last room, like the other subjects in the pre-ceding rooms it did refer to the times of the day andthe cycle of the seasons, and thus of nature.

The last room listed as one of the spaces in the Palazzetto was the Camerino degli Eremiti. As already men-tioned, it was described in mid-seventeenth-century inventories as the last of the flight of rooms, as the‘Oratory that corresponds to the Morte’.108 It was only accessible from the preceding spaces, not through anyother entrance. The decoration, also discussed above, deviated from the rest of the Palazzetto in the staffageof hermits, which finds no precedent in the preceding camerini. On the other hand, its decorative scheme pro-longed that of the preceding four rooms by means of the landscapes, and the insertion of canvases into its cof-fered ceiling. Considering that it only had been added to this complex in after 1611 and decorated around1616, more than a decade after the project of the Palazzetto, these two facts indicate that a deliberate decisionhad been made to assimilate this new addition into the existing apartment.

THE GIARDINO SEGRETO AS ‘THEATRE OF NATURE’The subject of the times of day and the seasons, as already observed in the decoration of the diverse cameri-

ni, was extended in the organization of the secret garden. The denomination of the grounds behind thePalazzetto and the Tiber as giardino segreto implied that it was only accessible to Farnese and his guests. Often,giardini segreti contained rare and expensive specimens of flowers.109 The care for such a garden was intimate-

cieca con pergolata di giallo scuro …’ See also Whitfield 1981, p. 320. See Dabbs 1995 and Weddigen 1999 for later series of puttiengaged in children’s games.

104 Pigler 1956 vol. 2, pp. 20-22, Colantuono 1989 and Dempsey 2001.105 Colantuono 1989, Leuschner 1997, and Dempsey 2001, pp. 64-70 for the significance of putti in the Bacchic context and the

harvest of the grapes and the season of Autumn, derived from classical sarcophagi.106 Brown/Delmarcel/Lorenzoni 1996, p. 184: ‘Baccanali di Puttini che distaca uva e che scherza tra loro, indica l’autunno.’107 Ripa 1603, p. 473 proposed to paint the seasons of Spring and Summer as ‘giovani’, and identified Spring with the activity of

playing animals.108 Jestaz 1994, p. 138: ‘Oratorio che risponde nella Morte’. 109 Blair McDougall 1994, pp. 221-222; see also Coffin 1991, pp. 244-257.

Fig. 30. Annibale Carracci, Flying putto, ca. 1603. Musée Condé,Chantilly. ©Musée Condé, Chantilly / Giraudon / The BridgemanArt Library.



110 Blair McDougall 1994, pp. 237-238.111 Blair McDougall 1994, p. 21; for the meaning of semplici or ‘simples’ and its use in early modern Roman gardens, see Coffin

1991, p. 208.112 The Horti Farnesiani are discussed in Felini 1610/1969, pp. 370-371, Giess 1971, esp. p. 210f, Nocchi/Pellegrini 1990, Coffin

1991, p. 208. On flower-gardens at Caprarola see Ferrari 1646, p. 89: ‘Illic præterea splendida specie, ut alibi re ipsa, cum formosissi-ma Urbe certant proximæ ac suburbanæ deliciæ, quæ in Falicis Balneariam, & Ciminam Caprarolæ villam purpurea Conditorum glo-ria illustrant …’

ly tied to the cycle of the seasons, as the flowering of the various species accumulated there was to be regulat-ed so as to bring them to blossom at the exact same moment.110 These secret gardens regularly also containedmedicinal plants and herbs.111 Gardens thus combined the knowledge of the cosmological cycle with the qual-ities of the individual specimen, as well as pointing out the social status of its owner.

The collection of rare flowers in the giardino segreto of the Palazzetto also alluded to its function as aprivate museum. Farnese was an avid collector of botanical curiosities, as was attested by the extensiveholdings of rare species in the Horti Farnesiani on the Palatine Hill and the flower-garden at the far end ofthe palazzo Farnese in Caprarola.112 Castelli’s Exactissima descriptio of 1625 described exotic specimens in

Fig. 31. Annibale Carracci, The Night, ca. 1603. Musée Condé, Chantilly. © Mathieu Lombard


40 Arnold A. Witte

the gardens on the Palatine, and for this reason the preface presented the book as an encyclopaedic accu-mulation of knowledge, going beyond mere factual botanical information.113 In a number of chaptersCastelli discussed examples from the Far East and the Americas that had been planted there, such as the‘Acacia Indica Farnesiana’ imported from Santo Domingo in the West Indies, the Passionflower, the Yucca,and the species of ‘Lilio-narcissus rubeus Indicus’ (fig. 26), which was probably also to be found in the gar-den behind the Palazzetto. Of each of these specimens Castelli gave the region of origin and the chemical,medical and mythological details.

He not only owned rare plants and flowers; Farnese also played a conspicuous role in the sociable cultureof collecting them.114 In a letter of March 1604, Cardinal Francesco Maria del Monte (1547-1626) explainedto Ferdinando de’ Medici (1549-1609) that the beans sent to him came from Farnese, who had obtained themfrom the Portuguese Indies; they were very rare indeed and should continue to remain special.115 Farnese’srelations with Jesuit missionaries on other continents were an important source for rare botanical species, andthe special relations between the cardinal and this religious order secured him a privileged treatment.116

Contacts between Farnese and learned men such as Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605), first professor of naturalhistory at the University of Bologna, provided another way of obtaining samples of rare plants and flowers. Inreturn for the learned man’s services, in 1598 Odoardo Farnese helped Aldrovandi to obtain a privilege fromthe Venetian Senate for his Ornithologia, which appeared in 1599.117

Apart from botany, also astronomy, medicine and natural philosophy were of interest to Farnese and hisfellow cardinals in the early seventeenth century. Del Monte was known to correspond with Galileo Galilei(1564-1642), just like Roberto Bellarmino (1542-1621; see fig. 57) and Francesco Barberini (1597-1679) didlater then ; all collected naturalia and artificialia.118 Private and semi-public museums of natural historyemerged at the end of the sixteenth century in Rome, in which all kinds of botanical and zoological specimen,minerals, metals, monsters, and every other rarity were brought together for the pursuit of knowledge, form-ing a ‘theatre of nature’.119 By accumulating everything that the earth provided and man produced, the under-standing of this world could be furthered. Arranging the objects in an intellectual and physical structureaccording to the Aristotelian order, investing it with the knowledge of Pliny the Elder, Albertus Magnus andother authors on plants and animals, would turn the collection into a microcosm mirroring the macrocosm.Such a musaeum offered its visitor the whole world to behold and comprehend.120

113 Aldini/Castelli 1625, p. 1: ‘Adde nos non simplicem hìc plantarum quarûdam dare Historiam, sed Philosophicam, Medicamquèsimùl Historiam, quæ paucis verbis comprehendi nequit. Verùm cùm simplices, nec controversas Plantas tradimus, nos quoque brevesbenignus reperiet lector.’

114 Federico Borromeo expressed his particular interest in rare flowers in his Lista de varij fiori; see Jones 1993, p. 82. 115 Wazbinski 1994, p. 445 cited this letter: ‘Mando qui in un scattolino alcuni Fagiuoli venuti dall’Indie di Portogallo al

Card[ina]le [Odoardo] Farnese, et gli ho promesso non ne dare a veruno eccetto V[ostra] A[ltezza]; questi fanno tanta ombra checoprano una cerchiata più abondantemente che no[n] fanno le Zucche.’

116 See Nocchi/Pellegrini 1990, p. 415 for the link between Farnese and the Jesuits with regard to their services in providing seeds;for Jesuit activities in the botanical field see Findlen 1994, pp. 164-165.

117 This help in obtaining privileges is confirmed by a letter from Aldrovandi to Odoardo Farnese in ASP, Epistolario scelto b1fasc.16 no.7: ‘Ill[ustrissi]mo et R[everendissi]mo Monsig[igno]re Pron. mio Col[endissi]mo. Infinito dispiacere mi hà dato la indis-positione del Ser[enissi]mo s[igno]r Duca, suo frat[ell]o. Dall’altro canto hò sentito gran contento, per la sanità, alla quale inten-do, egli camina. Ringratio poi infinitam[en]te VS Ill[ustrissim]a del singolar favore fattomi, con haver scritto si caldam[en]te, comeintendo, alla Ser[enissim]ma Republica di Venetia, per impetrare il Privilegio della mia Ornithologia, cioè historia di uccelli, divisain 12. libri. Et per il primo spatio mandarò la litera à Venetia, la quale spero, per la sua grande autorità, habbia oprare, quantohavesse fatto una di S.A.S. Resta hora supplicare VS. Ill[ustrissi]ma, che si degni tenermi sotto la sua protettione, et del Ser[enis-si]mo S[igno]r Duca. Et con tal fine, con ogni humiltà le faccio la debità rivenerza, et le prego da N[ostro] Sig[no]re Dio ogni felic-ità et contento. Di Bologna li 24. di Ottobre 1595. Di VS. Ill[ustrissi]ma et Rev[erendissi]ma Humilissimo et DevotissimoServ[itor]e Ulisse Aldrovandi.’

