7

"In November 1542 the academy presented its Vitruvius-programme in a letter written by Tolomei to Count Agostino de’ Landi. [Endnote 25: Tolomei’s letter has been transcribed and commentated in: Barocchi 1977, vol. 3, pp. 3037- 3046. Besides Tolomei’s letter Margaret Daly Davies lists two other main sources to Accademia della Virtù: Giorgio Vasari’s Vite and Luca Contile’s letter, cf.: Daly Davies 1989, p. 188.]"

Comment:
To be more precise: It is not the entire Accademia who presents their "Vitruvius-programme" to de' Landi, but Tolomei. We simply do not know if he wrote the letter in accordance with his fellows from the Accademia. Therefore, it might only reflect Tolomei's view on the program – or a view that he found appropriate to present it to the count.

"The project never fully materialised, and all that survives is Guillaume Philandrier’s extensive commentated Latin Vitruvius-edition from 1544."

Comment:
Never say "never" … There are not only the Codices Coburgensis and Pighianus (written by yourself in the footnote above) that can be regarded as preparations for one or two of the volumes to be printed by the Accademia and mentioned in the letter. There are other, similar manuscripts and drawings created by persons who "accidently" were also members of the Accademia or working for them. If we apply the same criteria that led Harprath and Wrede to the conclusion that the Codices Coburgensis and Pighianus belonged to the work done by and for the Accademia, then we couls easily come to the result, that more than half of the project was underway or almost realised in 1555, when – mainly because of the death of Marcello Cervini (i.e. Pope Marcellus II) – the work came to a premature end.

"However, Tolomei’s letter throws light on some of the methods behind the programme."

Comment:
That would be nice … but it's not true: Tolomei describes the programme itself and gives some reasons for its vast extensions in very different fields that today are separated into disciplines = the main reason (from my point of view) why the aforementioned documents from the Renaissance never have been seen together as (possible) parts of a larger project. But what Tolomei does not provide is "light on some of the methods behind the programme." We may derive some guesses about the methodology behind the programme, based on the programme itself and other activities of the Accademia that we have some information about (or from the surviving results mentioned briefly above), but these will remain only guesses or – to formulate it scientifically – hypotheses that may be verified (by new sources) or falsified in the future.

"Similar projects had also been formed in Milan around Cesare Cesariano’s illustrated translation of Vitruvius from 1521, in Vicenza around Giangiorgio Trissino, in Padua around Alvise Cornaro and in Venice around Daniele Barbaro. [Endnote 26: Pagliara 1986, passim; Payne 1999, pp. 29-31.]"

Comment:
Simply: I doubt that. There may have been far smaller programms in other cities dealing with the Vitruvian text – but none ever (before, at the same time or later) did even come close to the holistic approach formulated in Tolomei's letter. My guess is, that the author comes to this conclusion because she disregarded and omitted more than half of the program by limiting herself to those parts dealing with Vitruvius in a strict sense. But Tolomei says clearly, why this is not enough and why there should be other studies accompanying these parts!

"[…] and Daniele Barbaro’s 1556-Vitruvius grew through intense cooperation with the architect Andrea Palladio."

Comment:
… and Palladio spent his longest time in Rome accompanying his mentor Trissino who was a member of the Accademia there. And Palladio must have taken part in measuring campaigns of antique ruins at the same time (when he was later in Rome, it was only for a few weeks – therefore, not enough time to make the extensive measurements on which his drawings and prints – for instance his supporting designs for Barbaro's edition – are based. So, it is reasonable to assume, that the young Palladio had contact to the Accademia – and also, why he, the young stone-mason he was then, is not mentioned among the formal members of the Accademia. – And: The Accademia planned an commented (and illustrated) edition of Vitruvius in Italian and  in Latin – which is exactly what Barbaro did shortly after 1555 (and therefore: the death of Cervini). For me, it is very likely that he had – through Palladio – knowledge of the Accademia's program (which he could also have got via the publication of Tolomei's letter in print in 1547), and that he – Barbaro – decided to realise at least that part of the programme he himself would have been interested in (and able to do) with the help from Palladio.

