Project XVI (fols. 15v-16r)
This final variant of Grand Ferrara is of little interest and is the
result of the addition of the two original wings to a more complex
corps-de-logis which itself has two small projecting wings. Such a
corps-de-logis has a clear example, particularly with respect to the
elevation, in the front part of Project XII with its reminiscence of Peruzzi's
Farnesina. Of interest however is the remark in the text concerning the small
areas with a mesh of copper wire above them so as to make them into bird coops.
Of graphic interest is the way in which Serlio illustrates how on the wings he
makes maximum use of the space by means of mezzanines. Serlio himself forgot to
mark on the design the letters mentioned in the commentary to indicate the
rooms.
Projects XVII-XVIII (fols. 16v-18ar)
The château of Ancy-le-Franc, built for Antoine III de Clermont, cousin
of Diane de Poitiers, bears above the rear doorway the date 1546, hence it is
exactly contemporary with Grand Ferrara. It was traditionally attributed either
to Serlio or Primaticcio, and the doubt was only definitively removed by the
discovery of Book VI and its unequivocal designs and text attributing the
château to Serlio. That the first lines of the text so clearly match the
description of Project XIV, would seem to justify the theory that Serlio, in
setting out the sequence in the Munich MS, swapped this Project XVII (and the
following 'variant' XVIII) with XV and XVI. At any rate, his characterisation of
the château as a villa forte arranged to cope with battaglia di
mano (hand-to-hand fighting) is entirely spurious - sufficiently proved by
the fact that in the two rear towers (S.E. and S.W. - the château has the
principal façade facing North) there are
p.68
respectively: a saletta on the ground floor and the
library on the first floor; and a ground floor kitchen and a first floor chapel.
Even though the château still exists, the problem of the relationship
between the designs in the two MSS and the building as constructed is just as
complex as that for Grand Ferrara. In effect, both the Columbia and Munich MSS
refer, in different ways, to a building which is still under construction. And
the final aspect of this building ought to be the one shown in Du Cerceau's
woodcuts in Bastiments. Consequently, we should ignore the subsequent
modifications present in Du Cerceau's 1576 edition, notably the doubling of the
windows on the external façades, the addition of a porch supporting a terrace at
the main entrance, the removal of the lanterns above the towers, and finally the
presence of a cornice with dentils and modillions below the internal
facing roof slopes of the towers (cf. Du Colombier-D'Espezel, Le sixième
livre…). Within the sequence of the two MSS and Du Cerceau's woodcuts,
Schreiber (Die franzözische Renaissance…, Berlin 1938) has inserted the
woodcuts of Book VII on the mysterious château 'Rosmarino', a château which
clearly presents notable similarities with the designs of Ancy-le-Franc in the
Columbia MS (internal façades) and also with the final built version (external
façades) - even the plan of Rosmarino is closely related to that of the château
in Burgundy. I am not sure however whether the sequence proposed by Schreiber
(initial projects for Ancy (Columbia and Munich MSS) - 'Rosmarino' project Book
VII - built version of Ancy as shown in Du Cerceau woodcuts) can be accepted.
Might we not believe Serlio when he tells us that he designed 'Rosmarino' after
coming to Lyons (1549-50, the final possible date for the designs in Book VII)?
In this case, it would appear that he fused the initial and final designs for
Ancy, a process not uncommon for Serlio.
[Figure 159 - Photographs of external and internal façades of Ancy]
In both cases, this is excellent proof of the opinion, held by Du
Colombier-D'Espezel, Schreiber and Dinsmoor, that the significant modifications
which took place between the designs in the two MSS and the final built version
of Ancy-le-Franc were nevertheless entirely the work of Serlio, even if in the
end he was following precise instructions from his patron, Antoine de Clermont
(whom Serlio mentions and highly praises for his architectural ability). It has
not yet been established whether the different designs in the Columbia and
Munich MSS represent two 'variants' of a project simply presented to Antoine de
Clermont and never built, or (as held by Dinsmoor) that the château underwent
during construction three sets of modifications, particularly in the wall
surfacings and in the decorative Orders. I think that the first theory is more
acceptable given Serlio's comment in the Munich MS concerning modifications
occurring at the patron's request, subsequent to [his] drawing the
design. These modifications (paired Order on the façades, elimination of the
small windows above the final cornice) correspond exactly to the building as
constructed. Such specific remarks in the text could also be seen to justify the
oddity on the part of the architect of publishing designs of something never
built in place of the plans for the final building as constructed. Perhaps he
considered the final construction less 'didactic' than the initial drawings.
Apart from the notable variations in the ornamentation, analysed in
minute detail by Du Colombier-D'Espezel and particularly Dinsmoor, the basic
scheme remained unchanged, both in its planimetry and in the general
disposition, in other words, in the basic characteristics which make
Ancy-le-Franc another excellent example of the balanced union of French and
Italian architecture under the sign of the Renaissance, although without the
wealth of innovative and forward-looking solutions which characterised Grand
Ferrara.
