6

"The four pages indicate how intertwined the textual study of Vitruvius was with actual in situ investigations of the ruins, but also how Vitruvius acted like a reference point of rightness when judging architecture."

Comment:
Do they (the four pages)? Or aren't they rather exceptions in an otherwise more restricted to the illustration or visualisation of the Vitruvian text? How often do comparisons of carefully drawn examples from antique architecture with visualisations of Vitruvius' text appear in the manuscripts left by Giovanni Battista. So: Do these foure pages really demonstrate how the textual studies are intertwined with in-situ investigations … or aren't the rather the opposite: a rare example of this approach (while the others – at least: here – mostly do not take built architecture into close consideration and comparison with Vitruvius?).

"That Giovanni Battista also writes that the capitals on the Theatre of Marcellus are good in their own right, although they stray away from Vitruvius’s rules, indicates his acceptance of variations that differ from the ancient author."

Comment:
It does not only indicate his acceptance, it clearly states it!

"By bringing the field studies into the textual reading of the ancient text, Giovanni Battista’s Sulpicio-Vitruvius is not merely about studying past architecture,…"

Comment:
No, it is about comparing past architecture (from the time of Vitruvius !) with the text.

"… it also engages in a then-contemporary architectural discourse concerned with all’antica-architecture and associated issues of decorum and licentia – issues which in the architectural field often took Vitruvius as their yardstick. [Endnote 22: Payne 1999, pp. 15-33, 52-60.]

Comment:
No, I don't think so: To "engage" in a discourse would mean not only to take part in it, but rather to take an "engaged" stance in it. But this would require a publication or – at least – a discussion of the results achieved by Giovanni Battista with other architects and antiquarians in this discourse. We may suppose that he took part in such discussion – but at least his annotations to this print do not indicate so. Otherwise, we would expect annotations like: "While my brother Antonio thinks of this X as being so-and-so, the philologist Guillaume Philandrier sees it in another way. My opinion in our discussion of this topic is this-and-that." THIS would be an engagement in a discourse … A private annotation in a manuscript presumably not available to others, is not. The next sentence gives a good example of what is an engagement in such a discourse:

"This was also the case for Giovanni Battista when he in a letter (dated late 1546-1547) to Pope Paul III condemned the cornice on Palazzo Farnese as being a bastard (i.e. a mixture of elements from various orders) according to the rules of Vitruvius."

"Despite the fact that Giovanni Battista does not mention names, it is Michelangelo’s cornice that he refers to, most likely in a defence of his brother Antonio, who was behind the other parts of the façade. [Endnote 23: About the cornice, Giovanni Battista, among other things, writes: ”Qui non è qualità nessuna, perché l’opera è facta della buona memoria secondo le regole di Vectruvio et questa cornice è facta più presto al modo barbaro c’altrimenti [...] le spetie delle cornice son tre: doriche, joniche e corinthie. Questa vostra non è dorica, né jonica né corinthja, è facta bastarta a voluntà che tocca alli huominj.” The letter, Cod. Ashb. 639, fol. 145 v, is held at the Biblioteca Laurenziana in Florence and has been transcribed in: Pier Nicola Pagliara, Alcune minute autografe di G. Battista da Sangallo. Parti della traduzione di Vitruvio e la lettera a Paolo III contro il cornicione michelangiolesco di Palazzo Farnese, in: Architettura Achivi. Fonti e storia, 1982, 1, pp. 33-34, here at p. 33. Pagliara dates the letter to late 1546 or early 1547 at p. 28.]" 

Comment:
Antonio was NOT "behind the other parts of the façade" – he was the architect not only of the façade but of the whole palace! And – as far as I remember, he warned of the static consequences of Michelangelo's heavy cornice, and he was right about that: The façade collapsed in parts, when the gigantic cornice was added. It did not only have no visual support in the form of gigantic pilasters or something alike, it did not even have a real static support. (Showing, by the way, Michelangelo's incompetence as architect or at least: as engineer … again.)

"When considering the relation between Vitruvius’s text and Giovanni Battista’s reading of it based on his drawings and annotations, it seems that Giovanni Battista has an overall focus on and interest in the architectural detail."

Comment:
Could it be that this "focus" has its roots in the Vitruvian text which deals – in these parts – with the details? And could it be that other, more general parts simply were not of interest for someone grown up and working in a family of architects, the setta sangalesca? So, considering these (presumably) special interest leading to a specail approach: is this really a good example to chose from the vast amount of others to understand the Renaiissance architect's approach to Vitruvius in general?

"This emphasis may reflect Vi- truvius’s text itself manifested through the ancient author’s description method."

Comment:
That may be (and in my opinion is) another reason making this example a very special one - and therefore, not a general representative…

"But it may also, and at the same time, spring from an exceedingly thorough reading of the text generated by owning the book privately and therefore being able to return to the text over and over again, in calm and possibly after having discussed matters with fellow architects."

Comment: Yes and no. Yes, because it would be a basic requirement to have a private copy of the text (in manuscript or in print) to deal with it in depth and, therefore, regularly. – No, because of this basic requirement for any thoroughly work with the text, we could assume that any Renaissance architect would have such a manuscript or print at hand. So, this general characteristic could rather not explain the special approach and character of Giovanni Battistas annotations.

General comment on this part of the article:
To sum up: As far as I can see, up to now we only read some basic description of Giovanni Battista's drawings and annotations and their relation to the text – with some very few remarks at the end (that can and should be questioned) about their possible meaning. I do not see how this part of the text fullfills the "view into the structures within the act of reading" promised on page 2. But by far: this short text is not at all (I would not say: "anything else than") an in-depth analysis of the Giovanni Battista's work with the text. It could be regarded as a starting point, but then, a far more detailed discussion of its characteristics as well as their interpretation – taking into account different points of view – would be required. Otherwise, the whole article could be regarded as superficial, cursory and sketchy – even if it should come, at the end (and by 'accident'?), to a "correct" interpretation of the scientific objects in consideration here.