"Although Giovanni Battista was not himself official member of the Accademia della Virtù, his brother Antonio da Sangallo the Younger worked with the group.[Endnote 28: This is known from Girolamo Garimberti’s treatise De regimenti publici de la città (1544), fol. 1r-3r, cf. Margaret Daly Davies (ed.), Archäologie der Antike. Aus den Beständen der Herzog August Bibliothek 1500-1700, Wiesbaden 1994, pp. 15-16.]"

Comment:
I want to agree with this interpretation of Garimberti's report … but I would be cautious: First of all, this seems to be the only account of Sangallo and even Meleghino (!) being members of the Accademia (at least for some time). Then, and more important: The recount of the discussion among the two architects fits well – almost: too well – into Garimberti's own project: He wants to give the basic rules for a stable government; today we would say: He wanted to sketch the foundations of a long-standing and just constitution which sets the frame for the more detailed laws. This is a very straight application of the "axiomatic" approach we may trace back (at least) to Euclides. But Garimberti seems to be more interested in a more "practical" example for his text – and he "finds" it in the discussion among architects about the possibility (or the impossibility) of the reconstruction of a lost antique building solely based on its remaining foundations and some rules explained by and / or derived from Vitruvius. – The metaphor of the foundations of a building and the high-rising parts of the building used for the construction of law one may trace back even to the Codex of Hammurabi … and it is still vivid in Marx' explanation of the society as a construction of "Basis" and "Überbau" (superstructure). – So, I would not be astonished if the whole talk reported by Garimberti is some sort of an extended "rhetorical figure", an invention of himself. The only argument against this interpretation and doubt (as far as I can see), is the publication of Garimberti's book in 1554, i.e. before Sangallo died: If he would have used Sangallo as a "rhetorical" person taking part in a ficticious discussion, Sangallo himself possibly would not have agreed – even though his portraiture by Garmiberti is a rather faborable one.
So, one should be careful taking reports of discussions from the Renaissance for historically correct reports of real-life events: In fact, we do know that since Plato the ficticious talk is a well-establishe way to introduce and discuss philosophical and other problems … and it is so at least until Castiglione's Il Cortegiano (1528).

"The Vitruvius-project that the Accademica della Virtù presented in Tolomei’s letter embodied translation, annotation, explanatory word-lists, and illustrations of the ancient author’s work."

Comment:
This is only a part of the programme!

"The programme comprises eight assignments."

Comment:
No, they are (at least, depending on how one understands Tolomei) 23. – All the following is based on this "castrated" version / interpretation of the programme … and therefore, only half of the truth, at best.

"The first assignment concerns a commentary in Latin of the diffi- cult sections in Vitruvius’s text to be supplied with figures."

Comment:
Mostly correct but shortened: Tolomei 1547, 81v: "Prima dvnqve si farà vn libbro Latino, doue per medo di annotazioni diste se si dichiararonno tvtti i lvoghi difficili di Vitrvuio possibili ad intendersi; e massimamente qvelli, che appartengono a le regole d’Architettvra, disegnando le figvre, oue fvsseno necessarie per maggior chiarezza di qve lvoghi."

"The second issue is the making of a critical Vitruvius-edition substantially illustrated."