[Figure 160 - Serlio, Project for Ancy-le-Franc in the Columbia MS (from
Dinsmoor)]
As Schreiber has so excellently demonstrated, the source for
Ancy-le-Franc is to be found in Poggio Reale, with the precise articulation of
the relationship between the corner towers and the loggiamenti between
them, perfectly symmetrical in their external elevations but hierarchically
conceived and matched on the internal elevations and in the planimetry. Only the
designs in the Columbia MS hint at a dialectical relationship (later abandoned)
in the treatment of the external façade of the first storey, where the towers
have rustic blocks on the flanks and simple framed rectangular windows, as
opposed to the loggiamenti where the windows, alternating with arched
niches, have oculi above them and are flanked by pilasters. The Italian
character of the external elevation is clear, especially in the shallow pitched
roofs in the initial projects which were to be replaced by the French steeply
pitched roofs in the later built one. And even this last variation should be
credited to Serlio, as is proved both by the elegant lines of the 'dormers' and
the presence of the lanterns on the tops of the towers in the woodcuts for
'Rosmarino' in Book VII.
The treatment of the Orders in the initial projects is clearly
Bramantesque. And for the solution proposed in the Columbia MS (without doubt
the most beautiful of the three), I would advance the hypothesis that Serlio
referred to designs by Bramante (unknown to us) for Palazzo di S. Biagio in
Rome. In this respect, the final building, despite its limpid eurhythmy,
resembles late-15th century work, along the lines of the Cancelleria in Rome.
Perhaps the explanation of this character is to be found in Lescot's parallel
experience with the Louvre. And whilst Serlio alludes to the patron's direct
request for the arrangement of the Orders, in the same text he also boasts that
he was able to persuade Clermont to abandon the idea of the crowded row of small
windows above the cornice - this would indeed have resulted in a gabbia di
grilli ('a grasshopper cage'), to use Michelangelo's expression. It is
noteworthy that a similar motif appears (and is still to be seen) above the
cornice of the 'Salle de Bal' in Fontainebleau. For obvious constructional
reasons, this feature must be attributed to De l'Orme when giving the final
touches to the work (1548-50).
Beneath this Italian shell there is a vibrant and articulate dialectical
relationship between the towers and the loggiamenti, around the fulcrum
of the central courtyard. Schreiber has pointed out the clear formal and
conceptual difference between here and the central Italian porticoed internal
courtyard culminating in the 16th century in Palazzo Farnese. The total, uniform
symmetry of such a model, with its uninterrupted series of supports and arches
punctuated only by necessary corner reinforcements, was destined to clash with
the French tradition of differentiated internal façades, the logical expression
of the hierarchical relationship of the different loggiamenti and the
pre-eminence of the principal corps-de-logis. Once again, Serlio's
pratica here at Ancy-le-Franc resolves these two opposing conceptions,
preserving
p.69
in essence the French hierarchical tradition but bringing from
the Italian one the two-dimensional continuity represented by the facing of the
Orders; two-dimensional in the sense of the plastic/chiaroscuric depth of the
porticoes (developed especially at the two sides of the entrance and at the back
of the courtyard) alternated with the different rhythm of the blind profiles of
the Orders upon a solid wall.
[Figure 161 - G. Le Breton, P. De l'Orme, Salle de Bal in Fontainebleau,
side facing the 'Cour Ovale' (from Du Cerceau)
Figure 162 - G. Le Breton, P. De l'Orme, Salle de Bal in Fontainebleau,
side facing the outside (from Du Cerceau)]
Beneath this purely surface layer of rhythmic continuity of ornamentation
lies the concrete distinction between the four internal faces of the sides made
visible through the background presence, in the corners of the courtyard, of the
four wall nuclei containing the staircases. These are detached planimetrically
from the aligned sequence of the rooms and almost repeat ('in minore') as
regards the internal surfaces, the function of serrefile (serrafile) with
respect to the towers. On the plan, there is the marked hierarchical distinction
between the front loggiamento (the only one with a real
military/defensive character) and the rear loggiamento (the patron's
dwelling) with respect to the side loggiamento, equably divided up
between the large sale/gallerie with a solid wall on the
right-hand side and the service and guest rooms on the left, in which Serlio
opens up a beautiful, three-bayed, cross-vaulted loggia on the ground floor,
perhaps in reminiscence of Villa Madama. To this fundamental scheme, Serlio
applies successive variations, revealing his agility at combining, not the
different Orders, but the different 'inventions', that is, the rhythmic nuclei
of pillar/column, arch/beam. In the Columbia MS we have the combination of
load-bearing Rustic pillars and Ionic pilastrades built up against the pillars -
the resemblance of this (including the attic with its windows) to Palazzo Thiene
in Vicenza is literally staggering; even more so if we consider Palladio's
figure in the Quattro Libri. This has already been remarked by Pée but
citing the other two projects in which Serlio uses this motif, Project XVII in
the City and 'Rosmarino' in Book VII (Pée, H., op. cit., pp. 82-4). What
should also be remembered at this point is the noteworthy bringing forward of
the date, to 1542, of the commencement of the work on the palazzo in Vicenza
proposed by Cevese, based on documentary evidence, and confirmed by Forssman
with intelligent remarks on Mannerist culture, both as regards Giulio Romano and
Palladio.