118 Brodrick 1961, pp. 332f, Wallace 1984 and Campanella 1994; on the Accademia dei Lincei in which Del Monte was involved,see Baldriga 2002.

119 Lugli 1983, pp. 73-78, 93-98, and especially Findlen 1994, pp. 17-47, 97-154. 120 For the use of the word musaeum with reference to encyclopaedic collections, see Findlen 1994, pp. 48-50.



121 Ovid 1986, p. 25; on the iconography of the Hours of the Day and the Seasons in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,see Cappelletti 2005-2006, Pierguidi 2002a and Pierguidi 2002b. The complexity of the Ovidian reception in artistic treatises isdiscussed in Thimann 2002, pp. 54-79. Seznec 1972, pp. 269-278, stated that putting the italian translations and explanations ofthe Metamorphoses on the Index in 1559, and the critical discussion of these themes in art by Gilio and others did not preventOvidian themes to carry plural iconographic meanings to early Seicento beholders. The use of mythological subjects in art asreflecting the ‘secrets of nature’ was described by Conti in 1551; see Seznec 1972, pp. 249-249.

122 Ovid 1986, pp. 357-358: ‘You see how day extends as night is spent,/ and this bright radiance succeeds the dark;/ Nor,when the tired world lies in midnight peace,/ is the sky’s sheen the same as in the hour/ when on his milk-white steed theMorning Star/ rides forth, or when, bright harbinger of day,/ Aurora gilds the globe to greet the sun … Again, you notice howthe year in four/ seasons revolves, completing one by one/ fit illustration of our human life…’

123 ASN. Fondo Farnesiano 2054 contains a list dated 13 December 1603: ‘L’Ill[ustrissi]mo et R[everendissi]mo Card[ina]leOdoardo Farnese deve dare gli sottoscritti libri legati ed fettuccie di seta ... Fisionomia del Porta co. figre di rame ... Inconolog[ia]Cesar Ripa in 4° co. figre ... Herbario de Diversi in fo plantino ... Accademia francese po 2° in 4°... Medicina del Indie…Christoforo a Costa de simplici 4°... Cosmografia Murtero fig[ura]to corretta… Osservation del Calestrano in 4° p°2°...Iconolog[ia] Cesar Ripa levo Don Consalvo... Tholomeo Grande fig[ure] di Rame... Io Vittorio Petrucci ho ricevuto li sopradet-ti libri per ord[i]ne et servitio del s[igno]r Car[dina]le mio s[igno]re.’ For inventories of manuscripts and printed books inPalazzo Farnese, see Fossier 1981 and Fossier 1982.

124 Whitfield 1981; the function as studiolo for the Camerino degli Eremiti was suggested by Bernini 1985, p. 20.125 Thornton 1997, pp. 31-32.

Interior and exterior of the Palazzetto expanded these notions of macrocosm and microcosm, man-madeand natural objects. Architectural form, furniture and decoration of the Palazzetto indeed provided a placefor study of the arts, letters, and nature. On the basis of the mythological stories from Ovid, especially the his-tory of Phaeton in which Apollo was described as surrounded by the Hours of the Day and the Seasons, thecosmological theme was adapted to the realm of painting as found in the coffered ceilings of the camerini.121

And in the fifteenth and concluding book, Ovid recapitulated the cycle of nature as the main theme of theMetamorphoses, touching upon the course of the days, seasons and years.122 The works of art in the Palazzettowere at the same time a reflection of the natural order, and man-made objects. The library of Palazzo Farnesewas furnished with books on the subjects of botany and zoology; a list of works acquired in 1603 for CardinalFarnese contained a number of publications on the natural sciences as well.123

In short, the Palazzetto was a place where Farnese could study both treatises on nature, the real objects,and artistic creations, and thus it was similar to a studiolo. As a rule, studioli were private to a certain degree;they were open to a select public of studiosi and conoscenti at the invitation of the patron himself. In the six-teenth century, the current architectural form of the studiolo could either be one single room, or an apartment.The Palazzetto seems to belong to that tradition in a very particular way, by the inclusion not only of repre-sentations of nature, but also the reality of the garden. As the Camerino degli Eremiti was considered to be anintegral part of the Palazzetto in the seventeenth-century accounts, this also raises the question how this par-ticular later addition fitted into that tradition of studies.124 Was the Camerino indeed a kind of studiolo andthus also a functional part of the Palazzetto?

THE TYPOLOGY OF STUDIOLI

The studiolo was a conflation of three different traditions with roots in Antiquity and the Middle Ages thatwere turned into a particular architectural and functional type during the Renaissance. The respective influ-ence of each of these traditions was dependant upon a number of factors, such as space, money and patron-age; and thus functions and forms varied over time. Already during the Renaissance, but especially during theBaroque, this resulted in an architectural and functional tradition with an extraordinary breadth, until in thecourse of the seventeenth century, the form gradually became outmoded.

The first precursor of the early modern studiolo was that of the small secluded room mentioned in antiquesources. This kind of study - often denoted with other words such as gymnasium, xystus, or library - was usedfor reading and writing during the night.125 Complete isolation from daily activities, in both a spatial and tem-


42 Arnold A. Witte

poral sense, was considered a prerequisite for the necessary focus upon study, as Pliny the Younger mentionedin a letter about Pliny the Elder’s habits.126 In this case, nature in any form was seen as opposed to concentra-tion, as it distracted from thought. The study should, according to Quintilian, who was cited in the fourteenthcentury by Petrarch, thus be located next to, or even be part of the bedroom.127 Any connection with a gardenor opening towards an outdoor space was antithetic to this type of room. It was even objected to by Quintilian,as he considered woods, the open skies and the beauty of the countryside to be a distraction from the neces-sary intellectual concentration.128

A second precursor of studioli was the medieval monks’ cell. Monastic rules indicated the kinds of activi-ties for which this cell was meant and gave particular prescriptions on its location and furniture.129 In the Ruleof Benedict, no particular place was allocated for reading and writing, but the combined necessity of a writ-ing-pad, a slate-pencil and a (grafting) knife for studious activities in the monks’ cell were mentioned.130 In thelater Middle Ages, Carthusian monasteries contained a separate cell for each religious where the Bible and theChurchfathers should be read, and where the scribal duties were accomplished. According to the CarthusianRule, each monk had to have a writing-desk in his own cell, as well as a set of writing-utensils including ink,a ruler, pens, grafting knives, and other instruments to work the parchment.131 It was also prescribed that eachmonk should keep two books from the library to read in the private cell, indicating that the production ofcodices but also the study of the texts themselves was done there.132

Parallel to the monk’s cell as a space for reading and writing was the development in medieval times ofthe third precursor of the studiolo, the archive and treasury-chamber. This architecturally resembled thesmall space intended for reading and writing, but was often linked to liturgical spaces. This kind of roomhoused the documents and valuables of monastic communities, and ecclesiastical or secular rulers. Forexample, the Sainte Chapelle in Paris, built for Louis IX of France, contained a room above the sacristywhere books and treasures were kept.133 Relics were also stored there, and taken out for display in the cen-tral chapel on particular occasions. This kind of storage for valuables was often found in secular dwellingsas well. In the fifteenth century, the castles of Pavia and Milan had their treasuries located in towers tosecure their valuables from ransacking; the keeper’s room was located immediately beneath it and consti-tuted its only way of entrance, to protect it from intrusion by outsiders.134 In both cases, it consisted of asmall apartment in a secluded and safe position within the building, comparable in type, but not in func-tion, to the later requirements for a studiolo.

During the later Middle Ages and the early Renaissance, growing literacy among secular citizens inspiredthem to adopt the monastic example of the cell as place for study. This led to a new kind of furniture for the

126 Pliny the Younger 1972, Bk.3, nr.5,9, p. 175: ‘He always began to work at midnight when the August festival of Vulcan cameround, not for the good omen’s sake, but for the sake of study; in Winter generally at one in the morning, but never later than two,and often at midnight.’

127 Quintillian 1920-1922, vol. 4, book.X,3,22-25: ‘Everyone, however, will agree that the absence of company and deep silenceare most conductive to writing, though I would not go so far as to concur in the opinion of those who think woods and groves themost suitable localities for the purpose, on the ground that the freedom of the sky and the charm of the surroundings produce sub-limity of thought and wealth of inspiration. Personally I regard such an environment as a pleasant luxury rather than a stimulus tostudy ... Therefore, let the burner of the midnight oil seclude himself with but a solitary lamp to light his labours.’ Petrarch approv-ingly cited this passage in his De Vita Solitaria; see Liebenwein 1977, p. 14.

128 Liebenwein 1977, p. 14.129 Liebenwein 1977, p. 15.130 Rule of Benedict, ch.55, in Balthasar 1961, p. 242: ‘gebe der Abt alles, was nötig ist, nämlich... Messer, Griffel... und

Schreibtafel.’131 Guigo I 1984, p. 222: ‘Ad scribendum vero, scriptorium, pennas, cretam, pumices duos, cornua duo, scalpellum unum, ad

radenda pergamena, novaculas sive rasoria duo, punctorium unum, subulam unam, plumbum, regularm, postem ad regulandum, tab-ulas, grafium.’