Comment:
That seems to be wrong. In his description of the second volume [Tolomei 1547, 81v: "E perche i testi di Vitrvuio son molto uarii, cosi gli stampati, come gli scritti a penna; onde spesso nasce confvsione, e oscvrezza: però si farà vna opera d’annotazioni de le diuersità de testi, massime ne le uarietà notabili, e di qvalche importenza , con le risolvzioni di qval lettvra sia piv piacivta , e per qvali ragioni ; […]"] Tolomei doe not mention illustrations. And this volume is not a "critical Vitruvius-edition" but a comparison of the different available versions of the text – which is exactly the precondition of any critical edition, at least according to a philological methodology established already by Petrarca and surely well-known to the philologist (!) Tolomei!
What the author counts here as the "second issue" is, in fact, a mixture of the third volume (critical edition of Vitruvius based on the volume mentioned in the same sentence before) and the fourth volume containing mostly reconstrucions of the lost drawings Vitruvius added to his books. Tolomei 1547, 81v: "hauendo in animo stampar poi vn Vitrvuio secondo qve testi, che saranno con ragione approuati [= Vol. 3]. E cosa certa che Vitvuio fece molte figvre, perche s’intendessen meglio alcvni lvoghi de la sva opera, le qvali pose nel fine di ciascvn libbro; si come esso ne fa piv uolte testimonianza. [= vol. 4]" – I think that is obviously no incident that Tolomei mentiones vol. 2 and 3 in one sentence – because 3 is closely based on 2 –, but describes the publication of the drawings in a separate sentence, therefore – at least: for me – making it clear that this should be a separate volume. This does not only make sense for the user who could read the other volumes while having the illustrations separately in front of him on the desk, but it also follows Vitruvius own description: He states, that he added the drawings at the end of the 10 book; and because one book usually would be one scroll at Vitruvius' times, this would make sense for the readers because of exactly the same reason: Having text and images side by side available, i.e. not having to scroll forth and back, e.g., in the same scroll again and again.

"The third and fourth assignments are two word lists containing the Latin and Greek terms from Vitruvius’s text."

Comment:
We now deal with the books mentioned by Tolomei in the 4th and 5th place of his list (though he does not himself number them). Tolomei 1547, 82r, writes: "In Vitrvuio sono infiniti uocaboli Greci, e Latini, li qvali a l’orecchie altrvi paiono nvoui, e rare uolte vditi. Però per vtilità di coloro che stvdiano qvesto libbro, si farà vn uocabolario Latino assai pieno, doue saranno per Alfabeto dichiarati tvtti i uocaboli Latini, e qvelli massimamente c’hanno qvalche dvbbio, e oscvrità. E perche qvesto avtore è pieno di uocaboli Greci, si come ancora de gli ordini, e regole de l’Architettvra greca, però se ne farà vno altro de uocaboli greci, isponendoli poi in parole latine ; oue infiniti uocaboli di Vitrvuio ch’hor paiono oscvri si faran chiari, distendendosi talora al dichiarar le diriuazioni, e l’etimologie loro."
Though the translation of "vocabolario" as "word list" may – at the first sight – be ok, one may doubt that a simple list of raare terms (be in Latin or in ancient Greek) provides any help to understand them. Therefore, to translate "vocabolario" as some sort of "lexicon" seems at least reasonable. But because Tolomei himself gives a very clear explanation of what these "vocabularies" should provide, namely an alphabetic list where are "dicharati [= declared, explained] tutti i vocaboli Latini" there is simply no room for a translation of "vocabolario" as "word list". In addition, also the Greek "vocabolario" is clearly described by Tolomei as providing declarations, i.e. explanations, of their derivation and even their etymology. Obviously, none of the examples of "word lists" cited by the author below does correspondend to these descriptions. And it is exactly this misunderstanding of Tolomei's descriptions that leads the author the wrong conclusions during the rest of her text.

"The aim of the production of these lists is, writes Tolomei, to elucidate the many obscure expressions that Vitruvius uses."

Comment:
Yes. And this aim simply cannot be reached simply by an index-like "word lists" pointing solely to the place in the ten books where they appear.