[F/notes: Cevese, R., I Palazzi dei Thiene, Vicenza, 1952, pp.42
ff;
Forssman, E., Palladios…, p. 34 ff. The new dating is rejected by
Zorzi and in the main by Pane, but the latter however concedes the link between
initial ideas for Palazzo Thiene with two RIBA designs by Palladio datable to
around 1542 and which are very close to forms by Giulio Romano - these designs
refer however to the front and not to the courtyard.]
Taking account of this new dating and the high quality of the
'invention', it is possible to advance the hypothesis that Serlio knew
Palladio's designs and ideas before going to France in 1541.
In the Munich MS the solution is plainer and more classical, with a
uniform repetition of the pilaster mounted up against the pillar, very
Sangallesque, but refined and stylish with pre-16th century touches along the
lines of the Palazzo Venezia. Of note, as mentioned by Dinsmoor, is the
strangeness of the sections of the towers and sides which would imply, if
accepted without discussion, the lack of an attic and roof in these parts, and
the substitution of a flat terrace-like covering. Such a solution could be
justified by the desire to underline to the maximum the hierarchy of the
loggiamenti in the building, but it appears too radical and contrasts
with the distributive efficiency of the towers.
[Figure 163 - Palazzo Thiene in Vicenza from the Quattro Libri
dell'Architettura, II, 13]
It is perhaps better, along with Dinsmoor, to consider these sections as
a graphic liberty which Serlio allows himself - indeed in Serlio's MS these
views are presented as a succession (both horizontal and vertical) of
technico-didactic examples of internal distribution.
The final built version as it appears in Du Cerceau's woodcuts clearly
bears the precise imprint of Clermont's desire to 'Italianise' and regularise
the building as much as possible, both in the ornamentation of the surfaces and
in the plan. The adoption for the ground floor courtyard of the Bramantesque
'rhythmic beaming' of the Belvedere, the elimination on the first floor of the
loggias, and the corner solution with niches on the diagonal, go to soften as
far as is possible the dialectical relationship between the voids of the
porticoes and the solid walls. Whilst using obviously Roman forms, Serlio
attains a chromatic richness which is entirely northern as a result of the use
of 'white cut stone', a fact underlined by him in his commentary. Again in the
plan, if we believe Du Cerceau's woodcut,
[F/note: Du Cerceau, someone particularly rich in inventiveness in his
own built work and projects, could not always resist the temptation to vary or
enrich the buildings of others which he illustrated in his Bastiments. In
the specific case of the plan of Ancy-le-Franc he represents the four staircases
in the corners of the courtyard as rectangular with flights, whilst Du
Colombier-D'Espezel (Le sixième livre…) have correctly noted that to the
present day the château has spiral staircases, two round and two oval (one of
which has been rebuilt, and thus could originally have been circular), thus
corresponding not to the plan in Du Cerceau's woodcut but rather to the plans
drawn by Serlio in the Munich MS where three circular spiral staircases and an
oval one are specified.]
the symmetry between the North and South - front and back
loggiamenti - becomes total, even in the distribution of the openings,
whilst regularising the hierarchical subordination of the side wings which are
represented by Serlio in the form of the solid wall on the right and the loggia
on the left (itself however squared up, with the large niches at the sides of
that loggia removed in Du Cerceau).
In the Orders of the courtyard, the mechanical combination of the
'inventions' is particularly clear - notably the Bramantesque 'rhythmic beaming'
taken from Book III but omitting the voussoir at the top of the arch and the
uniform lines of the entablature, coupled with a first storey composed of a
model of a Corinthian façade from Book IV.
In the spirit of this absolute symmetry is born the 'variant' Project
XVIII, very similar to Project XIV apart from the fact that the corner towers in
XIV are enclosed and masked by the curtain wall, whilst here they preserve their
value as cardinal for the entire structure, as at Ancy-le-Franc. The model, with
its entirely porticoed courtyard in the Italian fashion, is the closest of all
the projects to Poggio Reale and corresponds almost exactly to a sketch from
Peruzzi's sketchbook on fol.34r, with the terrace above the internal portico.
Serlio does not give a graphic representation of the section down the centre of
the building, but presents in the text two solutions for the first storey,
either a loggia or an uncovered terrace above the portico, with a preference for
the former, clearly the more classical and orthodox.
Next
Previous
Back to Index