132 Guigo I 1984, pp. 222-224.133 Liebenwein 1977, pp. 17-18.134 Liebenwein 1977, p. 26.



135 Liebenwein 1977, p. 15.136 Thornton 1997, p. 53.137 Thornton 1997, pp. 53-54.138 Thornton 1997, pp. 69f described the substitution of the writing-desk with the cabinet in the second half of the sixteenth cen-

tury, and its use in the Roman setting.139 Frommel 1973, vol. 1, p. 73.140 Cortesi 1510, cited after the translation by D’Amico/Weil-Garris 1980, p. 85.141 Armenini 1587/1971, pp. 200-201: ‘Ma circa l’adornar i studij, questi usarono quasi le medesime pitture, le quali dimostrarono

quando si disse delle loggie, se non vi s’aggiungesse i quadri à oglio, ò i ritratti di naturale di persone Illustri, i quali fossero dipinti permano di eccellêtissimi maestri, & che i scompartimento d’essi studij fossero fatti con gli ordini, & con gli dissegni loro: Conciosia chele cose, che sono rarissime, & di gran pregio sono quelle, che da i Signori si cercano per i loro studij, per farli adorni, & massimamentedi cose antiche, che sono per lo più, com’à dir medaglie d’oro, di bronzo, & d’argento, cosi teste, & figurine di marmo, & di bronzo,ò di altre pretiose materie scolpite: Ci sono poi i Diaspri Camei, le Gême, i Smalti, & i Christalli in forma di cose varie, & di artificiomirabile, sì com’e di tarsia, ò di commessi le tavole, i banchi, le cornici, & gli armarij, con l’altre cose più minute, nelle quali poco sivagliono de’Pittori, & com’è per uso, & per bellezza la moltitudine de’libri loro, insieme con gl’instromenti mathematici, & altri, sec-ondo le scienze in che essi sono più inclinati.’

specific use of writing, reading, and storing books.135 Items such as the writing desk, formerly only to be foundin monasteries, were now also made for the layman.136 It would consist of a desk with shelves and a means oflighting for the illumination of nightly activity. This wooden construction could actually define the space itself:accounts from the fifteenth century for carpenters constructing a studiolo clearly indicate that this was a per-manent fixture, attached to the wall, and encompassing a desk with storage and its own walls.137 As a result, infifteenth-century Italy the word studiolo also became associated with a specific type of furniture, an expand-ed form of writing desk.

These functions of writing-desk, treasury and place for study and reading merged into the Renaissancetype of the studiolo, in which the man of letters kept his books, ancient coins, small works of art and othertreasures. Where the monk’s cell was reserved for religious activity, literary and artistic interests became thefocus in the secular form, and it developed into a cabinet containing valuables, instruments and works of art.138

Its size would be small to moderate, and apart from being next to the bedroom, a location near a private stair-well or a bathroom would be convenient.139 The Renaissance studiolo was thus typically located in the citydwelling, at the back of the building or looking onto a quiet courtyard, and in close proximity to the privatequarters of its owner.

In early Cinquecento Rome, this type was recommended by Paolo Cortesi in a chapter on the ideal palacefor a cardinal, in his treatise De Cardinalatu of 1510:

The same should be said about the arrangement of the room used for study at night (cubiculum lucubratorium) and the bed-room, the which should be very near to each other; because they serve closely related activities. Both these rooms shouldbe especially safe from intrusion and so we see why they should be placed in the inner parts of the house.140

At the end of the sixteenth century, the ideal pictorial decoration of this kind of space was described byGiovanni Battista Armenini, in his De’ veri precetti della pittura of 1586, as consisting of oil-paintings withPoesie, with which he intended classical and mythological subjects. This accorded with the objects con-tained in this kind of studio, being portrait-busts of famous persons, medals, cameos, glass-paintings andintarsia, and last but not least, books and mathematical instruments. These again concentrated on the clas-sical arts and sciences.141 The Palazzetto resembled this tradition in all its aspects, except for the fact thatfirst, it also contained religious themes in the decoration of the Camerino degli Eremiti, and second, itextended beyond the space of one room to comprise a separate wing of the palace. For the latter reason,the Palazzetto as whole did not accord with the general concept of the studiolo, and this term was neverapplied to it in the contemporary descriptions. Only the word ‘ritirarsi’ was used by Bellori – who proba-bly did see the interior organisation more or less intact – to denote both the function of the Palazzetto, andits actual location on the other side of the Via Giulia. This suggests that this extention to Palazzo Farnesefits in another architectural typology, that of the diaeta.


44 Arnold A. Witte

PLINY’S DIAETA AND ITS CINQUECENTO IMITATIONS

In its interior organisation, size and the intimate link with the private garden behind it, the Palazzettofollowed a third antique example for the studiolo, called diaeta. Pliny the Younger gave a definition ofthis kind of building in the description of his villa in Laurentium.142 According to the literary evocationsin his letters, the villa itself was situated between the shore of the Mediterranean sea and the inlandwoods, and was visually and physically attuned to its natural surroundings. Pliny described that the archi-tectural plan of the villa had been partially dictated by the geographic circumstances of the site, and thata view of the countryside was gained by having many windows and openings towards the exterior.143

Gardens with flowers were planned around the building. A separate pavilion, which he called diaeta, waslinked to the main body of the villa by means of a cryptoporticus or covered archway, and it consisted ofthree rooms and a terrace. In his description of this annex, Pliny stressed the omnipresence of nature asperceived from this location:

Here begins a covered arcade, nearly as large as a public building. It has windows on both sides, but more facing thesea, as there is one in each alternate bay on the garden side ... In front is a terrace scented with violets ... At the far endof the terrace, the arcade and the garden is a suite of rooms [diaeta], which are really and truly my favourites, for I hadbuilt them myself. Here is a sun-parlour facing the terrace on one side, the sea on the other, and the sun on both. Thereis also a bedroom that has folding doors opening onto the arcade and a window looking out on the sea. Opposite theintervening wall is a beautifully designed alcove ... it is large enough to hold a couch and two arm-chairs, and has thesea at its foot, the neighbouring villas behind, and the woods beyond, views which can be seen separately from its manywindows or blended into one.144

The word diaeta was derived from the Greek word divaita , which literally meant dwelling. In the clas-sical world, especially by Statius and Pliny, this term was most often used to denote autonomous garden-pavilions which were so situated as to offer views over the surrounding countryside.145 This was a featureespecially apt for the villa, not the urban dwelling; and the natural surroundings played a major role in itsconcept. It seems that many classical villas had such additions.146 Again according to Pliny, the effect of thisarchitectural addition to the main building was one of ultimate solitude, being completely isolated from theinhabited world:

This profound peace and seclusion are due to the dividing passage which runs between the room and the garden so thatany noise is lost in the intervening space ... When I retire to this suite I feel as if I have left my house altogether and muchenjoy the sensation: especially during the Saturnalia when the rest of the roof resounds with festive cries in the holiday free-dom, for I am not disturbing my household’s merrymaking nor they my work.147

This extended study offered its inhabitant a quiet place for reading and study, and at the same time inte-grating it with the surrounding landscape. Nature became a literary topic connecting the study of arts and let-ters with its ideal setting of the villa.148 Contrary to the studiolo-tradition as described above, this special archi-tectural complex was not exclusively focused on writing and reading; aesthetic pleasure was an inseparablepart of the villa-life and this kind of study. It comprised objects of art and literature as well as the beauty of

142 Liebenwein 1977, pp. 13-14, and Pliny the Younger 1972 vol. 1, pp. 132-143 (Bk. 2, XVII).143 On the importance of the view from the villa for its concept, see Ackerman 1990, esp. pp. 26-28.144 Pliny the Younger 1972 vol. 1, pp. 139-141 (Bk. 2. XVII, 16-23).145 For the meaning of the word diaeta in the classical world, see PRE vol. 5, cols.307-308; see also DNP vol. 3, col.506, Rostowzew

1990, pp. 60-63 and Macdonald/Pinto 1995,p p. 71, 80, 112; see Sherwin-White 1966, pp. 193-198, 325, Littlewood 1987, pp. 23-24,and Förtsch 1993, pp. 48-53 for the Plinian definition of the term.

146 Rostowzew 1990, pp. 60-63.147 Pliny the Younger 1972 vol. 1, pp. 141-143 (Cap. 2. XII. 22-24).148 Littlewood 1987, pp. 23-24.



149 Pliny the Younger 1972 vol. 1, p. 341 (bk.5,VI.13); see also Tanzer 1924, pp. 108-135 and Littlewood 1987, p. 23.150 Pliny the Younger 1972 vol. 1, p. 343 (bk.5,VI,17): ‘The whole garden is enclosed by a dry-stone wall which is hidden from

sight by a box hedge planted in tiers; outside is a meadow, as well worth seeing for its natural beauty as the formal garden I havedescribed; then fields and many more meadows and woods.’