"The fifth aspect of the academy’s project is a rewrite of Vitruvius’s books into a purer and better Latin …"

Comment:
That seem to be wrong. The next volume Tolomei describes and justifies in detail, is one very philological approach to the "strange ways in which Vitruvius talks". The volume will explain the hardnesses of Vitruvius' language and try to justify them by pointing to other "good authors" or to describe them as Vitruvius' particular idiom.
Tolomei 1547, 82r: "Pare ad alcvni spesse uolte strano il modo del parlar di Vitvuio; essendo molto lontano da qvello ch’vsano Cesare, e Cicerone, e gli altri bvoni scrittori Romani; onde si farà vna opera latina de modi di parlar di Vitrvui[a]o; oue si uedrà se molte dvrezze, che s’accvsano in lvi si posson difendere per esempio d’altri bvoni avtori, e qvelle che non haueranno qvesto scvdo, si notaranno, come proprio, e particolar svo idioma."
So, what the author counts here as "fifth aspect" is in fact the seventh volume to be printed by the Accademia:
Tolomei 1547, 83r: "Qvesta cosa ha suegliato il disiderio di tentare, se si potesse por’ Vitrvuio in vna lingva latina piv chiara, e piv pvrgata, auuicinandosi qvanto è possibile a le parole, al filo, e a la tessitvra de gli altri bvoni scrittori latini: […]"

"… and it leads to the next part of the project, which concerns a translation of Vitruvius into Tuscan with two additional word lists."

Comment:
In fact, the former description of the new Vitruvius text in "pure" Latin does not lead to the next part of the project, but the next described volume is clearly separated not only with a new sentence but also with a – rather abrupt – new 'tone' and a lengthy introduction of several lines explaining the purpose: 
Tolomei 1547, 82r/v: "Le cose d’ Architettvra son disiderate assai, e praticate hoggi di da hvomini che non hanno molta intelligenza di lingva latina, si come scoltori, di pintori, maestri di legname, e Architettori uolgari. Per la qval cosa insino a qvesti tempi Vitrvuio è stato tradotto almen tre uolte di latino in uolgare, ma cosi stranamente, e con parole, e costrvzzioni cosi aspre, ed intrigate, che senza dvbbio manco assai s’intende in uolgare, che non fa in latino. Il che è auuenvto per non hauer qvei tradvcitori le uere regole, e la uera forma di trasferire vna lingva in vna [82v:] altra; oltre che molti lvoghi come difficili non sono stati da loro intesi. Farassi dvnque ancor qvesto vtile al mondo, tradvcendo nvouamente Vitrvuio in bella lingva Toscana [= vol. 8], ingegnandosi fare in tal modo, che s’egli è cosi difficile per la sottigliezza de la materia , non sia almen rvuido per l’asprezza, e intrigamento de le parole. Aggivngerassi a qvesta vna altra vtile opera, facendo vn uocabolario Toscano per ordine d’Alfabeto [= vol. 8] de le cose de l’ Architettvra, accioche tvtte le parti siano chiamate per lo svo comvne, e uero nome: e ove in uolgare a qvalche cosa non ui fosse nome, egli ui s’aggivgnerà, e si formarà di comvne consentimento, hauendo rigvardo di tirarlo da bvon origini, e con bvone forme. La qval cosa è lecita a tvtti gli artefici ne uocaboli, che son de l’arte propia. E in qvesto modo si uedrà largamente, come i uocaboli greci, e latini d’ Architettvra si rappresentino commodamente in lingva Toscana. Qvesta fatica sarà molto vtile a coloro che uorranno o parlare o scriuer uolgarmente di qvesta arte. E per maggior chiarezza, ed vtilità si farà vno altro uocabolario uolgare per ordinie d’istrvmenti o di parti [= vol. 10], come per esempio, pigliando la colonna con la sva base, e’l svo capitello; e ponendola in figvra si dichiararanno a parte a parte tvtti i svoi membri; come il zocco, la lvna, il tondello, il collarino, e oltre di mano in mano."
Again Tolomei's term "vocabolario" is wrongly translated as "word list", even though he clearly states that these "lists" be organised according to those in Latin and Greece, i.e. they will contain also explanations of the terms. – The author's renarration of the two last lists does not mention this relations, so that the interpretative errorn and, therefore, the misunderstanding from above is continued.