151 Pliny the Younger 1972, vol. 1, p. 133 (bk.2.XVII.2).152 For Petrarch’s villa in Arqua, see Bellinati/Fontana 1988, and Blason/Gallo 1990.153 Erasmus Convivium Religiosum verse 1041-1047, cited after Schlüter 1995, p. 352: ‘Eusebius: Adiunctum est bibliothecae

museion quoddam angustum, sed elegans, quod submota tabula ostendit foculum, si quid offenderit frigus. In aestate videtur solidusparies. Tiberius: Hic mihi gemmea videntur omnia. Est et mira odoris gratia. Eusebius: Hoc mihi praecipue studio est, ut niteat domus,et bene oleat. Utraque res minimo constat. Habet bibliotheca suum ambulacrum pensile, spectans in hortum; et huic adhaeret sacel-lum.’ Erasmus did not use the word diaeta itself. See Schlüter 1995, pp. 61-70, 239-241.

154 For Paolo Giovio see Robertson 1992, pp. 210-212; for Pirro Ligorio and his excavations at Villa Adriana in Tivoli, see Burns1988, pp. 33 and 40, and Ranaldi 2001, pp. 46-50 and 160, and pp. 106-109 for Ligorio’s reconstructions of the complex.

155 Coffin 1979, pp. 241-24.

nature, as Pliny himself alluded to painted landscapes when looking at the reality of nature from the settingof his Tuscan villa. He even seems to place the artificial representation above real nature:

It is a great pleasure to look down on the countryside from the mountain, for the view seems to be a painted scene of unusu-al beauty rather than a real landscape, and the harmony to be found in this variety refreshes the eye wherever it turns.149

Not only the difference between real and imaginary landscape was obliterated in this description; in a pas-sage further on in the same letter also the garden was considered equal in its aesthetic beauty to the real land-scape in which the villa was located. By hiding the stone boundary that fenced off his formal garden from thesurrounding countryside, Pliny the Younger manipulated both domesticated and untouched nature to createan illusion of unlimited extension and aesthetic variety.150 The same could be said about the visual effect of thelandscape-setting in the context of the Villa Laurentina, where the gardens gradually merged with the sea onthe one side, and the mountains on the other side of the building.

According to the description in Pliny’s letter, the Laurentine villa was an extension to the townhouse - ‘It isseventeen miles from Rome, so that it is possible to spend the night there after necessary business is done, with-out having cut short or hurried the day’s work...’151 This proximity of the villa to Rome was paralleled by the near-ness of the diaeta to the building itself; the function of the entire complex could be summarised as offering its ownersuburban solitude. Bellori’s use of the word ‘ritirarsi’ thus could have indicated not only the function of the Cameri-no, but of the Palazzetto as a whole. But the Palazzetto was not the first instance of a recreated Plinian diaeta.

In the Renaissance, the reception of the Plinian texts effected an interest in the particular form and functionof the diaeta. In literary form, this concept became widely discussed. The medieval example set by Petrarch inhis own villa and the descriptions given of it in his own writings was fused with the Plinian type by Erasmus inhis Convivium Religiosum of 1522, where he described the suburban dwelling of the main character Eusebius.152

It contained a flight of rooms on the first floor, of which one was denoted as the library, adjacent to which werea number of cubicula for resting, and a museion, which will have harboured an encyclopaedic collection ofobjects, about which the reader was not further informed. A balcony and two rooms with windows all aroundopened from this apartment to offer views over the garden and the surrounding landscape. Erasmus had theowner Eusebius state that this ensemble of spaces was especially made for study and seclusion.153

In the sixteenth century, antiquarian reconstructions of the Plinian example were made by philologistssuch as Paolo Giovio, a courtier in the household of Alessandro Farnese, and antiquarians such as PirroLigorio.154 Pliny’s literary descriptions continued to function as main source, but these were now confrontedwith scarce, but real, architectural remains.155 In Ligorio’s Descrittione della Superba & Magnificentissima VillaTiburtina Hadriana, written between 1550 and 1568, the italianised word diete is used a number of times.Ligorio’s suggestion is that these apartments in Hadrian’s villa in Tivoli were used for the study of the arts.The emperor’s villa contained quite a number of these retreats, primarily in the vicinity of the large octagonal


46 Arnold A. Witte

courtyard. All the Plinian elements recurred here: the connection to loggie or cryptoportici, the closeness toeither the countryside or private courtyards and gardens, and the vicinity of a library.156 Next to this part ofthe palace, and obviously related to the diaetai, was a large courtyard in which fountains and sculptures werearranged; and a part of these were now, as one is informed by Ligorio, in the collection of Ippolito d’Este and,in this context more importantly, the Farnese palace in Rome.157

In 1615, Vincenzo Scamozzi published an architectural reconstruction of the Plinian Villa Laurentina inhis Idea dell’Architettura Universale.158 The term he used for the diaeta was diette, which suggests that the termhad become accepted in architectural theory. Scamozzi supposed on the basis of the Plinian letters that therewas a ‘tower, in which the diette were; that is a place for concentration, and other places for rest, because theyhave light from every angle, but are in complete silence, and with beautiful vistas over the sea, and over thevillas.’159 He also suggested that a second dietta was found on the opposite side of the building, above the sec-ond entrance.160 The woodcut of the plan inserted into his book supports this, as the façade above the centraldoor (to the left in fig. 32) was elevated in a kind of rooftop-pavilion. Mirroring this façade also meant pro-jecting a second dietta. On either side of these diette, terraces offered extended views over the sea.

The description by Scamozzi moreover shows that in the Renaissance and Baroque the form was taken tobe a real option, not as a mere literary conceit. As a result of these discussions on the form and function of thediaeta, this building-type became considered a most apt environment for the conversations of courtly society,and for that reason most attractive for patrons of higher circles. Due to complex requirements, spatial dimen-sions and the presence of the private garden, the realisation of such plans for diaetai was could only be con-sidered by members of these elevated circles. In the sixteenth century a small number of apartments was cre-ated in this tradition, all in the direct vicinity of the city of Rome, or even within its walls, in accordance withthe suburban location of Pliny’s example.161

One of the earliest recreations of a diaeta was built on the third floor of the Vatican Palace for Julius IIdell Rovere (1503-1515).162 It comprised a number of rooms indicated in the sources as bibliotheca segreta, anda roof-terrace. It also contained an uccelliera or aviary, that was not mentioned by Pliny in his descriptions ofthe Villa Laurentina or Tusculana, but which was a feature that also had its roots in the villaculture of classi-cal antiquity.163 Before 1509, Sodoma and Baldassare Peruzzi were hired to execute the painted decoration of

156 Ligorio 1723, col.11: ‘Dalle teste di queste due Piazze verso l’Oriente sono più cose edificate; Bagni, luoghi delle Diete, l’Eroico,e Bibliotheca, con diverse Piazzette avanti à ciascun luogo, le quali gli servono per Atrii, e per Vestibuli allo scoperto. Nella testa delliPortici di mezzo, che corrispondono scambievolmente alle due gran Piazze, che fanno il Poicile, è una gran Cavea, per le cui entratesì và in un Tempio accommodato alla Dieta delli Stoici, dove erano negl’angoli colonne & altri luoghi accommodati alli Dei Propitiidi tali studii.’ Ligorio’s description was echoed in 1601 in Del Re 1723, cols.68-69.

157 Ligorio 1723, col.11: ‘A lato alla dieta è un altro luogo ornato di un Portico Ovato, nel mezzo della Piazza sua è un edificioOttagono, che per ogni lato fa porte e nichi, & altri ripositorii di Statue, dove di dentro, e di fuori erano molte Imagini dè Dei; e viscaturiscono Fonti; dentro per loro fregi erano intagliati Mostri Marini, tanto di forma humana, come d’ogni animale terrestre, e mari-no con code di Delphino, con Donne & Amori à cavallo, in altri ci erano intagliati carri tirati da diversi animali, & Angelli guiduti dacerti Cupidini alati, ò vogliamo dire Intelligenze, che fanno un giuoco Circense; alcuni dè carri hanno per suoi cavalli Struzzi, altriArieti; Capre e Leoni, altri, Cavalli proprii, Tigri, e Colombe, quasi mostrando, che ogni spetie corre ad un fine terminato, ò alla Morte,ò alla Generatione. Queste cose, parte sono state portate à Roma nell’Horto dell’Cardinale Farnese, parte ridotte in Tivoli murate perle case, e parte sono in potere di V.S. Ill[ustrissi]ma.’

158 Ruffinière du Prey 1994, p. 5.159 Scamozzi 1615, vol. 1, p. 267: ‘Ad alto, e nel mezzo era una torre, nel quale erano le diette; cioè luoghi da veggiare, & altri

luoghi da riposare, e perche havevano lume da più parte, però erano in gran silentio, e di bellissime viste del Mare, e delle Ville.’160 Scamozzi 1615, vol. 1, p. 268: ‘e parimente sopra all’ingresso era una Torre, e diette, e stâze da dormire, con bellissime vedute

di Mare, e molto più ancora di terra.’161 Coffin 1991, pp. 18, 24, 108-109.162 A nearly contemporary description of this apartment is in Vasari 1876 vol. 4, p. 317: ‘Avendo intanto papa Giulio Secondo fatto

un corridore in palazzo, e vicino al tetto un’uc[c]elliera, vi dipinse Baldassare tutti i mesi di chiaro scuro, e gl’essercizii che si fannoper ciascun d’essi in tutto l’anno ....’ See also Kempers 1996b, pp. 6-9.

163 A description of an aviary had been given by Varro in his Rerum rusticarum; it had become an element in Italian Renaissancevillas as well, and could be found for example in the Medici Villa in Pratolino.



164 This accords with Armenini’s description of the ideal studiolo’s decoration; see Armenini 1587/1971, p. 200.165 For a description of the present-day situation of this section of the palace, see Il Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano 1992, pp. 116-117;

see Hochrenaissance im Vatikan 1998, cat.no.323 and Vasari’s citation given above for a description of frescoes probably coming fromthis Uccelliera.

166 Coffin 1967, pp. 119-120, Coffin 1979 pp. 248-256 and Jung 1997. The text of Raphael’s letter was published by Foster 1967-1968.

167 For the classical inspiration of the Villa Madama and the language used by Raphael in his description, see Ranaldi 2001, p.65-71.

168 Foster 1967-1968, p. 310: ‘Ragionare co(n) Gentilhominj che luso sol dare la dietha’. The translation is from Coffin 1979, p.248. Raphael had studied the Villa Adriana in Tivoli, from which he might have taken the concept; see Ranaldi 2001, p. 49.

169 Coffin 1979, p. 247 and Ranaldi 2001, pp. 66-76.

Julius’ roof-apartment in the Vatican; ample use ofgrotesques indicated a wilful adaptation of theantique.164 The project also included a number offrescoes depicting the seasons and the months, whichobviously referred to the seasonal rhythm of life inthe countryside.165 It has been supposed that part ofthe collection of antique marbles was originally ondisplay here, before being transferred to the Cortiledel Belvedere.

A second project for a diaeta as part of a(sub)urban architectural complex was proposed byRaphael for the Villa Madama, begun in 1518 -which later in the sixteenth century became proper-ty of the Farnese family – but this edifice was nevercompleted.166 The plans for the building had beenstrongly influenced by the excavations undertakenat Villa Adriana and by the letters of Pliny theYounger; the terminology used by Raphael todescribe it to his patron - Giuliano de’Medici, thelater Clement VII (1523-1534) - was consciouslyderived from the latter source.167 The word diaetaitself was used by the artist in the letter to thepatron in which he discussed the plans for the villa,and in which he expressed the use and significanceof this kind of apartment for the nobility: ‘the diae-ta is a most delightful place to be in the winter toconverse with gentlemen.’168

Raphael’s plans even foresaw two different diae-tai in this complex; one for summer use and anoth-er for winter. The latter was situated on top of atower on the east-side of the villa, directly accessi-ble from the cardinal’s apartment, and the formercomprised a room with a central fountain, in an exe-dra off a huge garden loggia. Thus the winter diaeta was protected from the cold wind and open to thewarmth of the sun, while the summer diaeta offered coolness. Both proposals freely translated the Plinianconcept into architecture, adhering to the principle that the particular space should be fit for repose andintellectual conversation, being detached from the villa’s main building, and offering a direct vista onto thesurrounding countryside, or in the other case, onto a walled-in garden.169

Fig. 32. Vincenzo Scamozzi, ‘Casa senatorio romano’ from L’Ideadell’architettura universale, Venice 1615, p. 269. Photo: author.


48 Arnold A. Witte

The Palazzetto Farnese clearly belongs to the sixteenth-century tradition of diaetai. Not only the formitself reproduces most elements of the architectural type, also the familiarity of Odoardo Farnese with theother attempts of creating a diaeta in and around Rome, and the contemporary publications on the subjectmake this plausible indeed. The reinvention of the diaeta also notably led to a new concept in which the gar-den, whether real or imaginary, became an important element for spaces that were intended for study of arts,letters and natural history, such as the Palazzetto.

STUDIOLI, GARDENS, AND THE GENRE OF LANDSCAPE-PAINTING

As a result of the various influences on the studiolo and the crossovers with the diaeta, the actual formthese rooms were given was dependent on the circumstances, requirements and available space. However, theaccess to or sight onto a garden or landscape was very often incorporated. Especially the diaeta ought to bephysically or visually related to the surrounding landscape - Pliny’s words strongly emphasised this, andErasmus followed this suggestion in his Convivium Religiosum. All actual reconstructions of the sixteenth cen-tury took this to be one of its main characteristics. When a direct view onto landscape could not be achieved,however, landscape-painting could be used as a replacement, as Armenini’s comparison of the decoration ofloggias with landscapes with the interior decoration of the studiolo suggested.170 Examples show that the useof landscape-painting became a set-piece of the interior decoration of early modern studioli, whether a viewonto a garden or the landscape was possible or not. In particular, a contemporary discussion on spiritual andphysical health deivered the arguments to include real or feigned views on nature in rooms intended for study.

The studiolo of Isabella d’Este in the Palazzo Ducale in Mantua, finished around 1522, was part of anapartment in the Corte Vecchio, comprising also a grotta and a hallway. Adjacent to these was a secret gardenwith a small loggia, the private character of which was stressed by the fact that its only entrance was throughthe study.171 For this reason, Isabella’s retreat appeared to be more a diaeta than a studiolo, except for the factthat is was not architecturally seperated from the rest of the building. The function of the additional gardenwas stressed in a description made by Alberto Cavriani in 1525, in which he drew upon several Christian andmedical topoi:

your small garden, which is so beautiful and lush that it seems like paradise ... Everything brings happiness; this divine grot-to and rooms give light and joy to the inferno, the beautiful loggia with cheerful garden ornamented with new sorts of fruitinvite each soul to put aside his melancholy humour and dress in gladness...172

In his praise Cavriani used references to the hortus conclusus and Paradise on earth, and in his last remarkon melancholy drew upon the medical theme of the four humours as developed in Galen. Several humanistspointed at the function of the garden as counterbalancing the health-risks brought about by studious activi-ties employed in the studio.173 In an exposition about Quintilian’s remarks on the distracting beauty of land-scape, Petrarch had already suggested that intellectual work should be alternated with walks in the woods toprovide the necessary relaxation.174

The argument of alternating concentration in private seclusion with relaxation in the open air wasgiven a medical explanation by the fifteenth-century Florentine philosopher Marsilio Ficino; the view overclear waters, passages in gardens, and long walks in the woods or boat-trips on the water would help the

170 Armenini 1587/1971, p. 200. See also Thimann 2002, pp. 73-74.171 Liebenwein 1977, pp. 109-110; Verheyen 1971, pp. 52-55 and Ferino-Pagden 1994, p. 154.172 Letter of 6 May 1525 from Cavriani to Isabella d’Este, Archivio Storico Lombardo 35, 1908, 16, quoted by Liebenwein 1977,

p. 220 n. 460: ‘il vostro giardino piccolo, quale è tanto bello e verdeggiante che pare il paradiso ... ogni cosa invita ad alegria; quelladivina grotta et camarini dariano luce et gaudio a lo inferno, la logia bella cum giardino zolioso ornato di novi fructi invitano ognianimo mesto a deponere lo humore malanconico et vestirse de letitia...’

173 For the reception of this idea in the sixteenth century, see Schmitz 1972, pp. 139-141, 159-162.174 Petrarch 1992, p. 97.



175 The advice to cure melancholy with outside activities had been given by Ficino in his De Vita Triplici, I,x, in Ficino 1991, p. 50:‘Laudamus frequentem aspectum aquae nitidae, viridis, rubeive coloris, hortorum nemorumque usum; deambulationem secus flumi-na perque amoena prata suavem; equitationem quoque, gestationem, navigationemque lenem valde probamus ...’ SeeKlibansky/Panofsky/Saxl 1964, pp. 261-265 and Liebenwein 1977, p. 133; this medicinal use of flowers was still recommended by sev-enteenth century authors, such as John Parkinson, who in 1629 advised taking distilled water of Madonna lily flowers against the painsof child-birth, and as profitable for the complexion; see Masson 1972, p. 68.

176 Ficino 1991, p. 48: ‘Tenendus ore hyacinthus, qui animum vehementer exhilarat.’177 Alberti 1966, p. 793, and Alberti 1988, p. 295.178 Alberti 1966, p. 793 (Bk.IX, ch.2): ‘quod tristiore offendat umbra.’ See also Alberti 1988, p. 295, where ‘tristiore’ is translated

by the less specific word ‘gloomy’; the edition London 1955, which reprints an eighteenth-century translation of Alberti into english,used the word ‘melancholy’.

179 Palladio 1997, p. 78: ‘But those [rooms] we would want to use in the spring and autumn will be oriented to the east and lookout over gardens and greenery. Studies and libraries should be in the same part of the house because they are used in the morningmore than at any other time.’