"The seventh assignment is the making of a book, which collects all the Vitruvian principles and compares these with examples from ancient architecture in or- der to explicate discrepancies between textual source and ruin fragments."

Commment: Though the numbering, of course, is wrong as a result of the errors before, at least this description is correct:
Tolomei 1547, 82v: "Segve poi vn collegamento de le regole di Vitrvuio con gli esempii de l’opere, il qval libbro [= vol. 11] sarà molto vtile, e bello, perche doue Vitrvuio porrà vna regola, o uero vno ordine d’ Architettvra in qvesto libbro si discorrerà in qval lvogo ne li edifizii antichi sia osseruato tal ordine , e trouando che in qvalche altro edifizio l’ Architettor sene sia partito l’auuertirà, discorrendo la ragione, perche in qvel lvogo non si siano osseruate le regole date da Vitrvuio: cosi si congivngerà in vn certo modo la pratica con la teorica [accentuation by B. Kulawik], e si scenderà in belle, e vtili contemplazioni." 
This time, the author at least mentiones, that the "assignements", "aspects" or "issues" invented by her for this article (and the corresponding parts of her dissertation) in fact relate to books to be published – as they are always callec by Tolomei ("libro / libri") – but books and "assignements" are clearly not only not the same, but the letter suggest that these could be parts of a working project that finally may end up in a part of a book … while Tolomei speaks of books to be printed – for which the "assignements" would be a precondition, of course. [To give an example: It is a not-so-small difference if I declare to publish a book about the Accademia – or if I say I want to deal with it.]
Unfortunately, the very important point to "conjunct [in a certain mode] theory and practice" mentioned here by Tolomei is not worth the attention of the author…
It should be mentioned, that exactly such a book as it is described here by Tolomei, was published in France in 1562 by Jean Bullant – who is said to have been in Rome, where the French community (churchmen, philologists, architects etc). was deeply involved with the Accademia!

"The final part of the academy’s programme is a study of ancient buildings in Rome in- tended to comprise historical and architectural de- scriptions and illustrations of the so-called marble plan, the remains of the city’s buildings as well as those structures, which have completely vanished. [Endnote 30: Tolomei in: Barocchi 1977, vol. 3, pp. 3038-3042.]"

Comment:
Wrong. Of course, this is not the final part, this book is (in my counting) Vol. 12 of the entire edition project.
Tolomei 1547, 82v / 83r: "Nel ueder per rispetto de l’ Architettvra gli edifizii di Roma, si farà vn altro stvdio non manco vtile ne manco bello, di considerare, ed intender bene tvtte l’anticaglie per via d’historie; oue si uedrà distintamente, e la Roma qvadrata antica, e gli altri accrescimenti di Roma di mano in mano; ricercando, e le  [83r:] porte, e le uie di che si pvo hauer notizia, e di piv i tempii, i portichi, i teatri, e gli Amfiteatri, le cvne, le Basiliche, gli archi , le terme, i circi, i ponti, e ogni altra sorte di edifizio di che rimanga uestigio alcvno; dando lvce ancora di molti altri che sono spenti del tvtto, insegnando doue erano. E in somma non lassando parte alcvna , doue l’historia possa dar lvce a la uerità."
It is remarkable – and given Tolomei's importance as an philologist – that in this case he does not count this "studio" as one book, as he usually does with the others. To me, it is obvious that he was well aware of the amount of material to be published in this study – and that it would require fare more than one "libro". Maybe he didn't want to scare off the supposed future financial supporter of the Accademia's publishing project, Conte Agostino de' Landi?
By the way: The "final part" of the academy's program – as can easily be read now online – was the 23rd volume dealing with (the reconstruction of) machines as well as the aquaeducts and, therefore, mainly based on Frontinus.
Tolomei 1547, 84r: "Nel qval libbro non sol si stenderanno le macchine poste da Vitrvuio, ma tvtte qvelle, che da altri avtori Grechi, e Latini, si potranno imparare. La dottrina de gli aqvedotti è degna di particolare auuertimento, per esser qvelli tanto marauigliosi a uedere, e di tanta grandezza, che trapassano ogni pensiero hvmano. […] E benche qvesta parte sia stata largamente trattata da Givlio Frontino, nondimeno e si pro vrarà di rinouar qvesta dottrina: […]"