180 Liebenwein 1977, pp. 47-49.181 Liebenwein 1977, p. 71.

studious person to relax and avoid the risks of the melancholic or saturnian temperament that threatenedhis health. Thus the study, which carried the risk of too much concentration, should also as an antidoteoffer a view over gardens or the surrounding landscape.175 Even the plants and flowers in the garden itselfcould relieve the melancholic. According to Ficino, the sight and smell of flowers was also salubrious; herehe mentioned the rose, the garofano or carnation, the orange-tree and the violet, whose smell would acti-vate the nostrils and thus stir the melancholic mind. In particular, the hyacinth was supposed to relieve badfluids, when held in the mouth.176

Such medical considerations were also discussed in architectural treatises. The health of the inhabitantsof a building was thought to be the direct result of the location and organisation of the edifice. LeoneBattista Alberti in his De re aedificatoria had recommendated the reader to place his suburban villa within alandscape on hilltops for the availability of fresh air, as doctors recommended, and because it would offer aview on natural beauty all around: ‘Meadows full of flowers, sunny lawns, cool and shady groves, limpidsprings, streams, and pools, and whatever else we have described as being essential to a villa - none of theseshould be missing, for delight as much as for their utility.’177 The latter argument referred to the medical the-ory, as the following sentence made especially clear: ‘I would not have it overlooked by anything whosemelancholy shade would cause offence.’178

A connection between study and garden was also alluded to in Palladio’s treatise on architecture of the latesixteenth century. He recommended that a study be located on the first floor and offer a view eastwards overgardens or trees.179 Eastward orientation of the room meant sun in the morning only, not during the hot andthus unhealthy afternoon. Examples of studioli situated on upper floors illustrate the application of this med-ical principle of procuring wide vistas over the countryside to inspire their users to reflection and protect themfrom melancholia.

An early architectural example of such a connection between studio and the landscape was in the house ofPetrarch at Arqua. Here, the study had a window on the north with a view onto his garden and it was annexedto a loggia that ran along the entire westside of the building, looking out over the countryside.180 The situationat Eusebius’ house as described by Erasmus in his Convivium Religiosum seems to have been inspired by suchexamples; it offered an elevated view over the landscape from a first-floor loggia. One of the studioli in PalazzoMedici-Riccardi in Florence provided, albeit only optically, an entrance to the garden by means of a terrace.181

This was copied in Palazzo Vecchio, in the study that had loggie on either side from which the view overFlorence and its surrounding hills could be enjoyed.

In other cases, the planning of, or even the vista onto a real garden or the landscape, was impossible. Inthe fifteenth and sixteenth century, studioli in urban dwellings were often located at the end of the privateapartment in accordance with the tradition of locating this room next to bedrooms, on the interior of the build-


50 Arnold A. Witte

ing. In these cases, painted landscapes were a substitute for the view onto real countryside. Thus, paintingcould thus be applied to counterbalance the negative effects of studying. Already Pliny the Younger hadequated the beauty of the landscape with that of paintings, underlining the importance of the pleasure of look-ing at them. Also Alberti praised the positive effects of landscape paintings of the observer: ‘Our minds arecheered beyond measure by the sight of paintings depicting the delightful countryside...’182 The sixteenth-cen-tury philosopher and medical scholar Girolamo Cardano stated that paintings and literary descriptions oflandscapes relieved the mind of the melancholic just as well as real nature.183 The relation between melan-choly and painting was further suggested in Gian Paolo Lomazzo’s recommendation of 1584 that ‘luochi dipiacere’ meaning loggias looking onto gardens, be decorated with antique themes, ‘giochi amorosi’ and ‘sto-ries of joy and happiness, that contain not even a hint of melancholy’.184 And Ficino’s argument regarding thesight of beauty as a remedy for the melancholic state of mind was still recalled around 1620 by the physicianGiulio Mancini in his Considerazioni sulla pittura, when he discussed the effect of various subjects in paint-ings on the different humours of the beholder.185 The combination of these arguments deeply affected theembellishment of studiolo; the use of painted landscape should be applied here to preserve the mental andphysical health of its occupant.

Indeed, the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, which contained a number of cortili but no garden, was embel-lished during the inhabitation by the Medici rulers with more than one studiolo. One of those, the Scrittoiodel Terrazzo, planned and executed around 1565, was located between the Salone dei Cinquecento and theCortile della Dogana, and could be reached only from either side by a terrace. The walls of these terraces werefrescoed with motives of idealised landscapes and gardens, framed by architectural fantasies of a feigned log-gia.186 These panoramas transported the viewer to the open countryside, with a pergola and a statue of Apolloor Orpheus on a fountain. Real architectural elements, in the form of stone benches underneath these vistas,expanded this illusion of outdoor refuge.

And in studioli bordering on real gardens, depictions of landscapes could serve as a link between insideand outside. Antique precedents were described by Pliny the Elder and Vitruvius. The former celebrated thepainter Ludius or Studius for introducing the genre as a suitable decoration for cryptoportici, loggie, and thewalls surrounding open terraces.187 Vitruvius especially advised the application of painted landscapes in prom-

182 Alberti 1966 vol. 2, p. 805 (Bk.IX,4): ‘Hilasrescimus maiorem in modum animis, cum pictas videmus amoenitates regionum...’The translation is cited after Gombrich 1953, p. 341; see also Boström 1988, p. 11.

183 Cardano 1663 vol. 2, p. 217: ‘Vigilias lætis cogitationibus, studiis, colloquiis, picturarumque amoenarum aspectu compensabis...’ See also Schmitz 1972, p. 162.

184 Lomazzo, cited after Thimann 2002, p. 76: ‘istorie di gioia e d’allegrezza, che non tutto abbiano ombra di malencholia.’185 Mancini 1956-1957 vol. 1, p. 142: ‘Onde il Ficino nel Convito al capitolo 9, resguardando questa distintion delle pitture e

dell’esser viste, disse: ‘Reliqui enim sensus cito replentur; visus autem et auditus diutius voculis et pictura pascuntur inani, nequesolum horum sensuum firmiores sunt voluptates, verum etiam umanae complexioni cognatiores, quid enim humani corporis spir-itibus convenientius est quam voces hominum et figurae eorum praesertim qui non modo naturae similitudines, sed etiam pulchri-tudines gratia placent. Quamobrem collerici et melancholici homines tanquam unicum remedium et solamen moestitiarum ipsorumcomplexioni cantus et formae oblectamenta servant.’ Onde, secondo il Ficino, non solamente dovrà esser distintion di luogo, main farle vedere da questa o quell’altra sorte d’huomini, secondo la complessione e passion d’animo, età, sesso, costume, genere divita che si desidera conservare o aumentare, o veramente sminuire e corregger al contrario.’ Mancini cited from Ficino’s commen-tary on Plato’s Convivium Platonis, De Amore, VI,9. The same argument of looking at nature as remedy for melancholy was allud-ed to by the English painter and courtier Edward Norgate, who travelled to Rome in 1622 and met Paul Bril, in his theory of paint-ing written around the middle of the seventeenth century: see Norgate 1997, p. 85: ‘and melancholly weather take up as much timeas the other, yet are nothing soe pleasant.’ See Norgate 1997, pp. 167-168, note 170 for the interpretation of this remark. Withrespect to landscape-painting around 1600 in the Netherlands, this argument has been put forward as valid for this context inBakker/Leeflang 1993, pp. 29-30.

186 Allegri/Cecchi 1980, p. 351 cited the payment for this work in 1581: ‘per b. 147 pittura fatta su dua terrazzini di S.A.S.’, inArchivio di Stato, Firenze, F.M.11, c.131v. Author of these frescoes was Tommaso del Verrocchio; see Thieme/Becker 1907-1950 vol.34, p. 298. See also Liebenwein 1977, p. 153.

187 Pliny the Elder 1938-1962 vol. 9, p. 347 (Bk.XXXV,116): ‘Nor must Spurius Tadius also, of the period of the late lamentedMajesty Augustus, be cheated of his due, who first introduced the most attractive fashion of painting walls with pictures of country



houses and porticoes and landscape gardens, groves, woods, hills, fish-ponds, canals, rivers, coasts, and whatever anybody coulddesire...’, and p. 349: ‘He also introduced using pictures of seaside cities to decorate uncovered terraces, giving a most pleasing effectat a very small expense.’ See Mansuelli 1990, pp. 344-345.

188 Vitruvius 1962 vol. 2, p. 103: ‘in covered promenades, they used for ornament the varieties of landscape gardening, finding sub-jects in the characteristics of particular places; for they paint harbours, headlands, shores, rivers, springs, straits, temples, groves, hills,cattle, shepherds.’

189 Peters 1982. 190 On the written sources concerning these commissions with regard to Giovanni Bellini, see Brown 1982, pp. 149-167; on the

iconography of Isabella’s commission to Perugino, see Hope 1981, pp. 293-294 and 310-311.191 Verheyen 1971, p. 54 referred to a letter by Carlo Ghisi to Isabella d’Este in which this suggestion was made. For Titian’s paint-

ings for Isabella’s studiolo, see Wethey 1975, pp. 29-41.192 Börsch-Supan 1967, p. 261, Robertson 1968, p. 140, Hope 1981, pp. 313-315, Brown in Bacchanals by Titian 1987, pp. 43-56

and Hope in Bacchanals by Titian 1987, p. 80.193 Waddy 1990, p. 10 and Frommel 1973 vol. 1, pp. 66-75.194 On sixteenth-century antiquarian culture, see Herklotz 1999, p. 22f. An example of such a growing collection including the

arts and natural wonders is that of the d’Este in Ferrara and later in Modena; see Olmi 1998.195 Prinz 1970, Strunck 2001, pp. 208-215 and Ehrlich 2002, pp. 186-190.196 Mancini 1956-1957 vol. 1, p. 144: ‘Ma se questa pittura fosse piccola et da poter esser collocata in luoghi piccioli, allhora si

potrà mettere negli studioli, come si è detto di vasi toscani.’

enades in his treatise De Architectura.188 Some antique examples suggest that this was contemporary practice.For example, the cryptoporticus in the Domus Aurea in Rome contained painted landscapes to suggest to thevisitor an outside location.189

In the Renaissance, landscape-paintings that offered an illusionistic view onto the countryside could befound in the studiolo of Isabella d’Este, where paintings by Perugino, Lorenzo Costa and Mantegna depictedrelated mythological themes in landscape settings.190 Three of these paintings were hung so as to align theirbackgrounds into one continuous horizon.191 This set an example: Isabella’s son Alfonso II Gonzaga orderedmythological landscapes for his own studiolo in the Castello at Ferrara. The subjects of these paintings werethe Feast of the Gods, Bacchus and Ariadne, the Worship of Venus, and the Andrians, the first one executed byGiovanni Bellini and finished by Titian, and the latter three painted by Titian himself.192

THE TRANSITION FROM STUDIOLO TO GALLERIA AROUND 1600The above examples illustrate the phenomenon of combining works of art with iconographic or thematic

coherence together in the studiolo, and the importance of the element of landscape in this tradition. It was nocoincidence that Odoardo Farnese chose to have mythological subjects depicted in the frescoes and paintingsin the Palazzetto, set within conspicuous natural settings. However, at the end of the sixteenth century the tra-dition of studies began to take a turn towards a virtual existence: the significance of the term studiolo shiftedfrom the denomination of a room to an expression for the collection of objects it housed. In the early seven-teenth century important changes occurred in the organization of the generic Roman palace as a result of newceremonial and social exigencies.193 This effected both interior organization and the functions of spaces, lead-ing to profound alterations in the concept of the studiolo. The very size of studies limited the dimension ofobjects, while collections and their objects began to grow in size: larger paintings and voluminous sculpturesrequired more space. To this was added the growing interest in natural history and the knowledge of the orderof the world, of which artefacts also formed part. Such encyclopaedic collections attracted more and morepublic attention, to the detriment of the smaller works of art and antiquarian culture.194 To meet these newdemands, and as a new phenomenon of social distinction as well, the galleria developed into the space whereworks of art of greater dimensions, botanical and zoological specimens would be put on public display.195

As a result of growing collections and the increasingly large-scale format of paintings and sculpture, a newarchitectural building-type was developed to house the visual and plastic arts.196 From around 1600, the galle-ria or gallery would take the place of the studiolo as the main location in the urban palazzo to hang paintings,and in 1620 Mancini proposed to put ‘landscapes and cosmografie’ on view in this kind of space as they did


52 Arnold A. Witte

not offend the average visitor to these galleries as paintings with more erotic content might do.197 From this itcan also be gauged that new social requirements meant a shift from a predominantly private to a more publicdisplay of paintings; and landscapes were best fitted to this new situation for their undisputedly acceptablesubject matter.198

At this turning-point, the two ideals of the studiolo that had developed in the Renaissance - the space forthe Muses set within nature, and the secluded room for the study of the arts, letters and natural history - wereconflated for a period before they would take opposite directions and dissolve into other forms. While the stu-diolo became outmoded, the galleria lacked the intimate contact with the works of art, which the real collec-tor praised so highly for reasons of study and contemplation. The result of this tension was the diaeta, whichcan describe the type of private gallery prior to the introduction of more public collections divided accordingto the material characteristics of the objects on display. It is at these crossroads that the function and decora-tion of the Palazzetto were conceived.

THE TYPOLOGY OF THE PALAZZETTO FARNESE

At the turn of the seventeenth century, when antiquarians and architects had researched literary sourcesand antique remains for the characteristics of the diaeta, the Palazzetto Farnese represented a consciousattempt to recreate this classical ideal. Its form, a flight of rooms, linked by means of a loggia to a giardino seg-reto, separated from the main building but connected to it by a private entrance, corresponds with Pliny’sdescription of the diaeta of the Villa Laurentium. Its function was intended along the same lines: as a place forstudy and intellectual repose. The Palazzetto continued a sixteenth-century tradition of conscious recreationsof the Plinian prototype, but in contrast to the earlier examples realised it more perfectly.

A detailed comparison between the Plinian diaeta and the Palazzetto can also be made. All the architec-tural elements might have had their precedents in the sixteenth century; their combination was a consciousreference to the description of the Villa Laurentium. Some circumstances, however, necessitated adaptationsto the situation in early modern Rome. This applies especially to the mode of entrance to the Palazzetto. Theconnection to the Palazzo Farnese proper was constituted by a stairwell and the bridge over the Via Giulia.Permission for constructing this private passage was obtained from the cardinale camerlengo PietroAldobrandini on 4 April 1603; work started soon afterwards.199 There existed other examples of such walk-ways providing access to a private suite of rooms or even outright diaetae. Alfonso d’Este had a covered pas-sageway constructed between 1507 and 1518 between the castle and the palace at Ferrara, housing five cameri-ni that can be understood as studioli;200 Paul III Farnese initiated a similar project in 1534 to link PalazzoVenezia in Rome with the tower on the slope of the Capitol hill, next to the convent of the Aracoeli.201

Odoardo’s original plan was, however, closer to Pliny’s concept of the cryptoporticus, as the building accountsindicate. It was to consist of an underground passageway that turned out to be too complicated, too expen-sive, and thus was abandoned.202 Its actual form as a bridge was only a second choice; and it was for this rea-son that the elevated passage was only built in 1604 when the Palazzetto itself had already been finished.

197 Mancini 1956-1957 vol. 1, p. 143: ‘Onde, stando che si deve havere gran riguardo nel lasciar vedere le pitture et in collocarleai lor luoghi... Doppo si consideraranno le pitture, che per i paesaggi e cosmografie si metteranno nelle gallarie e dove puol andareogniuno...’

198 This is echoed in Norgate 1997, p. 83: ‘this harmless and honest Recreation, of all kinds of painting the most innocent.’ On thelocation of landscape-paintings in noble collections see p. 85: ‘Landscape … which I find of honest extraxion and gentile parentage,and now a privado and Cabinet Companion for Kings and Princes.’

199 Uginet 1980, p. 113 gives the papal consent and building-accounts for the arch spanning the via Giulia. Hibbard 1964, p. 104published the full text of the permission for the bridge.

200 Brown in Bacchanals of Titian 1987, pp. 46-47 and Bentini 1998, pp. 359-365; for the decoration of Alfonso’s Camerino, seeShearman 1987, p. 312.

201 Coffin 1979, pp. 31-32.202 Uginet 1980, p. 92 n. 6 cites the stima of 24 February 1602 by Domenico da Corte in the ASN, Archivio Farnesiano 2049, for

a ‘via sotterranea ... per andare nel giardinetto nuovo’.



203 Pliny the Younger 1971 vol. 1, pp. 345-347 on the Villa Tusculana (bk5,VI,31): ‘Over the dressing-room is built the ball court,and this is large enough for several sets of players to take different kinds of exercise.’

204 For the etymology of ‘pallacorda’, see GDLI vol. 12, p. 410; see also Bondt 2006.205 In modern Italian, ‘pallacorda’ means either ‘lawn-tennis’ or ‘tenniscourt’, thus still referring to the activity as well as its loca-

tion; see Cambridge Italian Dictionary 1962, p. 533.206 Sciano da Salò 1555, pp. 161-170.207 Jestaz 1994, p. 199. 208 Frommel 1981, p. 168 and figs. 14, 15.209 Robertson 1992, p. 139.210 Waddy 1990, pp. 54-55 discussed Roman examples in Palazzo Borghese of approximately 1611-1614, Palazzo Barberini, and

Palazzo Condulmer-Orsini-Pio, and one added to Palazzo Barberini in Palestrina. See Ehrlich 2002, p. 74 and 129 for the court con-structed for Cardinal Altemps at the gioco della palla in the Villa Mondragone in Frascati,. Also the Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola seemsto have had a ‘gioco della palla’; see Centroni in Vignola e i Farnese 2003, pp. 109-117, figs. 14-17.

211 Jestaz 1994, p. 199: ‘Una statua d’una Flora, il torso bianco biscio, la testa, mani e piedi di marmo bianco.’ This statue is nowin Museo Nazionale, Palermo.

212 Riebesell 1988, pp. 386-417 and Mielsch 1987, p. 112 for antique examples of sculpture-gardens. A slightly later example ofthe combination of antique sculpture and garden-scapes can be found in the engravings of the classical sculptures made by FrançoisPerrier and published in 1638 under the title Segmenta nobilium signorum et statuarum, where the statues were all represented in ide-alised garden-settings. See Palma 1997, p. 272.