"The overall intention of the vast Vitruvius-project of Accademia della Virtù was thus to make Vitruvius’s text accessible and comprehensive through a general systematization via translations, word lists and visualisations of the text."

Comment:
Also wrong. First of all, as mentioned above, what the author cites here as if it would be the whole programme, is only a part of it – roughly one half. Secondly, this first half as well as the second one are not intended to make the Vitruvian text "accessible and comprehensible" only, an interpretation damaged by its own 'castration' of the full text of the programme, but all the parts of the programme were intended for a higher aim. This goal was to provide the most comprehensive overview of antique theory AND practice of architecture to establish the most solid basis or foundation for the new, contemporary and future architecture to make sure that it would develop – following the best examples from Antiquity – into the best architecture one could possibly have at all!
Tolomei 1547, 81r: "da le qvali infiammati alcvni pellegrini ingegni si son disposti di suegliare nvouamente qvesto nobile stvdio, e secondo le forze loro, qvasi da le tenebre, ne le qvali si troua condvrlo a qvalche piv chiara lvce, sperando aprir la uia a molti altri, di aggivgnerui poi maggior chiarezza, e splendore. E perche qvasi tvtte l’arti, e principalmente l’Architettvra son composte di teorica, e di pratica, è necessario per uenire a qvalche escellenza, non solo specvlare, ma ancora porre in opera." And on the following page, before he starts to describe the programme in detail, he says: "Ma perche l’hvomo natvralmente è ordinato a giouare a gli altri, e non solo a presenti, ma a lontani, e a qvelli che uerran di poi, però disegnino che de li stvdii loro nascano frvtti vtili al mondo, componendo piv libbri, parte de l’istessa Architettvra, parte d’altre cose congivnte , e connesse con qvelle: hauendo sopra tvtto animo di dichiarare le parole e i sentimenti di Vitrvuio, il qvale avtore per la difficvltà de la materia, per la nouità de uocaboli, per l’ asprezza de le costrvzzioni, per la corrvzzion de testi è givdicato da ciascvno piv chôgni oracolo oscvro." [Tolomei 1547, 81v]
Tolomei, therefore, clearly says that the purpose of the entire programme is to establish a clear new Architecture, based on the (ancient) architectre itself as well as the other things related to it.

"Although the project sought also to compare text and ruin fragments, the programme appears to be principally a philological project concerned with words and archi- tectural terms in particular."

Comment:
Also wrong. Even if one only considers the 'castrated' programme presented by the author it is obvious with proposed measuring of all the antiquities in- and outside of Rome, that this is not only a philological programme. The planned edition of an italian translation as well as the purpose of the italian "vocabularies" is – explicitly said by Tolomei – to serve the practitioners of architecture. The dominance of 'philological' aspects results from the author's 'castration' of the full text by deleting the second half of the programme – and by misunderstanding relevant parts of the first half. Beause even fromt he first half, it becomes clear that the philological elements of the programme only serve to establish a trustworthy basis for the rest – and all parts together for the practical users (architects, stonemasons, carpenters …) and the Prince as employer and (future) the building owner.

General Comment:
Based on this misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the text, it seems impossible to expect any true conclusions from that in the following text. But because "ex falso sequitor quodlibet" … there may still be a chance.