Other details of the Palazzetto that at first sight seem trivial were copied from ancient prototypes and Plinyin particular. The ‘gioco della palla’ mentioned in the licence for the arch over the Via Giulia seems out ofplace, until the importance of ballgames in ancient times, especially in the context of the villa, is considered.Pliny the Younger named it as one of his favourite physical exercises to maintain their health while staying attheir countryseats.203 Discussions of the game of pallacorda in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries alsoreferred to its antique prototype.204 The form of the court and its internal arrangement was discussed in thesepublications in connection to the rules of the game.205 A treatise of 1555, written by Antonio Sciano and enti-tled Trattato del giuoco della Palla, subdivided these spaces according to the existing variants.206 The varietyplayed at Palazzo Farnese will have been a kind of indoor tennis similar to the modern game, as in the inven-tory of 1644 this was called ‘gioco della palla a corda’.207

This tennis-court was added during the lifetime of Cardinal Odoardo, as the architectural plans of thePalazzo of the late sixteenth century still projected in the place of the ‘gioco della palla’ an open loggia relat-ed to the back of the palace (fig. 33).208 The south wing of the Palazzo had however not been built during thelifetime of Alessandro Farnese, and when Odoardo continued the construction, he was free to alter theplanned garden-loggia into a location for the popular ball game.209 Special halls for the pallacorda appeared inRome and in villas in the campagna only after 1610, which shows that Odoardo kept up with the currenttrends.210 The Tempesta map of 1593 indicated the building of the pallacorda on the left side of the gardenbehind the Palazzo, which suggests that year as a terminus ante quem for its construction.

That the loggia of the Palazzetto opened towards the private garden was another explicit reference to thePlinian example of villa and diaeta, where the cryptoporticus gave onto a terrace scented by an abundance ofviolets. This floral theme was, as discussed above, also given a medical interpretation by Ficino. His text enu-merated most of the flowers that were planted in the Farnese giardino segreto, and of which he stated that theywould relieve the melancholic temperament when applied to the senses of smell and taste. That the hyacinthwas chosen as a subject for one of Domenichino’s frescoes (figs. 23-25) seems no coincidence; the link provid-ed by Ovid between the species of that flower and the lily suggested the extension of the salubrious effects tothe flower of the Farnese escutcheon.

This floral theme was also extended to include other details of the Palazzetto’s embellishment that addedthe sense of sight to that of smell. Farnese had a statue installed under his loggia, described in a later invento-ry as ‘A statue of Flora, the torso of light grey stone; the head, hands and feet made of white marble’.211 TheDutch artist Hendrik Goltzius drew this statue in red chalk during his stay in Rome around 1600, probablyprior to its relocation in the loggia of the Palazzetto (fig. 34). Four niches in the walls of this space were made


54 Arnold A. Witte

to contain an equal number of ancient sculptures.This embellishment of the garden and the Palazzettowith marble statues was modelled on antique andRenaissance prototypes. At the same time, theseworks of art enhanced these gardens with appropri-ate mythological themes. They became the staffagefor the real landscape, analogous to the figures in thepainted landscapes.212

The loggia, as Pliny described it, was a place fromwhich to enjoy the view onto the garden and the sur-rounding landscape, and subsequently it became analmost obligatory extension of the urban studiolo.213

Also in this case, however, there is possibly a directinspiration of the Palazzetto Farnese upon thePlinian example: both Pliny and Odoardo looked outfrom their garden-loggia over the water – the sea inthe former case, and the river Tiber in the latter. Thesecond source of water, the fountain in Farnese’s gia-rdino segreto, can be traced to the descriptions ofPliny’s Villa Tusculana, where the surrounding gar-den was furnished with several artificial fountainswith basins made of precious marble.214

Architectural plan and surroundings of thePalazzetto thus should be considered the epitomeof sixteenth-century humanistic attempts to recon-struct Pliny’s villa in Laurentium, and the antiqueprecedent of the diaeta in particular. The Palazzetto

was not a chance addition to the Palazzo Farnese, but a meticulously planned new wing that was modelledafter an antique prototype. It recreated the ancient literary ideal of a part of the villa, combining the studyof the arts and sciences with the enjoyable and healthy view on the garden and landscape; and it did so inthe densely populated heart of early Seicento Rome.

THE CAMERINO AS PART OF THE DIAETA

If the Palazzetto can be considered an early modern diaeta, how does the Camerino degli Eremiti fit intothis concept? Although the Camerino was located within the premises of the brotherhood of the Orazione eMorte, it was indeed integrated within the existing Palazzetto through architectural adaptations and the samestyle of decoration. The decisive inclusion into the sequence of camerini, the choice for landscape-decoration,and the identical display of paintings in the coffered wooded ceiling indicate that it was deliberately insertedinto the pre-existing private apartment where arts, learning and leasure were combined. Does this imply thatthe Camerino was a studiolo in the functional sense, as has been assumed in the literature?

There are two reasons to discount such an interpretation, and to assume that the Camerino was not a recon-struction of the Plinian diaeta. Firstly, circumstantial evidence excludes the traditional function of a studiolo inthe strict sense of the word for the Camerino: there already were several rooms dedicated to collecting and stu-dious activities in the Palazzo Farnese. A private studiolo furnished for Fulvio Orsini and a flight of three roomsdenoted with the term studio, housing antique coins and gems in decorated cupboards, served the antiquarian

213 Ruffinière du Prey 1994, p. 6.214 Pliny the Younger 1971 vol. 1 (bk5, VI, 36-40), p351-352; see also Gaston 1988, pp. 174-176.

Fig. 33. Anonymous, Project (copy after Vignola?) for the south-east part of Palazzo Farnese, ca. 1560. Stockholm, Nationalmuse-um, Cronstedt coll. 1330. Photo: Nationalmuseum Stockholm.



215 Lotz 1981, p. 229 mentioned that according to the inventory of 1566 there was a flight of studioli and a separate studio on thepiano nobile; see also Liebenwein 1977, p. 35.

216 Robertson 1992, p. 140.217 Jestaz 1994, p. 138, citing the 1644 inventory: ‘Oratorio che risponde nella Morte. 3328. Due padellette di legno a scalino.

3329. Un tappeto. 3330. Tre cuscini di velluto cremesino da inginocchiare longhi e stretti. 3331. Una sediola bassa coperta di broc-catello verde.’ The inventory of 1650 seems more precise on the furniture itself, while the paintings were not listed in ASN.FondoFarnesiano b.1853 III-IX, fol.94v-95r: ‘Una sedia di velluto verde, e rotta/ Un’altra sediola bassa colli piedi tornite coperta di broc-catello verde, e giallo tutto straviato/ Due cuscini di velluto cremifino bislonghio col paria mano, perette colli fiocchi di setta allecantonate/ Un cuscino simile colle francie da’una banda col disotto di tela, vecchissimo, e rotto/ Una punta di scalino di legno/ Untapetino ordinario sopra do scalino.’

interests of the palace’s occupants.215 AlessandroFarnese had gathered the riches they contained andalso had these spaces organised; Odoardo seems notto have altered their disposition nor their content, sothe need for a replacement of these spaces seems tohave been absent.216 There was thus no obvious needto create another space with the same function as thestudiolo elsewhere in the Farnese palace.

Secondly, the religious function of the room andthe theme of its decoration do not accord with the typ-ical studiolo or sixteenth-century reconstructions ofthe Plinian diaeta. Although the presence of religiousworks was not uncommon in sixteenth-century studi-oli, it never constituted the dominant theme of deco-ration. In that case, such a room would be denominat-ed as a private chapel, not a studiolo, but contempo-rary descriptions of the Camerino use neither one ofthese terms. Nor does the furniture of the room offera clue to determine its function. The objects and uten-sils described in the inventories preclude that theCamerino was a place used either to read, write orstudy, nor was it arranged as a place to officiate Mass,for which an altar would have been necessary. Apartfrom velvet cushions to kneel upon, the Camerino wasvirtually empty.217 And most importantly, classicaldescriptions and sixteenth-century reconstructions ofdiaetai never contain religious iconography or roomsthat have a devotional function.

The decoration and furnishings of the Camerinodegli Eremiti thus cannot be clarified with recourseto either the typology of the studiolo or diaeta. Whatdistinguished the room from all other examples is onthe one hand its overall religious iconography, and onthe other hand the spatial relation between this roomand the adjacent church and oratory of the SantaMaria dell’Orazione e Morte. The latter was a char-acteristic that was always mentioned in the invento-ries, as they called it the ‘oratory that responded to

Fig. 34. Hendrick Goltzius, Flora Farnese, ca. 1598. Teyler’sMuseum, Haarlem. Photo: Teylers Museum.


56 Arnold A. Witte

the Morte’. The relation between the Camerino and the oratory and church next door should be consideredin order to explain not only the specific function of the room itself, but also the reasons why the Camerinowas so considered an extension to the Palazzetto. This last aspect might tell more about the function of thePalazzetto as well. The question is thus, whether there were other examples that accord with the criterion of‘retreat’ and also contain religious decoration that can be compared to that of the Camerino degli Eremiti.And indeed, Odoardo Farnese disposed of a number of rooms and apartments that allow for such a compar-ison that might clarify the function of the Camerino in relation to the Palazzetto.


The Artful Hermitage: The Palazzetto Farnese as a Counter-reformation 'diaeta'

Documents

Transcript of The Artful Hermitage: The Palazzetto Farnese as a Counter-reformation 'diaeta'